Report On The Environment Protection Technical Document, 2003 {DRAFT}

i "" ?'^^^i^E^^^ United States Environmental Protection Aser Report •.yigptsF-- U H-k:. visa £Sfe«8: oh the ^liaSit'aaifci^^tsL-.. ^^.^L,i^^l,^^ys^:^^f^^'^fS^:^^^,,J^-^i/^^id^l^ ] -^".-"--Sa^:^L;".,.'~'«Tf-111-.-' ------- ------- ------- EPA 600-R-03-050 June 2003 EPAV Draft Report on the Environment Technical Document United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development and the Office of Environmental Information Washington, DC 20460 www.epa.gov/indicators/ Recycled/Recyclable Printed with vegetable oil-based ink on 100% processed chlorine free recycled paper Tarticipants IX ------- JiiS&s m Visibility - Category This indicator presents visibility trends for U.S. national parks and wilderness areas in the eastern and western U.S. by mean visual range, as measured in km for 1992 to 1999 and 1990 to 1999, respectively, by worst, mid-range, and best visibility. Under the Clean Air Act, a Class I area is one in which visibility is protected more stringently than under the NAAQS, including national parks, wilderness areas, monuments, and other areas of special national and cultural significance. What the Data Show Data collected by the IMPROVE network show that visibility for the worst visibility days in the West is similar to days with the best visibility in the East (Exhibit 1-13). In 1999, the mean visual range for the worst days in the East was only 24 km (14.9 miles) com- pared to 84 km (52.2 miles) for the best visibility. In the West, visibility impairment for the worst days remained relatively unchanged over the 1990s, with the mean visual range for 1999 (80 km or 49.7 miles) nearly the same as the 1990 level (86 km or S3.4 miles). Without the effects of pollution, a natural visual range in the U.S. is approximately 75 to 150 km (47 to 93 miles) in the East and 200 to 300 km (124 to 186 miles) in the West (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Indicator Caps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: • The indicator compares trends within visibility range categories, but it would also be useful to indicate how often visibility falls into each range during a year. • The data represent only a sampling of national park and wilderness areas; nevertheless, this indicator provides a good picture of the impact of air pollution on the nation's parks and protected areas. As of 2001, the network monitored 110 sites. Data Source The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2007 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-4, for more information.) . Exhibit 1-13: Visibility trends for U.S. Class I areas Western U.S., 1990-1999 (Eastern U.S., 1 992-1 999 ^bU 1- 200 & tiso 1 1 100 $ so Best Visibility "fr • Mid -Range " M m , m — "- — H m. — m — s Worst Visibility i i i t i i i i Best visibility range is 1 77-208 km Mid-range visibility is 11 8-1 33 km Worst visibility range is 73-85 km 90 91 92 93 94 95 Year 96 97 98 99 200 150 100 50; 0 9 Best Visibility _ Mid-Range __ — ' i i A -A- JL k * * Worst Visibility 4J 1 1 1 .'I 2 93 94 95 96 97 — m— . i 98 9 Best visibility range is 79-90 km Mid-range visibility is 42-48 km Worst visibility range is 20-23 km Year Note: Under the Clean Air Act, a Class I area is one in which visibility is protected more stringently than undd r the National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),,including national parks, wiMorncssareas,monuments,andotherareasofspecialnationalandculturalsignificance. , ", ",,.„,..; Source:EPA,OfficeofAlrQualityPlanningandStandards.tfllestRndmgsoiiNflt/ona/A'i:Qua%200r Status'find Trends. September 2002. ;; 1-16 1,1 Outdoor Air Quality C-napter I - CJeaner /\ir ------- This report is dedicated to the memory of our friend and colleague, Dr. Felicity (Kim) Devonald. Kim was a tireless advocate for the development and use of environmental indicators at EPA, pioneering our efforts to provide useful and reliable descriptions of environmental status and trends. Kim joined EPA in1984. Since the early 1990s, she was instrumental in Agency explorations of the concept of environmental indicators. Her efforts led to the Agency's first published proposals of fully developed environmentally based indicators (from public workshops) in the mid-1990s. She was working on material related to the state of science of these indicators almost to the moment of her death, and much of that material has been incorporated into this Technical Document. Without Kim's example and her early efforts, this report would be far less than it is. ------- ------- Table of Contents Preface • v List of Participants r • vn Introduction xi Chapter!: Cleaner Air 1.0 Introduction .. 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality 16 1.1.1 What is the quality of outdoor air in the United States? . -] .7 1.1.2 What contributes to outdoor air pollution? i 10 1.1.3 What human health effects are associated with outdoor air pollution? 1-23 1.1.4 What ecological effects are associated with outdoor air pollution? 1.24 1.2 Acid Deposition . - _ ,. 1.2.1 What are the deposition rates of pollutants that cause acid rain? 1 _25 1.2.2 What are the emissions of pollutants that form acid rain? -\| _28 1.2.3 What ecological effects are associated with acid deposition? -] .29 1.3 Indoor Air Quality ... . , 7q 1.3.1 What is the quality of the air in buildings in the United States? 1 _29 1.3.2 What contributes to indoor air pollution? 1-31 1.3.3 What human health effects are associated with indoor air pollution? 1 _31 1.4 Stratospheric Ozone 1 ,~ 1.4.1 What are the trends in the Earth's ozone layer? ^ _32 1.4.2 What is causing changes to the ozone layer? . 1.34 1.4.3 What human health effects are associated with stratospheric ozone depletion? 1.37 1.4.4 What ecological effects are associated with stratospheric ozone depletion? 1-38 1.5 Climate Change 1^8 1.6 Challenges and Data Gaps -, ™ Chapter 2: Purer Water 2.0 Introduction _ , 2.1 Extent and Use of Water Resources 2-6 2.2 Waters and Watersheds -, a Z.-O 2.2.1 What is. the condition of fresh surface waters and watersheds in the U.S.? 2-8 2.2.2 What are the extent and condition of wetlands? 2-13 2.2.3 What is the condition of coastal waters? 2-18 2.2.4 What are pressures to water quality? 2 24 2.2.5 What ecological effects are associated with impaired waters? 2-49 2.3 Drinking Water 2 5Q 2.3.1 What is the quality of drinking water? 2-50 2.3.2 What are sources of drinking water contamination? 2-52 2.3.3 What human health effects are associated with drinking contaminated water? 2-52 Table of Contents . ------- _ .- „ ........... .. ........... ................... ..... 1 ....... .in, ..... iii... ... . ..I ......... i .......... .,) ....... .1 .......... . .'„, ........ ... M. ... ..... ............ ^»:'?i$j .jgfe • ^- ™J 2.4 Recreation in and on the Water • • •• • " " ; 2.4.1 What is the condition of waters supporting recreational use? r •; • ' 3 , 2.4.2 What are sources of recreational water pollution? ; • • A 2.4.3 What human health effects are associated with recreation in contaminated waters? ? .2-54 2.5 Consumption of Fish and Shellfish \ -\-\ '' ' ; 2.5.1 What is the condition of waters that support consumption offish and shellfish? ...;..; 2-56 2.5.2 What are contaminants in fish and shellfish, and where do they originate? ;. • 2-62 2.5.3 What human health effects are associated with consuming contaminated fish and shellfish? 2-62 2.6 Challenges and Data Gaps • •; :2~ 3 Chapter 3: Better Protected Land 3.0 Introduction •' 3.1 Land Use ' 3"7 3.1.1 What is the extent of developed lands? j •3"^; 3.1.2 What is the extent of farmlands? • •; • \ f/12. 3.1.3 What is the extent of grasslands and shrublands? > " ' J^ 3.1.4 What is the extent of forest lands? r • • > ' ^71 3.1.5 What human health effects are associated with land use? \ 3'21; 3.1.6 What ecological effects are associated with land use? • -\ -y'21 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape • J. i 3.2.1 How much and what types of toxic substances are released into the environment? .1 ; 3-24 3.2.2 What is the volume, distribution, and extent of pesticide use? - 3-27 3.2.3 What is the volume, distribution, and extent of fertilizer use? 3'29 3.2.4 What is the potential disposition of chemicals from land? i • f • •' 3~30 3.2.5 What human health effects are associated with pesticides, fertilizers, and toxic substances? 3-37 i.2.6 What ecological effects are associated with pesticides, fertilizers, and toxic substances? 3-38 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands • •; ' "3"39 3.3.1 How much and what types of waste are generated and managed? ; .3-40 3.3.2 What is the extent of land used for,waste management? .., • •; • • -3"45 3.3.3 What is the extent of contaminated lands? '> •'• ....'.. .3-47 3.3.4 What human health effects are associated with waste management and contaminated lands? 3-50 3.3.5 What ecological effects are associated with waste management and contaminated lands? 3-51 3.4 Challenges and Data Gaps • •' 3"52 Chapter 4: Human Health . , 4.0 Introduction H 4"3 4.1 Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes 4-7 4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World t 4-l1 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease , .4-17 4.3.1 What are the trends for life expectancy? •! • r • •'•' '^"^ 4.3.2 What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma?4-19 4.3.3 What are the trends for gastrointestinal illness? : - - :•}•••• .• • A'25 4.3.4 What are the trends for children's environmental health issues? :. i. • • -4-31 4.3.5 What are the trends for emerging health effects? ; ' • I • • • -4-38 TaDle of Contents ------- 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-42 4.4.1 Biomonitoring indicators ; 4-42 4.4.2 Data sources for biomonitoring indicators 4.43 4.4.3 What is the level of exposure to heavy metals? 4-44 4.4.4 What is the level of exposure to cotinine? 4.59 4.4.5 What is the level of exposure to volatile organic compounds? 4-5T 4.4.6 What is the level of exposure to pesticides? '. 4.51 4.4.7 What is the level of exposure to persistent organic pollutants? 4.53 4.4.8 What are the trends in exposure to environmental pollutants for children? 4.55 4.4.9 Pollutants for which biomonitoring data are not available 4.57 4.4.10 Endocrine disruptors-an emerging issue 4.59 4.5 Assessing the Environmental Burden of Disease 4_60 4.6 Challenges and Data Gaps „ 4-62 Chapter 5: Ecological Condition 5.0 Introduction 5_3 5.1 Links Between Stressors and Ecological Outcome: A Framework for Measuring Ecological Condition 5-7 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? 5.9 5.3 What is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? 5_25 5.4 What is the Ecological Condition of Grasslands and Shrublands? 5.32 5.5 What is the Ecological Condition of Urban and Suburban Areas? 5.37 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? .5.41 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? 5.53 5.8 What is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? 5.54 5.9 Challenges and Data Gaps 5.74 APPENDIX A: Databases and Reports Supporting Major Clusters of Indicators Used in the Report with Links for Additional Information A_1 APPENDIX B: Indicator Metadata .B.-\| APPENDIX C: Acronyms and Abbreviations C_q APPENDIX D: Glossary of Terms D_i APPENDIX E: References .E-1 APPENDIX F: Background and Chronology F_1 APPENDIX G: Indicator Quality Review Form G-1 APPENDIX H: EPA Draft Report on the Environment Expert Review Workshop Evaluation Form H-l APPENDIX I: Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators \|_1 Table of Contents in ------- IV ------- Fref. ace from trAs Science Advisor and Chief Information Officer The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been a world leader in developing and implementing solutions to the environ- mental problems in our air, water and land. Through the years, working together with other Federal Agencies we have built a significant body of science and knowledge that has influenced national and international public policy, and has raised our awareness of the value of our environment. Yet, even with the enormous wealth of understanding and information that we have today, there are still gaps in our ability to adequately mon- itor many key indicators in the cascades of events that link our efforts to protect the environment to the ultimate outcomes we seek: cleaner air, purer water, better protected land, and improved human health and ecological condition. To close that gap, we need both scientifically sound indicators and the national data to support them. With the publication of the EPA Draft Report on the Environment, including this comprehensive Technical Document, EPA has launched a multi-year effort to improve the state of the science and our knowledge of the state of the environment. This effort addresses indicators, monitoring data and models for better tracking the impacts of our activities on the environ- ment. This document includes indicators that EPA has moni- tored for many years, including ambient levels of pollutants in air, water and land. However, we recognize that protecting the environment ultimately is achieved in terms of human health and ecological condition, and these two chapters serve as anchors for the entire report. The last sections of each chapter of this report describe chal- lenges and data gaps associated with its particular subject area. Several general issues have emerged that we will address in the coming months and years. Shifting to an Outcomes Framework Identifying environmental "outcomes" such as better human health and ecological condition requires a significant shift in how the Agency frames questions and issues about environ- mental quality. The first three chapters of this report; Cleaner Air, Purer Water, and Better Protected Land, ask questions that tend to fo.llow traditional Agency efforts to prevent, control, or remediate the effects of pollution. For example: H What is the quality of outdoor air in the United States? II What are pressures to water quality? H What is the extent of developed land? The final two chapters on human health and ecological condi- tion, ask questions about outcomes, for example: II What are the trends for cancer? HI What is the ecological condition of coasts and oceans? To understand how EPA's mission affects these outcomes, both directly and indirectly, requires indicators not only of pollutant releases and ambient conditions, but indicators that span the chain of events between the release of a pollutant, exposure of people, plants and animals, and the chain of events from dose to effects. In the case of human health, factors such as level of health care, natural disease rates, and actual human exposures must be factored into an indicator strategy. For ecological systems, indicators are needed that better track hydrology, features of the landscape, natural disturbances, ecological. , processes, and other factors that interact with pollutants to ultimately determine ecosystem condition. Availability of Indicators For a few of the questions in the report, indicators were identified that are available at the national level. More frequently, however, we found that promising indicators have been developed and measured for limited geographic areas, or for a part of the causal chain. Further exploration of the relationship between measurements used for assessments and measurements used for diagnosis of causal factors also is needed. Development and testing of national indicators has been a high research priority for EPA's Office of Research and Development. Frefc •ace ------- ecnnica fiaXak _1 Availability of Data For each of the indicators, we attempted to gather data of sufficient qualify and coverage to support national reporting, both within and outside the Agency. Generally, the available data were too limited in place and time to describe national trends, or even to provide a national snapshot of conditions. Because the data from different organizations often serve a broad range of purposes, even when data are available nationally, gaps remain in the spatial, temporal and phenomenological coverage needed to track the outcomes of many of EPA's programs. Monitoring networks established to address specific issues must be better integrated through common definitions, designs, methods, and information systems. (—ollaborating for the Future ; I With this draft as a starting point, we IpOk forward to collaborating with federal and state agencies to promote integrated and coherent approaches ahd\| mechanisms for reporting on the state of the environment. Following the release of this report, we will be working closely with scientists from other federal and state agencies and thejacademic community to explore how best to improve our ability to measure and assess environmental conditions. ] ; We invite all of our stakeholders to lend ;their creativity and commitment in the months and years ahpd as they join us in meeting Administrator Whitman's challenge to focus our resources on the areas of greatest concern and to manage our work to achieve measurable results. ' j : Paul Gilman, Ph.D. Science Advisor and Assistant Administrator for Research and Development Kimberly T. Nelson Chief Information Officer and Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information ! VI trerac ------- "Participant EPA's Science Advisor sincerely acknowledges the help and advice of all the individuals who assisted in developing the Report on the Environment Technical Document (TD) 2003 and the Report on the Environment (RQE) 2003. In particular, the following individuals provided critical support: ROE Technical Document Leads Peter Preuss - ORD Denice Shaw - ORD Vivian Turner - ORD ROE Leads Michael Flynn - OEI Heather Case - OEI Reggie Cheatham - OEI EPA Contributors Susan Absher - OECA Suzanne Annand - OEI Tom Armitage - OW Deveraux Barnes - OSWER Thomas Barnwell (ORD) - Land TD Lead David Bayliss - ORD Joseph Bergstein - Region 2 Eric Burman - OSWER Paul Bertram - Region 5 Jeff Bigler - OW Patricia Bradley - ORD Barry Burgan - OW Rebecca Calderon (ORD) - Human Health TD Co-Lead Arden Calvert - OCFO Pat Childers - OAR Ed Chu - OA Paul Cocca - OW Mark Corbin - OPPTS Elizabeth Corr - OW Larry Cupitt - ORD Denise Cunningham - ORD llan Davidovici - OAR Wayne Davis - OEI Kathleen Deener - ORD Tom DeMoss - Region 3 Fred Dimmick - OAR Ron Evans - OAR Elissa Feldman - OAR Elaine Francis - ORD Herman Gibb - ORD Chris Cillis - OPPTS Eric Ginsburg - OAR- John Girman - OAR Anne Grambsch - ORD Dave Guinnup - OAR Richard Haeuber - OAR Michael Hadrick (OAR) - Air TD Lead Christine Hartless - OPPTS Tom Helms - OAR James Hemby - OAR Brian Hill - ORD .Michelle Hiller - OCIR Melanie Hoff-OSWER Rick Hoffman - OW Karen Hogan - ORD Joe Hogue - OPPTS David Hockey - OSWER Scott Ireland - OW Elizabeth Jackson - (OEI) ROE Water Lead Steve Jarboe - OPPTS Taylor Jarnigan- ORD Jennifer Jinot - ORD Bruce Jones - ORD Marjorie Jones (OW) - Water TD Lead Catherine Joseph - OPPTS D'nise Kaalund - OEI Karen Keller - OSWER William Kepner - ORD ' Aparna Koppikar - ORD Charles Kovatch - OW Rashmi Lai - OE1 James Lazorchak - ORD Jane Leggett - OAR Fred Leutner - OW Barbara Levinson - ORD Rick Linthurst - OEI Maricruz MaGowan - OSWER Deborah Mangis - ORD Karen Martin - OAR Michael McDonald (ORD) - Ecological Condition TD Co-Lead Ron McHugh - OPPTS Dave McKee - OAR Hugh McKinnon - ORD Dan Melamed - OSWER Jay Messer (ORD) - Ecological Condition TD Co-Lead Jennifer McLain - OW Margree McRae - ORD Lee Mulkey - ORD Cindy Sonich-Mullen - ORD Patricia Murphy - ORD Tarticipants VII ------- Susan Offerdal - OECA Tony Olsen - ORD Jennifer Orme-Zaveleta - ORD Betty Overton - ORD Cynthia No!t-Helms - ORD Dale Pahl - ORD Doris Price - OAR Steve Paulsen - ORD Pasky Pascual- ORD Jim Pendergast - OW Dan Petersen - ORD Jeff Peterson-OW Michael Plastino - OW liana Preuss - OPEI Bruce Pumphrey - OECA Ravi Rao - Region 4 Stig Regli - OW Harvey Richmond - OAR Mary Ross - OAR Kevin Rosseel - OAR William Russo - ORD Vicki Sandiford - OAR Keith Sargent- OPEI Joel Scheraga - ORD Dina Schreinemachers - ORD Henry Schuver - OSW Velu Senthill - OEI Ronald Shafer - (OEI) ROE Air Lead Heather Shoven- OPPT Terry Slonecker - ORD \ Ron Slotkin - ORD : Deborah Srnegal - (OEI) ROE Human Health Lead Jonathan Smith - ORD Elizabeth Smith - ORD j Chuck Spooner - OW ;' Susan Stone' - OAR j James T. Sullivan - OAR Kevin Summers - ORD Carol Terris - OPPTS ; Sylvia Thomas - OEI Tim Torma - OPEI , \ Amy Vasu - OAR , Doreen Vetter - OW David Vogler - Region 6 James White - OAR Jim Wickharti - ORD Mary Wigginton - ORD Glenn Williams - OPPTS Darrell Winner - ORD Louise Wise - OW ! Hal Zenick (ORD) - Human Health TD Co-Lead El A Regional Support Thomas Davanzo Alice Yeh John Armstead Cory Berish Cynthia Curtis William Rhea Richard Sumpter Gerard Bulanowski Nora McGee Jon Schweiss Region-! Region-2 Region-3 Region-4 Region-5 Region-6 Region-7 Region-8 Region-9 Region-10 Viii Tarticipants ------- External Experts Peer Review of Indicators (June 10-12, 2002) Thomas Burke - The Johns Hopkins University, School of Public Health; Pew Commission Report Keith Harrison - Michigan Environmental Science Board Anthony Janetos - The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment Patrick Kinney - Mailman School of Public Health/ Div Environ Health Sciences /Columbia University James Listorti - formerly The World Bank Robin O'Malley - The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment Ed Rankin - Ohio University: formerly Ohio EPA Phil Singer - University of North Carolina William Steen - University of Georgia Roger Tankersley - Tennessee Valley Authority Robert VanDolah - Marine Resources Research Institute/ South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Bailus Walker - Howard University Hospital Chris Yoder - Ohio University: formerly Ohio EPA External Consultation (May 10, 2002) Thomas Burke - The Johns Hopkins University, School of Public Health John Godleski - Harvard School of Public Health Anthony Janetos - World Resources Institute; currently with The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment Daniel Markowitz - Malcolm Pirnie Robin O'Malley - The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment Jonathan Patz - The Johns Hopkins University, School of Public Health James Pratt - Portland State University Thomas Sinks - Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Terry Young - Environmental Defense .Fund NRC Consultation (March 2002) David Policansky James Reisa Members of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology Environmental Council of States (ECOS) State Indicators Workgroup Karen Atkinson - Texas Steve Brown - ECOS Executive Director Wendy Caperton - Oklahoma Christine Epstein - ECOS Joe Francis - Nebraska Keith Harrison - Michigan Linda Haynie - Texas Roger Kanerva - Illinois Edwin Levine - Florida Linda Mazur - California Linda McCarty - Missouri Leslie McCeorge - New Jersey George Meyer - Wisconsin Tim Mulholland - Wisconsin Arleen O'Donnell - Massachusetts Laura Pasquale - Florida Greg Pettit - Oregon Eileen Pierce - Wisconsin Dee Ragsdale - Washington Jon Sandoval - Idaho Jacqueline Schafer - Arizona Barbara Sexton - Pennsylvania Val Siebal - California Beth Vaughan - California Gordon Wegwart - Minnesota Clinton Whitney - California Bob Zimmerman - Delaware Federal Agency Workgroup Alan Hecht - CEQ Lead Margot Anderson - Department of Energy Aclela Backiel - Department of Agriculture Ralph Cantral - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mark Delfs - Department of Agriculture George Dunlop - Department of Defense _ Tyler Duvall - Department of Transportation Bill Effland - Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service Beverly Getzen - Army Corps of Engineers Jimmy Glotfelty - Department of Energy James Hanson - Department of the Interior Theodore Heintz - Department of the Interior Woody Kessel - Department of Health and Human Services Linda Lawson - Department of Transportation Camille Mittleholtz - Department of Transportation Melinda Moore - Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tarticipants IX ------- Contractor Technical jupport Technology Planning and Management Corporation (TPMC) & Perot Systems Government Services (PSGS) Ross and Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd. Science Applications International Corporation FTN & Associates, Ltd. Environmental Management Consulting Eastern Research Group, Inc. WESTAT Independent Consultants and Editors - Ellen Chu - Anne Ruffner Edwards - Barbara Shapiro - June Taylor Participants ------- Introduction "When I leave office, I want to be able to say that America's air is cleaner, its water is purer, and its land better protected than it was when I arrived. As we seek to achieve this goal, EPA needs to be accountable for our stewardship." Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency In November 2001, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman directed the Agency to bring together its national, regional and program office data to produce a report on the "state of the environment." The report would represent the first step of the Environmental Indicators Initiative, a multi-year process that would ultimately allow future EPA administrators to better measure and report on progress toward environmental and human health goals and to ensure the Agency's accountability to the public. To produce this report, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Office of Environmental Information (OEI) led a collaborative effort to identify the key questions to be answered by the report, to identify an initial set of indicators, and to develop a process for reviewing and selecting the indicators and supporting data to be included in the final report. This task was accomplished thanks to the efforts of numerous EPA staff, representatives from other federal agencies, representatives from the states and tribes, and external advisors and reviewers. The indicators and supporting data used in this report were generated by EPA and other federal, state, tribal, regional, local, and non-governmental organizations. The Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President was helpful throughout in coordinating interagency contributions to the project. EPA's Draft Report on the Environment (ROE) consists of this Technical Document and a version of the report for general reading. These reports pose national questions about the environment and human health and answer those questions wherever scientifically sound indicators and high-quality supporting data are available. The reports both pose questions and present indicators related to: • Cleaner Air • Purer Water • Better Protected Land : • Human Health • Ecological Condition This Draft Technical Document discusses the limitations of the currently available indicators and data, and the gaps and challenges that must be overcome to provide better answers in the future. For a few indicators, data are available that are truly representative of the entire nation. For other indicators, data currently are available for only one region (such as the East Coast or the Northwest), but the indicator could obviously be applied nationally if the data were available. Based on the availability of supporting data, indicators that were selected and included in this report were assigned to one of two categories: •I Category 1 -The indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by national level data coverage for more than one time period. The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are characterized by sound collection methodologies, data management systems, and quality assurance procedures. • Category 2 -The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data are available only for part of the nation (e.g., multi-state regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for more than one time period, or not all the parameters of the indicator have been measured (e.g., data has been collected for birds, but not for plants or insects). The supporting data are comparable across the areas covered, and are characterized by sound collection methodologies, data management systems, and quality assurance procedures. This report is part of EPA's continuing effort to identify, improve, and utilize environmental indicators in its planning, management, and public reporting. EPA's specific strategies and performance targets to protect human health and the environment are presented in the Agency's strategic and annual plans. These planning and performance documents, together with the questions, indicators and data presented in these reports, will allow EPA to better define and measure the status and trends in environment and .health, and to better measure the effectiveness of its programs and activities. This technical report is a draft, intended to elicit comments and suggestions on the approach and findings. To learn more about EPA's Draft Report on the Environment and the Environmental Indicators Initiative, and to provide comments and feedback, please visit . Introduction XI ------- ------- « , . „ * f?" * ^ 4itfJ-i,^' tf\|^fe'lSfc l"'''t 1* •"—•• ^^ ff'S V* ! , ft-" Trf » W- »Jfr5" h AW^-W 1 v Wi ^*3 ------- indicators that were selected and included in this chapter were assigned to one oi[two categories: • • Category 1 -The indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by nationallevel data coverage for more than one time period. The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are characterized by^sound collection methodologies, data management systems, and quality assurance procedures. i ! • Category 2 -The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data ai\|e available only for part of the nation (e.g., multi-state regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for more than ------- 1.0 Introduction In 1970, Congress responded to concern over visible air pollution, irritating smog, and associated health and ecological effects by enacting the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). As a result, total national emissions of the six criteria air pollutants decreased by 25 percent between 1970 and 2001. Emissions of air toxics have declined as well, dropping 24 percent between 1990 and 1993 (the baseline period) and 1996. One of the major components of acid rain, wet sulfate deposition, has also decreased substantially (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). These improvements occurred during a time of significant growth in the nation's population and economy: from 1970 to 2001, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased by 161 percent, the number of people increased from about 203 million to more than 280 million, energy consumption increased by 42 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased by 149 percent (Exhibit 1 -1) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). txnibit 1-1: Comparison of growth measures and 1970-2001 emission trends 200 olSO r^ OS .1— , 100 ! ° SO -so >'" 161% 49% -25% 70 80 90 95 96 97 .iSource: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National i Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002. Despite progress toward cleaner air, in 2001 more than 133 million people lived in counties where monitored air qualify was unhealthy at times because of high levels of at least one criteria air pollutant (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Even after decades of regulation and emissions control, certain air quality problems persist. In particular, ozone and particulate matter are the criteria pollutants most often found' at levels above national health-based standards. Outdoor air is not the nation's only air quality concern. The levels of pollutants in the air inside homes, schools, and other buildings can be higher than in the outdoor air. Uncertainty remains about levels of indoor air pollutants, such as radon and environmental tobacco smoke. Changes to stratospheric ozone levels are also concerns. The stratospheric ozone layer has become substantially thinner in recent decades, although scientists generally believe it will recover over the next several decades as a result of international controls (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003). This chapter summarizes the current status and trends in air quality, the pressures affecting air quality, and information regarding human health and ecological effects. It poses fundamental questions about air quality, contributors to pollution, and health and ecological effects, and it uses indicators drawn from well-reviewed data sources to help answer those questions. Exhibit 1 -2 lists these questions and indicators, as well as the number of the chapter section where each indicator is presented. The chapter is divided into six main sections: • Section 1.1 discusses the quality of outdoor air. H Section 1.2 provides information about acid deposition. Hi Section 1.3 examines the quality of air inside homes, schools, and other buildings. Bl Section 1.4 focuses on stratospheric ozone. H Section 1.5 briefly addresses climate change research plans. • Section 1.6 reviews the challenges and data gaps that remain in assessing the nation's air quality. Chapter I - Cleaner Air 1.0 Introduction 1-3 ------- »«'( "I"" Chapter 1: Cleaner Air - Question^ and Indicators Outdoor Air Quality r IT- Acid Deposition What are the deposition rates of pollutants that cause acid rain? What are the emissions of pollutants that form acid rain? What ecological effects are associated with acid deposition? Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Ecological Condition chapter BilllillllM illilBlllllllllililllillfPlw' !• •llllillllllill •••••••••ItlMIPHMBBl What is the quality of outdoor air in the United States? (See also following four questions) - How many people are living in areas with particulate matter and ozone levels above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)? - What are the concentrations of some criteria air pollutants: PM^, PM, 0, ozone, and lead? - What arc the impacts of air pollution on visibility in national parks and other protected lands? - What are the concentrations of toxic air pollutants in ambient air? Wjiat contributes to outdoor air pollution? (See also following three questions) - What are contributors to particulate matter, ozone, and lead in ambient air? - What are contributors to toxic air pollutants in ambient air? - To what extent is U.S. air quality the result of pollution from other countries, and to what extent does U.S. air pollution affect other countries? What human health effects are associated with outdoor air pollution? What ecological effects are associated with outdoor air pollution? Number and percentage of clays that metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) have Air Quality Index (AQI) values greater than 100 , Number of people living in areas with air quality levels , above the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) and ozone Ambient concentrations of particulate matter: PM2.s and PM10 ' Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-hour and 1 -hour Ambient concentrations of lead '. Visibility Ambient concentrations of selected air toxics : See emissions indicators j ' Emissions: particulate matter (PM2.s and PM10) • sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds Lead emissions , Air toxics emissions j No' Category 1 or 2 indicators identified No Category 1 or 2 indicsitors identified Also see Human Health chapter No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Ecological Condition chapter . 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1.1.1 1.1.1.3 1.1. l.b 1 .1 .1 .b j 1.1. 1.b 1.1. l.c 1.1. l.d 1.1.2 1.1.2.a 1.1.2.3 1 .1 .2.b 1.1 .2.c 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1-4 1.0 Introduction IQInapter 1 - CJeaner Air ------- Chapter I: Cleaner Air - Questions and Indicators (continued) Indoor Air Quality What is the quality of the air in buildings in the United States? U.S. homes above EPA's radon action levels Percentage of homes where young children are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke 1.3.1 1.3.1 What contributes to indoor air pollution? No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Human Health chapter What human health effects are associated with indoor air pollution? No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Human Health chapter Stratospheric O. zone What are the trends in the Earth's ozone layer? Ozone levels over North America 1.4.1 What is causing changes to the ozone layer? Worldwide and U.S. production of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) Concentrations of ozone-depleting substances (effective equivalent chlorine) 1.4.2 1.4.2 What human health effects are associated with stratospheric ozone depletion? No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified 1.4.3 What ecological effects are associated with stratospheric ozone depletion? No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified 1.4.4 Cnapter I - Cleaner Air 1.0 Introduction 1-5 ------- 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality Among the pollutants affecting outdoor air quality are: • Criteria pollutants-ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead. • Air toxics-pollutants such as mercury and benzene. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA and states collect data on the six crite- ria air pollutants to measure compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NMQS) (Exhibit 1-3). "Primary" NAAQS are set to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and "sec- ondary" NAAQS protect against adverse welfare effects (e.g., effects on vegetation, ecosystems, visibility, manmade materials) (42 U.S.C. 7408 and 7409). After initially adopting NAAQS for each of the cri- teria air pollutants in the 1970s, EPA has periodically reviewed and sometimes revised the standards. EPA recently revised the health- based standard for ozone and added a new standard for fine PM2.s based on new health studies (EPA, 2003; EPA, 1997). Criteria air pollutants are monitored through the National Air Monitoring Stations/State or Local Air Monitoring Stations network. This network consists of more than 5,000 monitors operating at 3,000 sites across the country, mostly in urban areas (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Measurements are taken on both a daily and continuous basis to assess both peak concentrations and overall trends, and are reported in the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) database. In addition to other uses, EPA analyzes these air quality measurements to designate areas as either attainment or nonattain- ment for specific criteria air pollutants '(i.je., determines if air quality levels in an area violate the NAAQS). While air quality data on criteria air pollutants are ample, national data on air toxics concentrations are limited. Several metropolitan areas measure ambient air toxics concentrations, but there are few standards by which to evaluate levels of Concern. In addition, cumulative or synergistic impacts of various air pollutants are not well understood. Visibility is another outdoor air concern.; Some data on this aspect of air quality are available from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, which collects data to characterize! visibility at national parks arid other protected areas. This section addresses the following specific questions about outdoor air quality: • What is the quality of outdoor air ih the United States? (Section 1.1.1) ; A How many people are living in areajs with particulate matter and ozone levels above the NAAQS? i i i - Exnitit 1-3: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in effect as of February 2003 CO Pb NO2 03 PM,0 8-hourb 1 -hourb Maximum Quarterly Average Annual Arithmetic Mean 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) No Secondary Standard No Secondary Standard r"-~ - —T* r 1.5 pg/rn^ 0.053 ppm (100 pg/m3) Same as Primary Standard ry i S02 Maximum Daily 1 -hour Averagec 4th Maximum Dailyd 8-hour Average Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-houre Annual Arithmetic Mean^ 24-hourS Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-hourb : '"O.'li'ppm (235 pg/m3) 0.08 ppm (157 pg/m3) Same as Primary Standard Ija'me as Primary Standard Ijame'as Primary Standard 50 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 15 pg/m3 65 \|Jg/m3 Siame as Primary Standard Same as Primary Standard ^ Same as Primary Standard Sfame as Primary Standard 0.03 ppm (80 MgAn3) 0.14 ppm (365 pg/m3) I rf d Three,year average of the innual 4th h.ghest daily niax.mum '8-hour concentrat.on e The short-term (24-hour) standard of ISO pg/m3 is not to be exceeded more than on average over three years ( f Spatially averaged over devgnated monitors l value h an approximately equivalent concentration. (See 40 CFR Part SO). b Not to be exceeded more than once per year. c The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calen- dar yew with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm g The form is the 98th perccntile 0, equal to or less than one, as determined according to Appendix H of the Ofoat NAAQS. Source: Based on EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. National Air Quality and Em&sions Trends Report, 1999 March 2001 I _ t _-t. once per year 1-6 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality ; Chapter I - Cleaner Air ------- A What are the concentrations of some criteria air pollutants: PM2 5, PM10, ozone, and lead? A What are the impacts of air pollution on visibility in national parks and other protected lands? A What are the concentrations of toxic air pollutants in ambient air? • What contributes to outdoor air pollution? (Section 1.1.2) A What are contributors to particulate matter, ozone, and lead in ambient air? A What are contributors to toxic air pollutants in ambient air? A To what extent is U.S. air quality the result of pollution from other countries, and to what extent does U.S. air pollution affect other countries? I What human health effects are associated with outdoor air pollution? (Section 1.1.3) I What ecological effects are associate^ with outdoor air pollution? (Section 1.1.4) Indicator Number and percentage of days that metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) have Air Quality Index (AQI) values greater than 100 The nation's air quality has generally improved, as indicated by trends derived by averaging the direct measurements from the nation's criteria air pollutant monitoring stations on a yearly basis. In general, air pollution concentrations are declining, and overall air quality is improving (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Most areas of the U.S. now have concentrations of NO2, SO2, CO, and lead that are below the level of the NAAQS (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). However, ozone levels are above the level of the standard in many heavily populated areas, including many of the urban areas in the eastern half of the U.S. and in most of the urban areas in California (EPA, OAQPS, March 2001). Concentrations of PM2.S—particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diame- ter—are above the level of the standard in much of the eastern U.S. and parts of California (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). It is important to recognize that while the national trend is toward cleaner air, regional and local conditions can vary quite greatly. This report focuses on national status and trends, but regional and local conditions should be evaluated as well, with the goal of under- standing regional air quality conditions and trends and improving air quality in those areas where air quality does not meet the standards. A number of indicators, described on the following pages, help to answer the questions posed in this section about outdoor air quality: ffl Number and percentage of days that Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) have Air Quality Index (AQI) values greater than 100 81 Number of people living in areas with air quality levels above the NAAQS for particulate matter and ozone il Ambient concentrations of particulate matter: PM2S and PM10 •I Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-hour and 1 -hour ii! Ambient concentrations of lead H Visibility • Ambient concentrations of selected air toxics • Emissions of particulate matter (PM2 5 and PM10), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds H Lead emissions H Air toxics emissions Cnapter 1 - Cleaner Air 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality 1-7 ------- _____, ,_\| i , i ir - ,-:-.-\|.-T-. , nmr i-i-r"'-rr In ir I 'II-i 1 in- -"i-7 'Hfi"!™ ""'liiimniii. mill liiliil«»»gamiMl»l\|lW«:Mm Number and percentage of days tnat metropolitan Index (AQI) values greater ^ One measure of outdoor air quality is the daily AQI, which is based on concentrations of five of the criteria air pollutants: ozone, PM, CO, SO2, and NO2. The AQI indicates how clean or polluted the air is and the associated health concerns. It focuses on the health effects that can occur within a few hours or days after breathing polluted air. AQI data are compiled by state and local agencies and must be reported in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) with populations of more than 350,000 (EPA, OAQPS, March 2001). AQI values range from 0 to 500, with higher numbers indicating more air pollution and more potential risk to public health. An AQI value of 100 generally corresponds to the short-term public health standard set by EPA for a particular pollutant. Values below 100 are generally thought of as satisfactory. However, unusually sensitive individuals may experience health effects when AQI val- ues are between 50 and 100. Values above 100 suggest increas- ingly unhealthy air, sensitive population groups, such as children, the elderly, and those With respiratory illnesses, are likely to be among the first affected as the values increase. The AQI scale is divided into six categories, each, color-coded to correspond to a different level of health concern. For example, • The color green is associated with "good" air quality or an AQI from 0 to SO. • Yellow or "moderate"—51 to 100. II Orange or "unhealthy for sensitive groups"—101 to 150. • Red or "unhealthy"—151 to 200. • Purple or "very unhealthy"—201 to 300. _._ • Maroon or "hazardous"—301 to 500. AQI values over 300 would trigger health warn- ings of emergency conditions for the entire '- population (EPA, OAQPS, March 2001). : The highest AQI value for an individual pollu- tant becomes the AQI value for that area for that particular day. For example, if on a day a certain area had AQI values of 150 for ozone and 120 for PM, the AQI value would be 150 for the pollutant ozone on that day. However, for all pollutants above 100, the appropriate sensitive groups would be cautioned. Ozone levels most often drive the AQI, but experts anticipate that PM2.s will also be a key driver of the AQI in coming years. The AQI is useful in communicating to the public the air quality in a specific area on a given day and the potential health effects and statisl ical areas actions to avoid exposure and reduce harfnful impacts. Nationally, the number and percentage of days with ^Ql values of more than 100 gives a sense of the number of days that are potentially unhealthy for sensitive populations. i What the Data Show ; I r This indicator is the annual sum of the Intjmber of days, and per- centage of days, with AQI values above IpO across all MSAs with a population greater than 500,000. To assess trends, the number of days is adjusted to reflect changes in air quality standards or criteria for the number of MSAs reporting. Between 1988 and 2001, the number of jdays with an AQI of 100 or greater decreased from approximately ,3,300 days to approxi- mately 1,000 days. In 1989 and after, the number of days with an AQI of 100 or greater ranged between 1 ;000 and 2,000. Based on EPA AQI data, the percentage of days! across the country with AQI values .ibove 100 dropped from aimpst 10 percent in 1988 to 3 percent in 2001 (Exhibit 1 -4) (EPA^ OAQPS, December 1998; EPA, OAQPS, 2001). i indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: 9 The data for this indicator are associated with large MSAs only (500,000 people or more); therefore! the data tend to reflect urban air quality. 5 1 ,.,. h Exhibit 1-4: Number and percentage of days with Air Quality Index I (AQl)Jeater than 100,1988-2001 I Number: of Days Percent\|of Total Days •3 Note: Data are for MSAs > 500,000 [w^ ;••••" _ , Source- Data useS to create graphic aff Sawn from EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning a'nd "Standards. National Air Quality and Emissions Trenmeporl, ^97. Table A-15. December, 1998; EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Air trepfis: 'Metropolitan area trends, Table A-17, 2001. (February 25, 1-8 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality 'Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air ------- Numbg^d pereentage of (Jays tliat m Index: (AQl) values greater than 100- Category 2 (continued1) ',. _—__—_i___ •"••"—"""'^'^i'»i>««»^~""«=''"^^ This composite AQl indicator does not identify the pollutants of concern-that is, it does not show which pollutant(s) are causing the days with an AQl of more than 100, or which ones have decreased and are responsible for an improvement in the AQl. This composite AQl indicator does not show which areas, or how many areas, have problems-a specific number of days could reflect a few areas with persistent problems or many areas with occasional problems. Data Source The data sources for this indicator were "Air Trends: Metropolitan area trends," Table A-17, EPA, 2001, and National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1997, Table A-15, EPA, 1998. (See Appendix B, page B-2, for more information.) In 2001, more than 133 million Americans (of a total population of 281 million) lived in counties where monitored outdoor air quality was unhealthy at times because of high levels (levels above the NAAQS) of at least one criteria air pollutant (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Ozone and PM remain the most persistent criteria pollutants. Indicator Number of people living in areas with air quality levels above the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) and ozone Number of people living in areas witk air quality levels above trie NAAQS for particulate matter (fAAT and ozone-Category I The number of people living in areas above the level of the health- based NAAQS gives some indication of the number of people potentially exposed to unhealthy air. What the Data Show Despite trends of decreasing concentrations of criteria pollutants, many people still live in areas with air quality levels above the health-based standards for ozone and PM. In 2001, 11.1 million people lived in counties with air quality concentrations that at times were above the NAAQS for PM10, and 72.7 million people lived in counties with air quality concentrations above the stan- dard for PM2.5- Some 40.2 million people lived in counties with concentrations that at times were above the 1 -hour ozone stan- dard, and 110.3 million people lived in counties with concentra- tions above the 8-hour ozone standard (Exhibit 1 -5) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: B The indicator helps in understanding the number of people potentially affected by air quality problems, but it does not tell the actual number of people exposed to unhealthy air. Not all counties have complete monitoring data, so some areas may be excluded. However, the areas of most concern are likely covered. Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality 1-9 ------- Indicator Number of people living in areas with air quality levels a\|p/e the NAAQS for participate matter (PM) and ozone - Category 1 Exhibit 1-5: People living in areas with air quality above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)in2001 Nitrogen Dioxide ° Ozone Sulfur Dioxide rj.007 Particulate Matter (Si Opro) Particulate Matter (S2,5(im) Carbon „ Monoxide \|j °-7 Lead Any NAAQS • The indicator does not tell the amount; or extent to which dif- ferent areas exceed the standards, and \|so does not provide any specific exposure data. Data Sources ; The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2,001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-3, for more information.) SO TOO Millions of People ISO" Source; EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National Mr Quality; 2001 Stalin and Trends. September 2002. Indicators Ambient concentrations of particulate matter PM2.s and PM-\|0 Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-hour and 1 -hour Ambient concentrations of lead reductions in SO2, CO, and lead levels (Exhibit 1 -6) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). However, PM2.s and ozone concentrations are above the NAAQS in many areas, potentially exposing a significant percentage of the U.S. population to unhealthy air (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). i ; j The data for national levels of criteria pollutants tell only part of the story. Although significant improvements; have been occurring nationally and regionally, some areas still have chronic air quality problems. The Northeast, for example, experiences frequent and widespread violations of the ozone heaUjh-based standard (Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, 2002). Three indicators, presented on the following pages, are available to help answer this question: ambient concentrations of particulate matter, ambient concentrations of ozone (8-hour and 1 -hour), and ambient concentrations of lead. Concentrations of the criteria air pollutants have decreased over the past 2 decades, with substantial 1-10 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality Chapter I - Cleaner Air ------- Ti -100% Jg u -60% -40% -20% Exhibit 1-6: Percent reduction in concentration of six criteria air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act, 1982-2001 Particulate Matter (PM10> Ozone (1-hour) Ozone (8-hour) ^^ e^^er 2002. ient concentrations of particulate matter^f'AA^ an - C Particulate matter concentrations are a good indication of air quality health effects, because of concerns about associated respiratory effects. This indicator is based on the annual average concentrations, in micrograms per cubic meter ((Jg/rn3) of PM2 s and PM10. PM10 refers to particles 10 micrometers or less in diameter, and PM2.S refers to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Trends in PM10 are presented from 1992 to 2001, and compara- ble PM2 s data have been collected since 1999 (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). What the Data Show Concentrations of PM10 decreased by 14 percent between 1992 and 2001 (Exhibit 1 -7), and are below the NAAQS standard concentration in most areas. Concentrations of PM2.5 are above the level of the annual standard in much of the eastern U.S. and parts of California (Exhibit 1 -8) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Annual average PM2.S concentrations are generally higher in the eastern U.S. than in the West, mostly because sulfate COncentta- tions are four to five times higher in the eastern U.S. (largely due to coal-fired power plants) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2001). Chapter I - Cleaner Air eo -•ib 40 tf .-=>. Ft 30 2 '7 ------- ^ - ,BMa^^ Ambient concentrations of particulate matter: PM2 5 \ Indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002): • Ten-year trend data for PM10 are not available before 1990, because total suspended particulates, which include particle sizes larger than PM10, were monitored until 1990. • The monitoring is conducted mostly in urban areas, although the PM2.S data from the IMPROVE network support assessments of rural trends from 1992 to 1999. Data Source The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2007 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-3, for more information.) Exhibit 1-8:2001 annual average particulate matter ff/W.s) concentrations Mkrograms per Cubic Meter (Mg/m3) • >20 B15-20 B12-1S B Do not meet minimum data completeness. Minimum 1 1 samples per calendar quarter required. D Data unavailable. PM2.5 Standard (annual arithmetic mean) is 1 5 pg/m3 ber 200 Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National Air Qual.ty. 20^Status and T««h September 2002 ^ 1-12 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air ------- Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-nour Ozone is one of six criteria pollutants regularly monitored under the CM to determine compliance with health-based standards. This indicator reflects ambient concentrations in parts per million (ppm) of ground- level ozone from 1982 to 2001, based on 1 -hour and 8-hour measurements to gauge shorter-term and longer-term levels. The 1 -hour standard is useful in measuring potential effects during short-term "spikes" in concentrations. The longer 8-hour standard is used in evaluating exposures occurring over a more sustained period of time (e.g., an outdoor worker's exposure over the course of a work day). What the Data Show Although ozone concentrations are generally decreasing, they are higher than the NAAQS in many areas. Ground-level ozone concentrations fell by 11 percent between 1982 and 2001, based on the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average (Exhibit 1-9). Ozone levels based on the annual second highest daily maximum 1 -hour standard fell by 18 percent during the same time (Exhibit 1 -10). All regions experienced some improvement in 8-hour ozone levels during the past 20 years except the north central region (EPA Region 7), which showed little change (Exhibit 1 -11) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). j" Exhibit 1-9: Ozone air quality, 1Q82-20O1 fj cased On annual Utri maximum 8-ric it- 0.20, : __ i maximum 8-hour average ;;§- o.i s j \o_ . £ 0.-10 is 0.05 0.00 90% of sites have concentrations below this line 1 0% of sites have concentrations below this line 82 83 84 SS 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01. 1982-01: 11% decrease 1992-01: 'o% change Coverage: 379 monitoring sites nationwide with sufficient data to assess trends. Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Litest Findings on National : Air Quality. 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002. Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air and l-nour - Category 1 a^£"Ji~jlli-8"s""i!^^ indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: HI Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the presence of heat and sunlight, particularly in hot summer weather. To assess ozone trends, VOC and NOX emissions and meteorological information are also evaluated. • II The monitoring is conducted mostly in urban areas; therefore, data may not accurately encompass rural impacts from ozone transport. Data Source Jhe data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-3, for more information.) - Exhibit I-1O: Ozone air quality, I982-20OI . baser] on annual 2nd maximum I-hour average 90% of sites have concentrations below this line 1 0% of sites have concentrations below this line .'82.8.3.84 85,86.87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 0 }~ 1982-01: 18%. decrease 1992-01 3% decrease, ~ Coverage: 379 monitoring sites nationwide with sufficient data to assess trends. - Source EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National 2001 Status and Trends September 2002. 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality 1-13 ------- Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-nour and 1-hour -iCftegory \_(continued) ; Exhibit 1-H: Trends in ozone levels (8-Kour), 1Q82-2OO1, awraged across EPA regions .112 - .090 072151 fc* join. ^- C3 EPA Region 10 CU EPA Region 9 C3 EPA Region 8 EH EPA Region 7 O EPA Region 6 E9 EPA Region 5 C3 EPA Region 4 C3 EPA Region 3 "* EPA Region 2 '" ' "" E3 EPA Region 1 Based on annual 4th maximum 8-hour average The National Trend .092 ^ .082 1982 2001 f-11% T. Concentrations are in ppm r. AUdui level* are included in EPA region 10 averages; Hawaii levels are included in EPA region 9 averages; and Puerto Rico levels are Included in EPA regt Note: 2 averages Source-. EPA, Offlce of Air Qualify Planning and Standards, latest Findings on National Air Quality: 20& Status and Trends. September 20ol 1-14 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air ------- lent concentrations of leaa - y-ategory 1 •,; •; " 1 Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been motor vehicles and industrial sources. Due to the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metals processing is the major source of lead emissions to the air today. The highest air concentrations of lead are usually found in the vicinity of smelters and battery manufacturers. Lead is a criteria and toxic air pollutant with significant health effects, as described in Chapter 4, Human Health. Exhibit 1-12: Lead air quality, 1982-2001 Cased on annual maximum quarterly average 0.0 82 83 84 8.5 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 1982-01: 94% decrease 1992-01: 25% decrease Coverage: 39 monitoring sites nationwide with sufficient data to assess trends. Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards^ Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002. ~ ' What the Data Show This indicator shows ambient lead concentrations measured in ug/m3 per year from 1982 to 2001. Lead levels decreased by 94 percent in those years, largely because of regulations reducing the lead content in gasoline (Exhibit 1 -12) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). The most significant decline in ambient lead levels began in the late 1970s and continued through the early 1980s. Outdoor lead levels are below the NAAQS for most areas of the U.S. (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: i) Ambient lead monitoring is conducted mostly in urban areas, so it may not accurately encompass rural concentrations. SI This indicator would be very useful in conjunction with indicators of lead concentration in indoor air, drinking water, and soil to portray a broad picture of potential sources of lead exposure. Data Source The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National Air Quality: ,2001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-4, for more information.) Indicator Visibility Visibility is a measure of aesthetic value and the ability to enjoy sce- nic vistas, but it also can be an indicator of general air quality. PM is the major contributor to reduced visibility, and high humidity levels worsen the effects of pollution on visibility. The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network collects data to characterize visibility in protected lands. IMPROVE was established in 1987 to: H Determine the type of pollutants primarily responsible for reduced visibility in protected areas. ij Assess progress toward the Clean Air Act's national goal of remedying existing and preventing future visibility impairment. The indicator below presents data from the IMPROVE network on visibility trends for national parks and other protected lands. C-napter I - (Jeaner Air 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality 1-15 ------- r n-pi1 ndicator Visibility - C-ategory 1 "71 This indicator presents visibility trends for U.S. national parks and wilderness areas in the eastern and western U.S. by mean visual range, as measured in km for 1992 to 1999 and 1990 to 1999, respectively, by worst, mid-range, and best visibiliiy. Under the Clean Air Act, a Class I area is one in which visibility is protected more stringently than under the NMQS, including national parks, wilderness areas, monuments, and other areas of special national and cultural significance. What the Data Show Data collected by the IMPROVE network show that visibility for the worst visibility days in the West is similar to days with the best visibility in the East (Exhibit 1 -13). In 1999, the mean visual range for the worst days in the East was only 24 km (14.9 miles) com- pared to 84 km (S2.2 miles) for the best visibility. In the West, visibility impairment for the worst days remained relatively unchanged over the 1990s, with the mean visual range for 1999 (80 km or 49.7 miles) nearly the same as the 1990 level (86 km or S3.4 miles). Without the effects of pollution, a natural visual range in the U.S. is approximately 75 to 150 km (47 to 93 miles) in the East and 200 to 300 km (124 to 186 miles) in the West (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations ! I Limitations of this indicator include the following: • The indicator compares trends within .yisibility range categories, but it would also be useful to indicate; how often visibility falls into each range during a year. • ; , H The data represent only a samplingjof national park and wilderness areas; nevertheless, this indicator provides a good picture of the impact of air pollution 9n the nation's parks and protected areas. As of 2001, the network monitored 110 sites. Data Source : The data source for this indicator wasltdtest Findings on National Air Quality: 2007 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-4, for more information.) ; ! rxnioit 1-13: Visibility trends for U.S. Class I areas Western U.S., 1990-1999 [Eastern U.S., 1992 ] I -iUs •s 200 &. 1 '00 s 50 n Best Visibility ^-4 * * »----« ^ Mid-Range 1 • • "• • * * » ~ A A "A~ A A A -T— ^_ Worst Visibility , — i — 1 — a Best visibility range is 1 77-208 km Mid-range visibility is 118-1 33 km •3 ^ Worst visibility range is 73-85 km 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Year 200 ISO] 1 100: SO; — 1 , 1 i i .1 — i 'A Best Visibility , Mid -Range k Worst Vrsibilitv .Jill i : - r :i Best visibility ; range is 79-90 km Mid-range visibility I is 42-48 km • Worst visibility range is 20-23 km 92 r 94 95 96 Year 97 8 99 Notes Under the Clean Air Act, a Class I area is one in which visibility is protected more stringently than und?(r the National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), including national parks, wildernciurcjs, monuments, and other areas of special national and cultural significance. ^ , \| J Source: ERA, Office of Atr Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status"and Trends. September 2002. 1-16 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality Chapter 1 - CJeaner Air ------- Indicator Ambient concentrations of selected air toxics Air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants, are pollutants that may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproduc- tive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental and ecological effects. The Clean Air Act identifies 188 air toxics; some common ones are perchloroethylene (from dry cleaners), mercury (from coal combustion), methylene chloride (from consumer products such as paint strippers), and benzene and 1,3-butadiene (from gasoline). EPA does not set health-based standards for these pollutants; instead, the Clean Air Act mandates a two-phased approach. In the first phase, EPA establishes standards for source categories (major sources, area sources, and mobile sources). In the second phase, EPA assesses how well the standards are reducing health and environmen- tal risks, and based on these assessments, determines what further actions are necessary to address any significant remaining, or resid- ual, health or environmental risks. No formal monitoring network for air toxics currently exists, but sev- eral metropolitan areas do maintain monitoring programs. Data from these areas provide the basis for an air toxics indicator. Metropolitan areas with air toxics data generally show downward trends (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). However, although data and tools for assessing risks from air toxics are limited, available evidence suggests that emissions of air toxics may still pose significant health risks in many areas throughout the U.S. (EPA, OAR, September 2002). In addition to ambient concentrations of air toxics, an issue of particu- lar concern is the deposition of toxic air pollutants to surface water- bodies. A pollutant of particular concern is mercury, which accumu- lates in fish tissue and in humans after they ingest contaminated fish (see Chapter 2, Purer Water; and Chapter 5, Ecological Condition). Ambient concentrations of selectedi air toxics-Category 2 This indicator reflects data about annual average ambient concen- trations of four selected air toxics, in ug/m^, derived from moni- toring sites with sufficient trend data from 1994 to 1999. Selected air toxics are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, total suspended lead, and perchloroethylene (EPA, OAQPS, March 2001). What the Data Show Ambient concentrations of the selected air toxics—benzene, 1,3-butadiene, total suspended lead, and perchlorethylene generally declined between 1994 and 1999, based on the annual average from the reporting sites (EPA, OAQPS, March 2001). The lead concentration level is well below the NAAQS standard (see Section 1.1.1 .b in this chapter). Benzene levels, measured at 95 urban monitoring sites, decreased 47 percent from 1994 to 2000 (Exhibit 1 -14) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: • Information is limited because no formal network is currently in place for monitoring-ambient concentrations of air toxics; however, EPA and states are working to establish a national toxics monitoring network. • The indicator reflects trends for selected air toxics, but not for all 188 toxic air pollutants identified under the CAA. • More information is available for lead than for the other three Chapter I - Cleaner Air selected air toxics. Monitoring stations with sufficient trend data for the other three compounds tend to be concentrated in California, the Great Lakes, southern Texas, and the Northeast. Data Sources The data sources for this indicator were Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002, and National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA, 2001. (See Appendix B, page B-4, for more information.) txhibit I-W: Ambient benzene, annual average urban ;:_;__ concentrations, nationwide, I994-20OO 90% of sites have concentrations below this li 10% of sites have concentrations below this lin 94 95 99 00 ,._,.. : 96 37 : 98 -'_':" 1994-00:47% decrease ~f JT Courage: 95 monitoring sites nationwide with sufficient data to assess trends. JKoufce: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Finding, on National * f-$,r Quality: 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002. J 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality 1-17 ------- Anthropogenic sources of air pollution range from "stationary sources" such as factories, power plants, agricultural facilities, and smelters, to smaller "area sources" such as dry cleaners and degreas- ing operations, to "mobile sources" such as cars, buses, planes, trucks, trains, construction equipment, and lawn mowers. Naturally occurring sources such as wind-blown dust, volcanoes, and wildfires add to the total air pollution burden and may be significant on local and regional scales. Most of the six criteria air pollutants show declining emissions since 1982. But as reported in Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, emissions of NOX, a contributor to ozone, PM, and acid rain formation, increased by nine percent between 1982 and 2001, with a slight decrease (three percent) between 1992 and 2001 (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). A significant amount of that increase is attributed to growth in emissions from non-road engines, including construction and recreation equipment and diesel vehicles. EPA continuously reviews and improves estimates of pollutant emis- sions. Emissions estimates for criteria pollutants are currently under such evaluation and may be updated. Indicators Emissions:'[particulate matter (PN/h.s and PMio), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds . [L . . . . .... . \| .,( . .:.:. ... . Lead emissions Two indicators are available to help answer this question: • Emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dibxide, nitrogen oxide, and . volatile organic compounds. ; B Emissions of lead. ; Particulate matter can be emitted directly jar formed in the atmos- phere. "Primary" particles, such as dustfr6m roads and elemental carbon (soot) from wood combustion, ad emitted directly into the atmosphere. "Secondary" particles are fotjmed in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions. Example^ include sulfates, formed from SO2 emissions from power plants an\|d industrial facilities, and nitrates, formed from NOX emissions from power plants, automo- biles, and other types of combustion sources. The chemical composi- tion of particles depends on factors such as location, time of year, and weather. ', * i : ' The VOCs contributing to ozone formation are emitted from motor vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories, consumer and commer- cial product; such as paints and strippers, and other industrial sources. Nitrogen oxides, also an ozone precursor, are emitted prima- rily from vehicles, power plants, and other combustion sources. Smelters and battery manufacturers are the largest sources of lead in outdoor air.: I j, 1-18 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality (piapter 1 - Cleaner Air ------- Emissions: particulate matter organic compounds- (Category 2 ancj fV\Aj0)> sulfur dioxide, nitrbgen^oxides, and : volatile This indicator includes the following data: • Direct PM emissions are measured in thousands of short tons per year. PMW emissions are presented from 1985 to 2001; emissions of PM2 5 from 1992 to 2001. • Emissions of NOX, and SO2 presented from 1982 to 2001. Emissions of NOX, contribute to nitrogen loading on land and in water directly and as runoff from land. NOX, is also a precur- sor of ground-level ozone. Sulfates and nitrates, formed by emissions of SO2 and NOX, contribute to acid deposition, which can have significant impacts on aquatic life (see Chapter 2, Purer Water). • Emissions of VOCs, also precursors of ground-level ozone. These emissions, presented from 1982 to 2001, are measured in thousands of short tons per year. What the Data Show Direct emissions of PM10 fell by 13 percent between 1992 and 2001 (Exhibit 1 -IS). Emissions of direct PM2.5 also fell, decreasing by 10 percent between 1992 and 2001 (Exhibit 1 -16). Sulfur dioxide emissions also decreased by 25 percent between 1982 and 2001 and by 24 percent between 1992 and 2001 (Exhibit 1 -17). However, emissions of NOX increased by 9 percent between 1982 and 2001 and decreased by 3 percent between 1992 and 2001 (Exhibit 1-18) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). VOC emissions decreased by 16 percent from 1982 to 2001 and by 8 percent from 1992 to 2001 (Exhibit 1-19) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: • The emissions indicators are estimates; however, consistent esti- mation methods can provide useful trend data. B The methodology for estimating emissions is continually reviewed and is subject to revision. EPA is currently conducting such an evaluation of emissions data, and emissions estimates may be updated. Trend data prior to these revisions must be considered in the context of those changes. Data Source The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-5 for more information.) •;; Exhibit 1-15: Direct particulate matter (FAAio) emissions, 1985-2001 r" 7,000. S^; 6,000 ft] 5,000 ^T~O '~£ 4,000; r-^G-" '•! 3,000 •jcr ;-l- ' F 2,000! nv.'i ,000. - Emission trends _ data not available. In 1985, EPA refined.its methods for estimating emissions. • Transportation H Industrial Processes D Fuel Combustion 82 85 T 1 r- 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 1992-01: 137o decrease 'f,_ Source: EPA, Office of Air Qualify Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National : /ity: 2007 Status and Trends. September 2002. •r:;E>cnibit 1-16: Direct particulate matter T 1992-2001 emissions, ;;. o "£- -T3 2,500 , 2,000 I 1,500 1,000 500 H Transportation El Industrial Processes D Fuel Combustion 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 1 992-01: 10% decrease 99 00 01 i Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National Air Qualify: 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002. CJiapter 1 - Cleaner Air 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality 1-19 ------- Emissions: parfciculate matter (FAA0 c and f AA,n), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile I 1 f~* i.O l\ l\J D\| l\| D, I IT organic compounds - L.ategory 2 Icontinued; ibit 1-17: Sulfur dioxide (SC^) emissions, 1982-2001 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 : 1-18: Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions, In 1985, EPA refined its methods for estimating emissions. In 1 98S, EPA refined its methods for estimating emissions Transportation Dl Industrial Processes D Fuel Combustion Miscellaneous Industrial Processes D Fuel Combustion 82 85 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 1982-01: 25% decrease 1992-01: 24% decrease 92 93 94 95 9~6 97 98 9900 Of ;.:. 1982-01: 9% increase lT I 1992-01: 3%decrease 9 , ., < j . . t Sources EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest findings on National S Source: EPA, O Ffice of Air Quality Pfannmg and Standards Latest Findings on National Af QMS%: 2001 Status anil Trends. September 2002. ! Air Quality. 20m Status and Trends. September 2002. Exhibit 1-19: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, 1982-2001 ; 30,000r ! In 1985, EPA refined its methods for estimating emissions. 5,000 I Miscellaneous I Transportation I Industrial Processes I Fuel Combustion 82 85 1982-01 ::167o decrease 1992-01: 8% decrease Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest fmai Air Quality. 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002. 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 1-20 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality Chapter 1 - CJeaner Air ------- Lead Emissions - Category 2 - •^•»"««aE''''a»i-^i^-^^ This indicator is lead emissions from 1982 to 2001, measured in short tons per year. What the Data Show Lead emissions decreased by 93 percent from 1982 to 2001 and by 5 percent from 1992 to 2001 (Exhibit 1 -20) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). The transportation sector, particularly automo- tive sources, used to be the major source of lead emissions. The phase-out of lead in gasoline resulted in great declines in lead emissions from the transportation sector over the past 2 decades. Today, industrial processes, primarily metals processing, are the major source of lead emissions to the atmosphere. Indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: • The indicator does not present actual emissions data; thus, it has the inherent limitations of estimates. However, consistent estimation methods can provide useful trend data. H Estimation is necessary for mobile sources and several area- . wide sources. B The methodology for estimating emissions is continually reviewed and is subject to revision. Trend data for years prior to revisions must be considered in the context of those changes. Data Source The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-5, for more information.) Exhibit I-2O: Lead emissions, 1982-2001 •:-.-" 80,000 I In 1985, EPA refined its methods for estimating emissions. If 6.0,000 Eg gfer 40,000 20,000 • Transportation 3 Industrial'Processes it Fuel Combustion 82 85 ii i " i i i i i i 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 1 982-01: 93% decrease FSburce: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National "' SfJ&irSualiiy. 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002. Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality 1-21 ------- Vwww ^ Indicator Air toxics emissions An indicator for air toxics emissions is available to help address this question. The Clean Air Act identifies 188 air toxics. EPA estimates that more than SO percent of air toxics emissions come from vehicles and other mobile sources such as aircraft, locomotives, and con- struction equipment (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Other major sources include industrial facilities and area sources such as small dry cleaners and gas stations. Emissions of benzene, come from cars, trucks, oil refineries, and chemical processes. Mercury emissions come from ccial combustion and waste ihcjneration and can travel thousands of miles before being deposited in water or on land (see Chapter 2, Purer Water). Some air toxics are also released from natu- ral sources such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires. 1. , i ~lililiSiii\|iii ndfcatof Air toxics emissions - Category 2 This indicator is national air toxics emissions, in million of tons per year, between the 1990-1993 baseline period and 1996. EPA compiles an air toxics inventory, as part of the National Emissions Inventory, which focuses on four sectors—large industrial sources, smaller industrial and natural sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road mobile sources. What the Data Show Estimates show a 24 percent reduction in nationwide air toxics emissions between the baseline period (1990-1993) and 1996— a reduction from 6.11 million to 4.67 million tons per year (Exhibit 1 -21) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). indicator Caps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: • Air toxics emissions estimates are currently available for only 1990 to 1993 (a mix of years depending on data availability on various source types) and 1996. • The emissions data are based on estimates that are not avail- able on an annual basis. • The indicator is an aggregate number; actual changes vary among the toxic air pollutants and also vary from one part of the country to another. Data Source ; I i . - The data source for this indicator was latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA,; 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-6, for more information.) ' „[ , . -i ' .1 i, { "- k- Exhibit l'-21: National air toxics emissions, 1990-1993, T 1996 (total for 188 toxic air pollutants) £ 1 • [53 Urban Air Toxics 155 Other Air Toxics Baseline \| ,, (1990-1993) 1996 fepurce: EPA, Jjffjce of Air Qualit\| Planning and Standards latest Findings on National f'Air Quality: 2(ioi Status and Trends September 20Q2 fcl^-L-'il »'«! "" U.*, "- ! )> I -i * ' ^ !— "., 1-22 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air ------- Air pollution does not recognize political boundaries: ozone and PM, for example, can be transported hundreds or thousands of miles, depending on weather conditions, including wind speeds. Canada and the U.S. have jointly studied ground-level ozone occurrence and transport in eastern North America. Eight-hour ozone measurements for 1988 and 1995 from eastern Canada and the eastern U.S. demonstrate how ozone travels in both directions across the U.S.- Canadian border. The data suggested that ozone was being trans- ported from urban to non-urban areas. The U.S.-Canada Air Quality Committee studied the relative contri- bution of sources in each country to the ozone precursors-NOx and VOCs. According to the report, "anthropogenic sources of NOX emissions in the U.S. are ten times larger, and VOC emissions are 7 times larger in magnitude than in Canada, paralleling the relative population ratio between the 2countries." The study also showed that wind speed can significantly affect ozone transport between the two countries. At low wind speed (<3 meters per second), ozone concentrations were high over major metropolitan areas or close to the sources. At intermediate wind speeds (3 to 6 meters per sec- ond), overall concentrations were lower and ozone was transported up to 500 km downwind. At higher wind speeds, higher concentra- tions were in downwind corners up to 1,000 km away (U.S.-Canada Air Quality Committee, March 1999). Transboundary air pollution issues are not limited to North America, as demonstrated in the discussion of stratospheric ozone depletion (see Section 1.4 in this chapter). More recently, the U.N. Environment Programme suggested that the so-called Asian Brown Cloud, a 2-mile-thick blanket of pollution over part of South Asia, could travel halfway around the globe in a week (CNN, 2002). No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address the issue of transboundary air pollution. Outdoor air pollution can cause a variety of adverse health effects. Exposure to air pollution can result in short-term health effects and can also contribute to or aggravate chronic conditions. One such condition is asthma, the leading chronic illness of children in the U.S. and a leading cause of school absenteeism. In 2000, asthma caused 465,000 hospitalizations and about 4,500 deaths in the U.S. (CDC, 2003). Other chronic conditions to which air pollution can contribute include lung cancer, asthma, respiratory disease, and cardiovascular disease. Some of the criteria pollutants, including ozone, NO2, and SO2, are associated primarily with respiratory-related effects, including aggravation of asthma and other respiratory diseases and irritation of the lung and respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, chest pain, diffi- culty breathing) (EPA, ORD, 1982,1986, August 1993, 1994). Carbon monoxide, on the other hand, primarily affects people with cardiovascular disease by reducing oxygen in the blood, leading to aggravation of angina (EPA, ORD, NCEA, 2000). Short-term exposure to ozone has been linked to lung inflammation and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (EPA, ORD, NCEA, July 1996). Repeated short-term exposures to ozone may damage children's developing lungs and may lead to reduced lung function later in life; long-term exposures to high ozone levels are a possible cause of increased incidence of asthma in children engaged in outdoor sports (McConnell, et al., 2002). Efforts to control automobile traffic in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games were associated with a 28 percent reduction in peak daily ozone concentrations during the Games and a significantly lower rate of childhood asthma events (Friedman, et al., 2001). When EPA introduced a new 8-hour ozone ambient standard in 1997, it estimated that meeting the standard would reduce the risk of significant decreases in children's lung functions (such as difficulty in breathing or shortness of breath) by about 1 million incidences per year and would result in thousands of fewer hospital admissions and visits for people with asthma (EPA, OAQPS, July 1997). Exposure to airborne particulate matter is associated with a broader range of health problems, including respiratory-related and cardio- vascular effects. For example, short-term exposures to PM may aggravate asthma and bronchitis and have been associated with heartbeat irregularities and heart attacks. PM exposures have been linked to increased school absences and lost work days, hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and even death from heart and lung diseases (EPA, ORD, NCEA, April 1996). Long-term expo- sures have also been linked to deaths from heart and lung diseases, including lung cancer (EPA, ORD, NCEA, 2002; Pope, et al., 2002). When EPA established new PM2.5 standards in 1997, it estimated that meeting the standard would save about 15,000 lives each year, especially among the elderly and those with existing heart and lung diseases. The Agency said the new standard would reduce hospital admissions by thousands each year; reduce risk of symptoms associated with chronic bronchitis by tens of thousands each year; and avoid hundreds of thousands of incidences of asthma each year (EPA, OAQPS, July 1997). Cnapter 1 - Cleaner Air 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality 1-23 ------- B Lead, both a criteria pollutant and a toxic air pollutant, has signifi- cant health effects. Elevated blood lead levels are associated with behavioral problems, neurological effects, and lowered IQ (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002), The decrease in the average level of lead in children's blood reflects declines in ambient lead levels by 93 percent from 1982 to 2001 —largely the result of regulations reducing lead content in gasoline (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Toxic or hazardous air pollutants may cause many other less com- mon but potentially hazardous health effects, including cancer and damage to the immune system, and neurological, reproductive, and developmental problems. Acute exposure to some air toxics can cause immediate death. Many of these pollutants can cause serious health damages even at relatively low concentrations. National emission standards have been established for eight of the 188 listed hazardous air pollutants: asbestos, mercury, beryllium, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, radionuclides, and coke oven emissions. The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, a nationwide analysis of air toxics, develops health risk estimates for 33 toxic air pollutants using computer modeling of the 1996 National Emissions Inventory air toxics data. Based on the assessment, chromium, benzene, and formaldehyde appear to pose the greatest nationwide carcinogenic risk (EPA, OAR, September 2002). Benzene exposure has been linked to increases in the risk of leukemia and multiple myeloma (EPA, OAQPS, July 199S). No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address the health effects associated with outdoor air pollution. For additional discussion of air pollution and associated health effects, see Chapter 4, Human Health. Outdoor air not only has the potential to affect human health, but also transports pollutants and deposits them onto soils or surface waters. There, the pollutants can cause ecological effects and damage to property. Ground-level ozone damages plants and crops. It interferes with the ability of plants to produce and store food, reducing overall plant health and the ability to grow and reproduce. The weakened plants are more susceptible to harsh weather, disease, and pests. Through its effects on plants, ozone also can pose risks to ecological functions such as water movement, mineral nutrient cycling, and habitats for various animal and plant species (see Chapter 5, Ecological Condition). Airborne nitrogen species (including the criteria pollutants NO2 and particulate nitrate) can contribute to excess nitrogen levels in ecosystems. These excess nitrogen levels can result in: • Changes in plant and soil community spjscies diversity. • Altered community structure. ! • Eutrophication in surface and coastal waters. • Acidified soils and waters (see Chapter 2, Purer Water). Airborne sulfur species (including the criteria pollutants SO2 and particulate sulfate) can also contribute excfess sulfur to ecosystems, which can lead to acidification of the soils iand related effects. When deposited together, airborne nitrogen and !sulfur species are known as acid deposition. (See the discussion of pcid deposition in Section 1.2 of this chapter.) Land and water can be contaminated by deposition of air toxics, leading to contamination of plants and anijmals and, eventually, of humans further up the food chain. Airbornje mercury from incinera- tion, for example, can settle in water and cbntaminate fish (see Chapter 2, Purer Water). People who eat fjsh are then exposed to mercury, which is known to be harmful to the nervous system. j No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address the ecological effects associated with outdoor air pollution. Additional dis.cussion of the ecological effects associated with outdoor air pollution is found in Chapter 5, Ecological Condition. 1-24 1.1 Outdoor Air Quality (_napter 1 - (Jeaner /\ir ------- 1.2 Acid Deposition Sulfur dioxide and NOX emissions in the atmosphere react with water, oxygen, and oxidants to form acidic components, also referred to as acid deposition or "acid rain." Air contaminants can be deposited on land or water through precipitation (wet deposition) or directly by dry deposition. Wet acid deposition is monitored by the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network, a cooperative program of federal and state agencies, universities, electric utilities, and other industries. Dry deposition is measured by the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), operated by EPA and the National Park Service. The acidity in precipitation in the eastern U.S. is at least twice as high as in pre-industrial times (EPA, ORD, January 2003). To reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX, EPA established the Acid Rain Program under the Clean Air Act. This program focuses on the largest and highest-emitting coal-fired power plants, which are significant con- tributors to acid deposition. This section addresses the following questions: • What are the deposition rates of pollutants that cause acid rain? (Section 1.2.1) • What are the emissions of pollutants that form acid rain? (Section 1.2.2) • What ecological effects are associated with acid deposition? (Section 1.2.3) Indicators Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen Efforts to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions from power plants have helped to significantly reduce wet sulfate deposi- tion and to contain increases in nitrogen deposition. Wet sulfate deposition levels for 1999 to 2001 showed reductions of 20 to 30 percent compared to levels for 1989 to 1991 over widespread areas in the Midwest and the Northeast, where acid rain has had its great- est impact. Nitrogen deposition levels showed no major changes. Although NOX emissions from power plants decreased, nitrogen emissions from sources other than power plants (e.g., motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and agricultural activities) increased between 1990 and 2001 (EPA, OAR, November 2002). Deposition of wet sulfate and wet nitrogen is the indicator used to address this question. Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air 1.2 Acid Deposition 1-25 ------- Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen - Category 2 f Measures of wet sulfate and wet nitrogen deposition in kilograms per hectare (kg/ha), are a key indicator of acid deposition. What the Data Show Wet sulfate decreased substantially throughout the Midwest and Northeast between 1989-1991 and 1999-2001 (Exhibit 1 -22). By 2001, wet sulfate deposition had decreased more than 8 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) from 30-40 kg/ha/year in 1990 in much of the Ohio River Valley and northeastern U.S. The greatest reductions occurred in the mid-Appalachian region (EPA, OAR, November 2002). ; There were no dramatic regional changes in wet nitrogen deposition beitween 1989-1991 and 19p9J-2001 (Exhibit 1-23). Since 1990, nitrogen deposition decreased slightly in areas of the eastern U.S., while increases occurred;in some areas with significant agricultural activity (e.g., the PJains Snd coastal North Carolina) or substantial mobile source emissions (e.g., southern California). (tiPA, OAR, November 2002).( Exhibit 1-22: Wet sulfate deposition, 1989-1991 v£ 1999-2001 C«H»t«! 250 National Atmospterie Deposition Program National Trends Network (NApP/NTN) monrtor^fatioTToTated throughout"! Nate: Mjp colon represent relative concentrations and do not imply ecological or human health status y [ ( Source; EPA. Offite of A» and R^iatipn, Clean Air Markets ^ogja^ Exhibit 1-23: Wet nitrogen deposition, l989-1991^s. 1999-2001 --H CoviMge 1250 National Atmospheric Deposittan Pro^am'National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) monitonrr^ .stations located throughout the lojJer 48 sta'tes Note; Map colors represent relative concentrations and do not imply ecological or human health status Source: EPA, Office of Air Jnd Radiation, Clean Air Markets Program. EPA Acid Rain Program: 2001 Progress Report November 2002 1-26 1.2 Acid Deposition Chapter i - Cleaner Air ------- Deposition; wet sulfate ;and wet nitrogen - Category 2 Idontinuea) Wet and dry sulfur deposition make up roughly the same percent- ages of total sulfur deposition in the Midwest, whereas, in most other areas, wet deposition makes up a greater percentage of the total. Wet deposition also makes up most of the total nitrogen deposition load at the majority of the monitoring sites in the eastern U.S. In southern California, dry deposition makes up a greater percentage of the total (Exhibit 1 -24). Using National Atmospheric Deposition Program data, a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report on sustainable forests observed that annual wet sulfate deposition decreased significant- ly between 1994 and 2000, especially in the North and South Resource Planning Act regions, where deposition was the highest. Nitrate deposition rates were lowest in the Pacific and Rocky Mountain regions, where approximately 84 percent of the regions experienced deposition rates of less than 4.2 pounds per acre (4.8kg/ha) per year. Only 2 percent of the sites in the eastern U.S. received less than that amount (USDA, FS, 2002). indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: • Geographic coverage is limited for measuring wet deposition and even more so for measuring dry deposition. Additional monitoring sites for both in coastal areas in the Southeast would support improved measurement of nitrogen deposition to estuaries. Additional dry deposition monitoring would provide a better understanding of acid deposition in the Ohio Valley and Central and Rocky Mountain areas. B Measurement techniques for dry deposition have improved substantially, but still lag behind operational wet deposition techniques. Data Source The data source for this indicator was EPA Acid Rain Program: 2001 Progress Report, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-6, for more information.) Exnibit 1-24: Total sulfur and total.nitrogen deposition, 2001 Sulfur Nitrogen •I WatS Days Coverage: 70 Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) monitoring stations concentrated in the eastern half of the lower 48 states. Note: The size of the "pies" indicates the totalmagnitude of deposition; the colors indicate the percentage of wet and dry deposition, Source:EPA,OfficeofAirandRadiation,CleanAirMarketsProgram.£JDAAcrdrRamFrograra:200I Progress Report November 2002. Chapter I - Cleaner Air 1.2 Acid Deposition 1-27 ------- Indicators Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides Acid deposition occurs when emissions of SC>2 and NOX in the atmosphere react with water, oxygen, and oxidants to form acidic compounds. Electric utility plants that burh fossil fuels are a significant source of SO2 and NOX and monitor their emissions continuously. NOX is also emitted from other high-temperature combustion sources, including automobiles. The indicator used to address this questiop is emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from utilities. ! Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides - C Category 2 jfe This indicator is millions of tons of NOX and SO2 emissions from sources covered under the Acid Rain Program from 1990 to 2001 and 1980 to 2001, respectively. These emissions data are an important component of a market-based trading program to reduce emissions and consequent impacts on the environment. What the Data Show SOj emissions from sources covered under the Acid Rain Program were 10.6 million tons in 2001, compared to 15.7 million tons in 1990. Emissions of NOX from these sources declined from 6.7 million tons in 1990 to 4.7 million tons in 2001 (Exhibit 1 -25) (EPA, OAR, June 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations ;•• i i ' Limitations of this indicator include the fojlowing: • Although electric utilities and large boilers are key sources of SC>2 and NOX, they are not the only sources. It is estimated that about 64 percent of annual SO2! emissions and 26 percent of NOX emissions are produced by eleqtric utility plants that burn fossil fuels (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). • Information on mobile source emissions i$ particularly useful for completing the picture of NOX contributions to acid deposition. t i i i Data Source The data source for this indicator was EPA Acid Rain Program: 2007 Progress Report, Appendices A and 61, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-6, for more information.) Exhibit 1-25: Power plant sulfur dioxide (SO2), 1980-2001, and nitrogen oxides (NOx), 1990-20C&1, emissions 1980 Soutee EPA, Office of Aif and Radiation, Clean Air Markets Program. EPA Add Rain Program: 2001 Progress Repo •( November 2002 Appendix A Acid Rain Program Year 2001 SO2 Allowance Holdings and Deductions. (April 8,2003; http://www.epa.goy/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp01/arjpend Affected Units. (April 8, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/atrmarkets/crriprpt/arp01/appenclixbl.pdf). (o pdf) and Appendix Bl 2001 Compliance Results for NOx 1-28 1.2 Acid Deposition Criapter 1 - Cleaner Air ------- Increased acid levels damage soils, lakes, and streams, rendering some waterbodies unfit for certain fish and wildlife species. Indirect effects of acid deposition are also responsible for damage to forest ecosystems (see Chapter 5, Ecological Condition). Acidic ions in the soil displace calcium and other nutrients from plant roots, inhibiting growth. Acidic deposition can also mobilize toxic amounts of aluminum, increasing its availability for uptake by plants and by fish and other aquatic life (EPA, OAR, November 2002). The nitrogen in acid rain adds to the total loading of nitrogen in water- bodies. As coastal ecosystems become overly rich in nitrogen, conditions favor more frequent and more severe emergence of algal blooms, which deplete oxygen, harming fish and reducing plant and animal diversity (see Chapter 2, Purer Water). A recent report assessing deposition-related changes in surface water chemistry in the northern and eastern U.S. found that the Clean Air Act has resulted in a large and widespread decrease in the deposition of sulfur by approximately 40 percent in the 1990s. In the same period, surface water sulfate concentrations declined in all regions except the Ridge and Blue Ridge provinces (Virginia). Acid .neutralizing capacity (ANC), -a key indicator of recovery, increased in three of the regions (Adirondacks, Northern Appalachian Plateau and Upper Midwest) and was unchanged in the New England and the Ridge/Blue Ridge region. Modest increases in ANC have reduced the number of acidic lakes and stream segments in some regions: • In the Adirondacks, 8.1 percent of lakes (ISO lakes) were acidic in 2000. In the early 1990s, 13 percent (240 lakes) were acidic. • In the Upper Midwest, an estimated 80 of 250 lakes that were acidic in the mid-1980s are no longer acidic. • In the Northern Appalachian Plateau region in 2000, there were an estimated 3,393 kilometers (2,104 miles) of acidic streams in the region, or 7.9 percent of the total population; this compares to 5,014 kilometers (3,109 miles) of acidic streams (12 percent) in 1993-94. • There was no evidence of recovery in New England, or in the Ridge and Blue Ridge Provinces; the latter region is no't expected to recover immediately, due to the nature of forest soils in the province. • In the three regions showing recovery, approximately one-third of formerly acidic surface waters are no longer acidic, although still subject to episodes of acidification. • Nitrogen deposition levels changed little between 1989 and 2001, and surface water nitrate concentrations are largely unchanged as well. Nitrogen deposition remains a concern, because future increases in surface water nitrate concentrations could retard surface water recovery (EPA, ORD, January 2003). No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address the ecological effects associated with acid deposition. I.3 Indoor Air Quality People in the U.S. spend 90 percent of their time indoors, and indoor air pollutant levels may exceed those allowable outside. Radon and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) are the two indoor air pollutants of greatest concern from a health perspective (EPA, ORD, December 1992; NRC, 1988). Although methods to monitor and measure indoor air quality (IAQ) exist, there is no practical way to assess the general quality of indoor air nationwide. There are millions of residences, thousands of work- places, and more than a hundred thousand schools in the U.S., and representative samples are not practical because of cost and access issues. This section, therefore, presents indoor air quality data from limited studies, not from ongoing monitoring efforts. This section addresses the following questions: • What is the quality of the air in buildings in the United States? (Section 1.3.1) • What contributes to indoor air pollution? (Section 1.3.2) • What human health effects are associated with indoor air pollution? (Section 1.3.3) . • -, 1a\|Y««!j'\|s^;,ir;^j;gE^j\|i=K;5ai;ji\| i&^^fci3iaf«^&testi8»»Sii\|!SiiS ; in pu ndrnjpy jf: J\|j^;;jyi\|\|\|\|^4Bt4si^^ Indicators U.S. homes above EPA's radon action levels Percentage of homes where young children are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke While it is difficult to make general statements about the quality of indoor air nationwide, two studies-the National Residential Radon Survey and an analysis of ETS exposure based on data from the National Health Interview Survey-offer important insights. These studies provide data about residential levels of radon and ETS, presented in the description of two indicators on the following pages. In addition, several studies have attempted to characterize environ- mental issues inside office buildings and schools. The Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation (BASE) study, conducted from 1994 to 1998, is a study of office IAQ. The study was designed with input from more than 40 national IAQ experts and reviewed by the EPA Science Advisory Board. The consensus of these national experts was that a sample of 100 to 200 office buildings would be sufficient to characterize the central tendency of IAQ in office buildings nationwide. Limited information about IAQ in schools is available from a 1999 survey of about 900 public schools by the National Center for Education Statistics. This survey addressed concerns related to Chapter I - Cleaner Air 1.3 Indoor Air Quality 1-29 ------- environmental conditions, defined as lighting, heating, ventilation, IAQ, acoustics or noise control, and physical security of buildings. In all, 43 percent of schools responded that at least one environmental condition was unsatisfactory. Ventilation was the most often cited environmental issue of concern (DOE, NCES, 2000). In addition to the indoor pollutants discussed above, pesticides also may pose IAQ concerns. Approximately three-quarters of U.S. households use at least one pesticide product indoors during the course of a year. Products used most often are insecticides and disinfectants. The EPA Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study (NOPES), published in 1990, assessed exposure to airborne pesti- cides in Jacksonville, Florida, and in Springfield and Chicopee, Massachusetts. Indoor sources accounted for 90 percent or more of the total airborne exposure to most of these pesticides. NOPES found that tested households had at least 5 pesticides in indoor air, at levels often 10 times greater than levels measured in outdoor air (EPA, AREAL, January 1990). Some of the pesticides had been banned or otherwise regulated by EPA (e.g., aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, and chlordane), but continued to be found in the homes. Since these pesticides previously were widely used to prevent termites, they are believed to have entered the homes via diffusion of soil gas into basements, similar to the way radon enters homes. Another pesticide, DDT, banned for nearly 20 years, was found in house dust in five out of eight homes (EPA, AREAL, January 1990). Later studies, including measurements in soil just outside the home, suggested that DDT and other; long-lasting pesticides can be tracked in from soil clinging to shoes. No comprehensive nationwide information; is available on the amount of pesticides used in the nation's 11,000 public schools. The federal! government has not collected such data, and only one state, Louisiana, requires its school districts to specifically report the amount of pesticides used (GAO, 1999). i This report ui.es two indicators, discussed ;below, to address I the question, "What is the quality of air in'the buildings in the United States?": . ; ; \| U.S. homes, above EPA radon action levels. • Percentage; of homes where young children are exposed to ETS. Iridicitoi U.S. homes above EPAs radon action levels - C_a1 ttego y 2 Naturally occurring radon gas is formed by the decay of uranium in rock, soil, and water. Radon enters a home by moving up from rock and soil and into the building through cracks or other holes in the foundation. The amount of radon gas in the air is measured in picocuries per liter of air or pCi/L EPA has set a recommended "action level" of four pCi/L for homes and schools to reduce the risk of lung cancer. What the Data Show A 1991 representative survey of all housing units in the United States estimated that six percent of U.S. homes (5.8 million in 1990) had an annual average radon level of more than four pic- ocuries per liter (pCi/L) in indoor air. Also, about 56 percent of Americans' exposure to radon occurs in homes with two pCi/L or more. Single-family detached homes were four times more likely to require mitigation than multi-family homes. The survey's findings were used in constructing EPA's estimate of U.S. lung cancer risks from radon, in setting the four pCi/L action level, and in crafting testing and mitigation guidance for the American public (EPA, OAR, October 1992). : ' I • I " indicator Data Gaps and: Limitations The study is several years old and may pot reflect changes brought about as a result of significant [EPA radon public education campaigns since that time.'Since the mid-1980s, about 18 million homes have been tested for radon and about 700,000 of them have been mitigated, iln addition, since 1990 approximately one million new homesjh^ve been built with radon-resistant features. , • Data Source The data source for this indicator was National Radon Residential Survey: Summary Report EPA, 1992. (See Appendix B, page B-7, for more information.) : 1-30 1.3 Indoor Air Quality Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air ------- iercentage of homes where young children are: exposed1 to environmental tobacco smoke - Category 2 ":• •• v \- , '' :--!": '-'•" • '••'..:, " : • -v : •• •: "--j::-. .-•.-'.•-• ''•..-'•.-.':. .-. '":.-'' :.•' .- • Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)—smoke emitted from the burning end of a cigarette, pipe, or cigar, and smoke exhaled by a smoker—is a complex mix of more than 4,000 chemical com- pounds, containing many known or suspected carcinogens and toxic agents, including particles, carbon monoxide, and formaldehyde. What the Data Show The National Center for Health Statistics has conducted a major nationwide survey, known as the National Health Interview Survey, continuously since 1957. The survey estimated that in 1998, young children were exposed to ETS in 20 percent of homes in the U.S.—down from approximately 39 percent in 1986. About 43,000 households and 106,000 people participated in the survey (DHHS, NCHS, 2001). Indicator Data Gaps and Limitations The estimate is not based on a specific question about children's exposure to ETS, but rather is calculated based on the number of houses with smokers and with children. Data Source The data source for this indicator was Healthy People 2000 Final Review, Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, 2001. (See Appendix B, page B-7, for more information.) Indoor air pollutants come from a wide array of sources. In consider- ing the potential impact of these sources on indoor air quality, it is vital to recognize the exchange between indoor and outdoor air. Exchange rates vary considerably from building to building, from one part of the country to another, and by seasons. Tight building con- struction improves energy efficiency but reduces indoor-outdoor air exchange and may contribute to indoor air pollution. Among the sources of indoor air pollution are: • Combustion of fuel used for heating and cooking, including oil, gas, kerosene, coal, and wood. • Environmental tobacco smoke. • Some adhesives, paints, and coatings (building materials). • Furniture made of certain pressed wood products. • Deteriorated, asbestos-containing insulation. • Some products for household cleaning and maintenance, personal care, or hobbies. B Inadequate maintenance of central heating and cooling systems. • Radon, pesticides, and outdoor air pollution. • Biological sources, including animal dander, cockroaches, dust mites, molds, and fungi. In general, indoor air pollution can cause headaches, tiredness, dizzi- ness, nausea, and throat irritation. More serious effects include can- cer and exacerbation of chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma. The most sensitive and vulnerable population groups—the elderly, the young, and the infirm—tend to spend the most time indoors; therefore, they may face higher than usual exposures. Radon is estimated to be the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. In an EPA-sponsored study, the National Research Council (NRC) found between 15,000 and 22,000 radon-related lung can- cer deaths annually in the U.S. (NRC, 1998). Environmental tobacco smoke causes eye, nose, and throat irritation, and is a carcinogen. Children exposed to ETS are at increased risk for respiratory problems and experience increased episodes of asth- ma (Mannino, et al., 2001). In studies of lifelong nonsmoking women, there was a 24 percent excess risk of lung cancer as a result of ETS exposures from a spouse's smoking (Hackshaw, 1998). Asthma, particularly in children, is associated with poor indoor air quality. Dust mite proliferation in moist indoor environments can lead to asthma attacks. Other allergens and irritants such as animal dander, ETS, pesticide sprays, cockroach particles, and chemical fumes from household products have also been shown to increase asthma attack rates (IOM, 2000). Chapter I - Cleaner Air 1.3 Indoor Air Quality T-31 ------- Fungal spores from mold growth in moist areas in homes have been associated with health effects in occupants, including allergies and asthma (IOM, 1993). Headaches, respiratory distress, and cardiovas- cular effects are also associated with exposure to molds. No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address the human health effects associated with indoor air pollution. Stratospheric ;Ozone Although ozone is a harmful pollutant at ground level, it plays a : valuable rote in the stratosphere-the parjt of the atmosphere at an altitude of 10 to 30 km-by filtering harmful radiation from the sun. The sun's radiation bathes the Earth; in ultraviolet (UV) wave- lengths of 150 to 400 nanometers (nm).;L)ltraviolet radiation in the band between 280 and 320 nm, kno\jvn as UV-B, is harmful to most organisms. '• \ About 90 peirent of the planet's ozone at a given time is in a thin layer of the lower stratosphere called the ozone layer, which also includes other gases. Ozone is constantly [being created and destroyed by UV radiation. About 95 to 9'9 percent of UV-B radia- tion that reaches the Earth's surface is absorbed by ozone and oxy- gen in the ozone layer (NASA, 2002). j The ozone layer varies in space and time1 and is highly susceptible' to changes in atmospheric chemical reactions by which it is created and destroyed. Scientists in thej1970s and 1980s discovered that human-caused changes to the composition of the atmosphere were leading to depletion of stratospheric ozone (NASA, 2002). They initially identified cihlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as being particularly significant stratospheric ozone depleters. Scientists subsequently identjfied additional human- produced ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). This section poses four questions about sitratospheric ozone: • What are the trends in the Earth's ozorje layer? (Section 1.4.1) H What is causing changes to the ozone layer? (Section 1.4.2) • What human health effects are associated with stratospheric ozone depletion? (Section 1.4.3) : • What ecological effects are associated with stratospheric ozone depletion? (Section 1.4.4) Indicators Ozone leyels over North America M _ , The most recent authoritative assessment of the Earth's stratos- pheric ozone is the. Scientific Assessment rf Ozone Depletion: 2002 (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003), conducted under the aus- pices of the .United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The study found an average decrease of about 6 percent in average ozone concen- trations between 35 and 60 degrees Sojjth for the period 1997 to 2001, compared with pre-1980 average values. It also found an 1-32 1.4 Stratospheric Ozone c iapter I - Cleaner Air ------- average decrease of 3 percent between 35 and 60 degrees North for the same period (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003). It is generally believed that, after years of continuing thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer, the ozone layer will recover over the next several years as a result of international controls of ODSs. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), for example, restricts global manufacturing of CFCs (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003). Scientists largely agree that a thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer causes an increase in the amount of UV radiation, especially UV-B, that reaches the Earth's surface. This outcome is consistent with theories about the physical processes involved, measurable locally by ground-based and satellite-based instruments. While acknowledging high uncertainty in the estimates, it is estimat- ed that UV irradiance has increased since the early 1980s by 6 to 14 percent at more than ten sites distributed over mid and high lati- tudes of both hemispheres. Over the past two decades,,UV increases are believed to have been considerably greater at higherlatitudes. In the Northern Hemisphere, they are believed to be greater in the win- ter/spring than in the summer/fall (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003). The estimates of increasing UV-B levels are based on indirect methods and models rather than direct measurements. Because of the phase-out of ODS, total stratospheric concentrations of ODS seem to have peaked; it is believed that stratospheric ozone concentrations, near the lowest point since systematic measurements began, will not decrease any further and will eventually recover. - These developments lead to the conclusion that UV radiation levels reaching the Earth's surface are close to the maximum they will reach as a result of human-induced stratospheric ozone depletion (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003). Obtaining reliable measurements of broad trends in levels of UV radiation reaching ground level in North America, .however, is a com- plex task. It is particularly challenging to measure in ways that high- light the relationship between ozone depletion and UV radiation. The amount of incoming UV radiation is affected by several variables, including latitude, season, time of day, snow cover, sea ice cover, surface reflectivity, altitude, clouds, and aerosols. Determining which portion of any change is attributable to ozone depletion is difficult. The indicator used to address the extent of change to the ozone layer is ozone levels over North America. Ozone levels over North America, - Category I Data mapped for this indicator are derived from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS), flown on NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite. The TOMS measures amounts of backscattered UV radiation at various wavelengths. Backscattered radiation levels at wavelengths where ozone absorption does and does not take place are compared with radiation directly from the sun at the same wavelengths, allowing scientists to derive a "total ozone" amount in the Earth's atmosphere. The data for this indicator are presented in Dobson Units (DU) which measure how thick the ozone layer would be if compressed in the Earth's atmosphere (at sea level and at 0°C) One DU is defined to be 0.01 mm thickness at standard temperature and pressure. What the Data Show The ozone maps illustrate graphically and quantitatively the thin- ning of total column ozone over North America during a 15-year period. For example, in 1979, the ozone column over the Seattle area was 391 Dobson Units (DU), but in 1994 it had dropped to 360 DU. Over Los Angeles, the ozone column during that time dropped from 368 DU to 330 DU, and over Miami from 303 DU to 296 DU (Exhibit 1 -26) (NASA, March 1979 and March 1994). Although exact calculations cannot be made from Exhibit 1 -26, the graph demonstrates thinning of the ozone layer over much of the globe. In general, ozone depletion is greater at higher latitudes. Therefore, it is predictable that the decrease in the ozone layer over Seattle is greater than over Los Angeles, with the ozone layer over Miami experiencing the lowest depletion among the three cities. However, southern cities also have higher levels of UV-B, so even with less depletion, the net increase in UV-B can exceed that over northern latitudes. According to the latest estimates in the Scientific Assessment, the global-average total column ozone during 1997 to 2001 was about 3 percent below average pre-1980 values (Scientific Chapter I - Cleaner Air 1.4 Stratospheric Ozone 1-33 ------- o 'zone levels over i. "ilium IB anil11! liarBM^^ ^^^aa^si^^^^^^i^^^^smK^W^^S^^^^ pSfS: NortK America, MarcK 1979 and IVWcin 1994 - Category 1 (continue. ExKiKit 1-26: Ozone levels over NortK Art erica, 1979 and 1994 .^i.il at, i Source: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center. Total Ozone Mapp ng Spectrometer (TOMS), flown on Nimbus-7 satellite. (January 24, 2003; Available: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/glob_dep.html). Assessment Panel, 2003). Trends over North America reflect this global phenomenon. Indicator Gaps and Limitations TOMS provides no data during nighttime or during the longer periods of darkness in polar regions. Data Source The data source for this indicator was NASA, Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, flown on the Nimbus-7 satellite. March 1979 and March 1994. (See Appendix B, page B-7, for more information.) Indicators Worldwide and U.S. production of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) Concentrations of ozone-depleting substances (effective equivalent chlorine) Analyses have shown that the presence of CFCs and other ODSs was negligible before commercial production of CFCs and other ODSs began in the 1930s and 1940s (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003). The adoption of the 1987 Montreal Proijocol significantly affected production jevels, resulting in reduced concentrations of ODSs. Worldwide emissions are estimated to Have been reduced signifi- cantly, since peaking in 1993 (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003). Likewise, there have been marked decreases in U.S. emissions of ODSs over the past decade, resulting in a 79 percent decrease in total OOP-weighted emissions from 1990 to 2000 (EPA, OAP, April 2002). j j Two indicators are used to address this Question: • Worldwide and U.S. production of ODSs. m Concentration of ODSs (effective equivalent stratospheric chlorine). [ 1-34 1A Stratospheric Ozone Chapter I - Cleaner Air ------- inaicararv Worldwide and U.S. productioni of;ozone-aepleting;suDstances (ODSs) - Category 2 Worldwide ODS production estimates are derived from reports produced by each nation, as required under the Montreal Protocol and subsequent amendments. Production, consumption, and emissions of ODSs are not identi- cal; even though the ultimate destiny of a given pound of CFCs might be release to the atmosphere, a time lag is involved. ODSs initially are contained—and isolated from the atmosphere—after they are produced. They are likely to stay contained until they are consumed—for example, used as coolant in a refrigerator or as a foaming agent in polystyrene-foam hot cups. Once they are con- sumed, the ODSs still might not be released to the atmosphere until years later, such as when the cup degrades in a landfill, or when the refrigerator is disposed of or recycled (at which time the ODS may actually be reclaimed for further use). Because of these complexities, consumption and emissions figures involve significant uncertainties—they are estimated based on rates of conversion. Production figures may be more meaningful, Exhibit 1-27: Worldwide ODS production and consumption (ODi-weighted tons), 1986 and 1999 1986 1999 1,768,789 312,731 1,784,015 275,382 Source: United Nations Environment Programme, Ozone Secretariat. Product/on and Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances under the Montreal Protocol:, 1986-2000. .April 2002. - because they are compiled from data which a relatively small number of producing companies must report by law. What the Data Show There have been marked decreases in worldwide production, and consumption of ODSs over the past 2 decades (Exhibit 1 -27). Worldwide ODS production declined from approximately 1.8 million tons in 1986 to 313,000 tons in 1999 (UNEP, 2002). Worldwide measures are presented in ozone depletion potential (ODP)-weighted tons. Each ODS is weighted based on its damage to the stratospheric ozone; this is its ODP. U.S. production of selected ODSs peaked in 1988 and declined by nearly 65 percent in 5 years (Exhibit 1 - 28) (USITC, 1994). Indicator Gaps and Limitations In some cases ODS production data are reliable because laws require that they.be reported. Coverage from nation to nation is incomplete, however, and sometimes methods are inconsistent. Production estimates for the U.S. are generally reliable as a result of the legal reporting requirement for production figures and the small number of producers involved. Data Sources The data sources for this indicator were Worldwide Estimates: Production and Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances 1986- 2000, Ozone Secretariat/UNEP, 2002, and 7993 Synthetic Organic Chemicals; U.S. Production and Sales, U.S. International Trade Commission, 1994. (See Appendix B, page B-7, for more information.) Exhibit 1-28: U.j. production of selected ozone-depleting chemicals, IQ58-I993 1988 1993 Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 1993 Synthetic Organic Chemicals; U.S. Production and Sales. 7994 (July 3, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/indicat/index.htmf). CJiapter I - CJeaner /\ir 1.4 Stratospheric Ozone 1-35 ------- \_oncentrations of ozone-depleting substances leirective i" Effective equivalent chlorine (EECI), the amount of chlorine and bromine in the lower atmosphere, is used to represent concentra- tions of ozone-depleting substances. It is a convenient parameter for measuring with a single number the overall potential human effect on stratospheric ozone, EECI is derived by considering the changing concentrations of about a dozen gases that can affect the stratospheric ozone concentration. An index is then developed based on the ability of those gases to catalyze the destruction of ozone relative to the ability of chlorine to do so. The units of EECI are parts per trillion by volume. What the Data Show The Scientific Assessment states that the total effect of all ozone- depleting halogens in the atmosphere, estimated by calculating chlorine equivalents from atmospheric measurements of chlorine- Exhibit 1-29: Global total effective equivalent chlorine (EECI), 1992-2002 2000 1991 1993 199S 1997 1999 2001 Source; Updated from Montzka, Stephen A., et al. Present and future trends in the atmosp/WK bttrtltn of ozone-depleting halogens. April 1999; NQAA, Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory. Halocarbons and other Atmospheric Trace Species (HATS). 2002. March 18,2003; Mlp://w»iw.cmitinoafi,fw/rais/graphs/graphs.html). equivalent chlorine) - Category 2 and bromine-: containing gases, continues to decrease. As of mid- 2000, equivalent organic chlorine in the troposphere was nearly five percent below the peak value in 1992'to 1994 (Exhibit 1 .- 29). The recent decrease is slightly slower] than in the mid-1990s due to the reduced influence of methyl chloroform on this decline (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003). In 1996, EPA measurements indicated that concentrations of methyl chloroform had started to fall, indicating that emissions had been reduced. Concentrations of other ozone-depleting sub- stances in the: upper layers of the atmosphere, like CFCs, are also beginning to decrease. Stratospheric chloriine levels have appar- ently peaked 'and are expected to slowly decline in coming years (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). The best current estimate from computer models is that the atmospheric burden of halogens will return to 1980 levels (pre-Antarctic ozone; hole) around the mid- dle of this century if the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments are fully adhered to (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003). Indicator Caps and Limitations The precision of this indicator depends ori understanding the chemistry and behavior of the many different gases involved. For example, accurate estimates of the atmospheric lifetime of a gas are essential to assigning it the proper weight relative to other gases. As scientific understanding of atmospheric chemistry improves, calculations continue to be refined. Data Source I The data source for this indicator was Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002, Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, WMO, 2003, (See Appendix B, page B-8, for more information.) 1-36 1.4 Stratospheric Ozone Cnjapter 1 - CJeaner /\ir ------- The increased ground-level UV radiation that can result from stratos- pheric ozone depletion is expected to have significant adverse human health effects. UV-B radiation is linked to skin cancer, increased inci- dence of cataracts, and suppression of the immune system (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Approximately 1.3 million new cases of skin cancer are diagnosed every year in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Cancer Society. Malignant melanoma accounts for about 75 percent of the approximately 9,800 skin cancer deaths in the U.S. annually. The incidence rate of malignant melanoma is increasing by about 3 percent annually, although death rates have remained constant (Wingo, et al., 1999). Possible increased UV radiation levels is only one of many factors that could affect skin cancer incidence. Others include behavioral changes (people spending more time at the beach or outdoors) and changes in screening for, diagnosis of, and reporting of the disease. Data on UV-B radiation and tropospheric ozone are used to calculate benefits from accelerated phase-out schedules for ODSs. EPA Exhibit 1-30: Estimated benefits of phaseout of ozone-depleting substances • (sections 6OU, 6O6, and 609 of tne Clean Air Act) I Melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer (fatal) 6.3 million lives saved from skin cancer in the U.S. be- tween 1990 and 2165 Dose-response function based on UV exposure and demo- graphics of exposed populations1 • Melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer (non-fatal) 299 million avoided cases of non-fatal skin cancers in the Dose-response function based on UV exposure and demo- US, between 1990 and 2165 graphics of exposed populations1 27.5 million avoided cases in the U.S. between 1990 and Dose-response function uses a multivariate logistic risk function 2165 based on demographic characteristics and medical history1 American crop harvests Avoided 7.5 percent decrease from UV-b radiation by 2075 Dose-response sources: Teramura and Murali (1986), Rowe and Adams (1987) Avoided decrease from tropospheric ozone Estimate of increase in troposhpheric ozone: Whitten and Gary (1986). Dose-response source: Rowe and Adams (1987) Avoided damage to materials from UV-b radiation Source of UV-b/stabilizer relationship; Horst (1986) Skin cancer: reduced pain and suffering Reduced morbidity effects of increased UV. For example: reduced actinic keratosis (pre-cancerous lesions resulting from excessive sun exposure) reduced immune system suppression Ecological effects of UV. For example, benefits relating to the following: • recreational fishing B other crops " forests B other plant species • overall marine ecosystem x f;sn harvests avoided sea level rise, including avoided b.each erosion, loss of coastal wetlands, salinity of estuaries and aquifers 1) For more detail see EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (1988). 2) Note that the ecological effects, unlike the health effects, do not reflect the accelerated reduction and phaseout schedule of section 606. 3) Benefits due to the section 606 methyl bromide phaseout are not included in the benefits total because EPA provides neither annual incidence estimates nor a monetary value. The EPA does provide, however, a total estimate of 2,800 avoided skin cancer fatalities in the U.S. Source: EPA, Office of Air and Radiation. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 7990 to 2070. EPA Report to Congress November 1999 ' ' ' ' Lil Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air 1.4 Stratospheric Ozone 1-37 ------- estimates that between 1990 and 2165, in the U.S. alone 6.3 million fatal skin cancers, 299 million cases of non-fatal skin cancers, and 27.5 million cases of cataracts will be prevented because of the worldwide phase-out of ODSs. (EPA, OAR, November 1999) (Exhibit 1 -30). These are estimated cumulative effects, so there are no data series or trends to evaluate. No specific indicators have been identified at this time for human health effects of stratospheric ozone depletion. Iffi UV radiation in sunlight affects the physiological and developmental processes of plants. Even though plants have mechanisms to reduce or repair these effects and some ability to adapt to increased UV-B levels, UV radiation can still directly affect plant growth. It can also produce indirect effects such as changes in plant form, distribution of nutrients within the plant, timing of developmental phases, and secondary metabolism. These changes can be even more important than direct damage because of their implications for plant competi- tive balance, herbivory, plant diseases, and biogeochemical cycles (UNEP, 1994). UV radiation can also affect aquatic life. UV exposure affects both orientation mechanisms and motility in phytoplankton, resulting in reduced survival rates for these organisms. Scientists have demon- strated a direct reduction in phytoplankton production as a result of ozone depletion-related increases in UV-B (DeMora, et al., 2000). Small increases in UV-B radiation have been found to cause damage in the early developmental stages offish, shrimp, crab, amphibians, and other animals, the most severe effects being decreased repro- ductive capacity and impaired larval development Animals higher on the food chain that depend on these organisms for food could, in turn, be affected (UNEP, 1994). Increases in UV radiation could also affect terrestrial and aquatic biogeochemical cycles, and, as a result, alter both sources and sinks of greenhouse and chemically important trace gases. These potential changes would contribute to biosphere-atmosphere feedback that attenuates or reinforces the atmospheric buildup of these gases (UNEP, 1994). Synthetic polymers, naturally occurring biopolymers, and some other materials of commercial interest also are adversely affected by UV radiation, but special additives somewhat protect some modern materials from UV-B. Increases in UV-B levels nonethe- less will likely accelerate their breakdown, limiting their usefulness outdoors (UNEP, 1994). No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address the ecological effects associated with stratospheric ozone depletion. 1.5 Climate Change The issue of global climate change involves changes in the radiative balance of the Earth-the balance between energy received from the sun and emitted from the Earth. This report does not attempt to address the complexities of this issue. For information on the $1.7 billion annual U.S. Global Climate Research Program and Climate Change Research Initiative, please find (pur Changing Planet: The Fiscal Year 20,03 U.S. Global Climate Research Program (November 2002) at www.usgcrp.gov and the Draft Ten-Year Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program at www.clirhatescience.gov. : i f ! 1-38 1.5 Climate Change Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air ------- 1.6 CJiallenges and Data (Daps Outdoor Air (Duality ana Acid Deposition In general, some very good indicators of outdoor air quality exist. The national air monitoring network for the six criteria air pollutants is extensive; however, there are far more monitors in urban areas than in rural areas. Monitoring in urban areas helps to characterize popu- lation exposures, because population tends to be concentrated in ' urban areas. More rural monitoring might help scientists assess transport and ecological effects, although EPA uses additional tools and techniques (e.g., models and spatial analyses) to augment limit- ed monitoring in some areas and to better characterize pressures on ecological condition. EPA is currently conducting a national assess- ment of the existing ambient monitoring networks and is analyzing, among other issues, the need for and appropriateness of each of the nation's urban monitors. Many major metropolitan areas monitor air quality for the presence of selected air toxics. However, there is no national monitoring net- work with standard data collection guidance for air toxics; therefore, . numerous air toxics are not being measured. National assessments of levels of air toxics would benefit from a more extensive ambient monitoring network for toxics. EPA is currently working with state and local partners to design and deploy such a network. Questions still exist about how indicators of concentrations and emissions relate to exposure and human health effects. The use of one approach to determining how various air pollution levels affect health would be to use established and quantified effects and surrogates for air pollution health impacts from epidemiology stud- ies, such as asthma hospitalizations and childhood school absences. Research needs to be conducted that will develop these health endpoints into useful indicators. As highlighted in Chapter 4, Human Health, for most health out- comes other than mortality, no national systems for data collection currently exist. With regard to criteria air pollutants, it would be use- ful to track asthma and chronic respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and adverse birth outcomes. For air pollutants in general, including air toxics and indoor pollutants, the list can also include neurological diseases, developmental disabilities, reproductive disorders, and endocrine/metabolic disorders. As described in Chapter 5, Ecological Condition, there are large gaps in our ability to report on the condition of ecological systems and linkages between Indicators of atmospheric stressors and specific ecological effects. There is a need for improved monitoring information for deposition and concentrations of both criteria and toxic air pollutants to ecosystems. Data on exposure of high-eleva- tion forests and their watersheds to ozone and acid deposition are especially sparse, relative to data on lower elevations. And exposure patterns are likely to be significantly different at higher elevations because of higher acid deposition rates due to higher rainfall and fog, and less diurnal variation in ozone concentrations due to less nighttime scavenging (NAPAP, 1991). Furthermore, despite consid- erable progress, there is still no index of ozone exposure that relates optimally to plant response (EPA, NCEA, July 1996). Although mercury monitoring has begun as part of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program, the availability of data is inadequate to assess national trends (EPA, OAQPS, ORD, December 1997). There are inadequate data on indicators of actual UV exposures of ecosystems of all types. Indoor Air Ouality While environmental indicators have been developed for some aspects of indoor air, significant gaps exist in our knowledge about the conditions inside the nation's buildings. For schools and residences, a large amount of information on IAQ is available, but it is composed primarily of case studies and, at best, small regional studies. Exposure studies on a national scale would help better characterize IAQ of schools and residential indoor environments, including multiple family residences. Ideally, these studies would collect exposure data on air toxics and PM in these indoor environments, and data for the various biological contaminants found in indoor air. jtratospneric Ozone In general, high quality data exists with which to predict the human health effects of increased ultraviolet exposure resulting from depletion of the stratospheric ozone. These include robust satellite data on stratospheric ozone concentrations and UV-B levels, com- prehensive and well documented incidence and mortality rates for cutaneous melanoma, and well characterized action spectra for skin cancers and cataracts. However, there are areas where additional data would be useful. First, no national system exists that collects incidence data for squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcino- ma, the non-melanoma skin-cancers caused by increased UV-B exposure. Thus, our incidence estimates are modeled using data from a nation-wide survey of non-melanoma skin cancer incidence and mortality, and may not represent the most current non- melanoma skin cancer rates. Second, there is a lack of adequate Chapter I - Cleaner Air 1.6 Challenges and Data Gaps 1-39 ------- ground level UV monitoring with which to compare the satellite data. Satellites cannot directly measure ground level UV, and are sensitive to pollution. Therefore, while satellite data compare fairly well to ground level UV measurements in clean locations, this is not the case in polluted areas. Additional UV monitoring in cities is crucial to support future epidemiological research on the human health effects of UV-B exposure. Third, increased UV-B levels have been associated with other human and non-human endpoints including immune suppression and effects on aquatic ecosystems and agricultural crops. However, additional research on these top- ics is necessary before these effects can be modelled or quantified. Finally, the future behavior of the ozone layer will be affected by changing atmospheric abundances of various atmospheric gases. It remains unclear how these changes will affect the predicted recovery of the ozone layer. Additional research on the interaction between climate and stratospheric ozone could provide more accurate predictions of ozone recovery and the human health effects resulting from ozone depletion. I i 1-40 1.6 Challenges and Data Gaps Chapter I - Cleaner Air ------- ------- Indicators that were selected and included in this chapter were assigned to one o(, two categories: j ; ' • Category 1 -The indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by national level data coverage for r»ore than one time period. The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are characterized b^spund collection methodologies, data management systems, and quality assurance procedures. ( , j j Category 2 -The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data a, 4 available only for part of the nation (e.g multi-state 6 y . ,_..,,.. =__,:„,:_ u u=«r, ™«=,,TOH for more than one time period, or not all the parameters ol the • ^ QtCK'Wl V •• I I 1C HIVII»-afc^t m.jrf.rf»»»...j- — „_.-_.. , ... _ regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for more than regions or ecoregions), or the indicator nas not oeen meabuieu ,u, ,,,u,c ^..^ ••— ,.»•-- - , : nTator have been measured (e.g., data has been collected for birds, but not f>r plants or insects). The supporting data are comparable across the areas covered, and are characterized by sound collecticfrmethodolog.es, data management systems, and quality assurance procedures. ------- 2.0 Introduction Our nation's water resources have immeasurable value. Animals, plants, and ecosystems depend on clean and abundant water, without which they could not exist. Humans, too, need clean water to drink, to grow food, and to produce goods and services. Clean water generates billions of dollars for the economy each year. Water resources provide opportunities for families to swim and fish, and wetlands protect homes and property against floods. Rivers, lakes, wetlands, and coastal waters provide critical habitats for many species and serve as nurseries for many of the valued commercial and recreational fisheries. Water beneath the water table in fully saturated soils and geological formations, known as ground water, provides half the nation with drinking water. An increasing tide of pressures has compromised the health of many waterbodies. In the early 20th century, industrial growth and an expanding population left behind a legacy of pollution. After the burning of Ohio's Cuyahoga River—so polluted with oil and debris that it caught fire—Congress passed the landmark Clean Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These acts and other laws brought to bear strong regulatory and financial tools to clean up polluted surface waters and ensure that public water systems provide safe drinking water. Thanks to these significant investments, pollutant discharges into our ' nation's waters have been substantially reduced and the safety of public water supplies has improved (EPA, OW, December 1999). Nevertheless, significant water pollution problems persist and threats to drinking water remain. Today, discharges from industry and sewage treatment plants, together with pollution from many other sources—including, agricultural lands, residential areas, city streets, forestry operations, and pollutants settling out of the air—continue to degrade our nation's waters. Other stresses also threaten water quality. These include landscape modification, introduction of invasive species, changes in flow patterns, and over-harvesting offish and other aquatic organisms. Adequately maintained water infrastructure will be essential to sustain the water quality gains of the past 30 years and to address challenges to water quality and delivery of safe drinking water in the coming years. By achieving a better understanding of the condition of our nation's waters, we will be able to make informed decisions about how to protect and preserve our water infrastructure. This chapter summarizes what is generally understood about the current status and trends in water quality, the pressures affecting water quality, and information regarding associated human health and ecological effects. It poses fundamental questions about water quality, sources of pollution, and health and ecological effects, and it uses indicators drawn from well-reviewed data sources to help answer those questions. Exhibit 2-1 lists these questions and indicators, as well as the number of the chapter section where each indicator is presented. The questions addressed in this chapter are divided into four categories: • Waters and watersheds, discussed in Section 2.2. • Drinking water, discussed in Section 2.3. • Recreation in and on the water, discussed in Section 2.4. • Consumption offish and shellfish, discussed in Section 2.5. Section 2.1 provides information on the extent and use of our nation's water resources. Section 2.6 reviews the challenges and data gaps that remain in assessing the condition of our nation's water resources. The key sources of data used to support these indicators vary and are described in each section. Some of the primary data sources that contribute directly or indirectly to indicators throughout this chapter include data from EPA and other federal agencies. Predominant EPA programs or data sets supporting the indicators in this chapter include the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP); the National Sediment Quality Inventory; the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS); the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches; and the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA). Other national programs that provide data for the indicators described in this chapter include the: • U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS's) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) studies of the status and trends of wetlands resources. • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS's) National Resources Inventory (NRI). • National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs. Many of these data sets have been compiled and summarized in a report titled The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, developed by the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment (The Heinz Center, 2002). Gaps in the data exist that make it difficult or impossible to answer some of the questions posed about the condition of our nation's waters. Data gaps and limitations are described under each question and at the end of this chapter. Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.0 Introduction 2-3 ------- ^.m.^.^.i-™™™, ««-'-, ,•••„- -,B-,,,I,,,,ir 'I 1 „ " •"'',""»"" '', • -n.i-1 v '• : ,,,],, „.„„',,.- ,i. ...ll ; ' ' ,„" - 7" ,\|Sft^«h ^ ,N>I«I- -">•'''!. Jlriu. 'I11?; •' -jjlln-Jlll, Kf 'HiNilPlu, 'III, ,- "Mf ^ ,,$^1 H'l i1 I, . • . . '!,,,,'!!' •'" " • i, ' Sediment contamination of inland waters Sediment contamination of coastal waters Sediment toxicity in estuaries . Fish Index of Biotic Integrity in streams Also see Ecological Condition chapter , Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity index for streams Also see Ecological Condition chapter Benthic Community Index for coastal waters Also see Ecological Condition chapter 1 sLv ..: : ,.;;,., M ,:,:,, 2 2 •\ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.2.1 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.2 b.3 fi.2.3 2.2.3 £.2.3 \|2.2.4.a J2.2.4.3 2.2.4.a 2.2.4.a , 2.2.4.a 2.2.4.a p.2.4.b 2.2.4.b 2.2.4.b 2.2.4.b ;2.2.4.b J2.2.4.b I2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C ~l 2.2.4.C J2.2.4.C 2.2.5 2.2.5 2.2.5 i • '• --" ' : ' 2-4 2.0 Introduction c lapter 2 - furer Water ------- Drinking Water What is the quality of drinking water? What are sources of drinking water contamination? What human health effects are associated with drinking 8 contaminated water? Population served by community water systems that meets all health-based standards No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Human Health chapter Recreation in and on the Water Consumption of Fish and Shellfish What is the condition of waters that support consumption of fish and shellfish? What are contaminants in fish and shellfish, and where do they originate? •^ What human health effects are associated with consuming contaminated fish and shellfish? Percent of river miles and lake acres under fish consumption advisories Contaminants in fresh water fish Number of watersheds exceeding health-based national water quality criteria for mercury and PCBs in fish tissue .^—^ — No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified — — No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Human Health chapter 1 23.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 What is the condition of waters supporting recreational use? What are sources of recreational water pollution? indicators identified What human health effects-are associated with recreation in No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified contaminated waters? Also see Human Health chapter 2.5.1 2.5.1 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.0 Introduction 2-5 ------- 2.1 Extent and Use of Water Resources Our nation's water resources, which consist of both surface waters and ground water, are critical to both human activities and the functioning of ecological systems: • Surface waters, such as rivers, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, wetlands, riparian (river and stream) areas, and estuarine areas, are fundamental components of ecological systems described in this report. They are also important sources of fresh water for human use, including drinking water, recreation, wastewater treatment, industrial usage, livestock, and irrigation. Wetlands and riparian areas help provide clean water, reduce flooding, and support critical fish and wildlife habitat. • Ground water, one of our nation's most important natural resources, provides about 40 percent of the U.S. public water supply and much of the rural water supply, which comes primarily from domestic wells. Ground water also is the source of much of the water used for irrigation, is the principal reserve of fresh water, and represents much of our nation's potential future water supply. Ground water may contribute as much as 40 percent of all stream flow in the eastern U.S. (Alley, et al., 1999). Extent of Ground Water and Fresh Water Resources Ground water comprises about 25 percent of all fresh water on Earth. By contrast, surface water and soil moisture consti- tute less than one percent of the world's fresh water (Alley, et al., 1999) (the remaining 75 percent is stored in polar ice and glaciers). The Great Lakes, which cover 60.2 million acres, hold about 18 percent of the globe's fresh surface water (Environment Canada and EPA, 1995). The lower 48 states (conterminous U.S.) contain: g About half of our nation's 41.6 million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. • About 3.7 million miles of streams and rivers (EPA, OW, June 2000). H An estimated 105.5 million acres of wetlands as of the mid- 1990s (Dahl, 2000). Alaska has an estimated 170 million acres of wetlands, which cover approximately 45 percent of the state. Hawaii has nearly 52,000 acres of wetlands (Dahl, 1990). U.S. coastal waters include 66,645 miles of coastline and 57.9 million acres of estuarine surface area (EPA, OW, June 2000). Ground water and surface water are closely\| related and, in many areas, constitute a singe resource. Both are\| recharged through precipitation. The U.S. receives enough annjua! precipitation to cover • the entire country to a depth of 30 inches \| (known as the U.S. water budget), though the eastern U.S. receives rjnore rainfall than the western part of the country. Over two-thircjs (21 inches) of this precipitation returns to the water cycle through evapotranspiration. The rest becomes surface water, ground water, or soil moisture. Water use is an important dynamic that can impact both the quantity and quality of available fresh water resources. Accurate information about water use helps planners and managers make informed decisions about our nation's water resources. With this information, they can project future water [demand and better assess the effectiveness of alternative water-management policies, regulations, and conservation activities. > ; States report their water use to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in five mutually Delusive categories: B Public water supply use—water withdrawn by public and private water suppliers and delivered to homes and businesses for drinking, commercial, and industrial uses. j • Self-suppliert water—water for domestic uj>e and for livestock that is not drawn 'torn the public supply. ,, j • Irrigation—-th\s includes application toicrpps, pastures, and recre- ational lands such as parks and golf courses. • ThermoeleMc use—that is, water used for cooling during electric power generation. ' m Industrial use—this includes self-suppliec) water for fabrication, pro- ; cessing, cooling, and washing (including commercial and mining uses). The USGS coordinates the national watef use compilation effort and publishes the results every five years in tile circular series Estimated Use of Water in the U.S. Withdrawals are:reported in billions of gallons of water per day for the five use (Categories. Sources of information and accuracy of water-use !da\|ta vary by state and by water-use category (The Heinz Center,:2002). The USGS (Solley, et al., 1998) estimatejd'that: H Total withdrawals of fresh water andisaline water during 1995 were 402,000 million gallons per day (Mga[l/d) for all water-use categories (public supply, domestic,; commercial, irrigation, livestock, industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power). • Total fresh water withdrawals were an ^stimated 341,000 Mgal/d. About 100,000 Mgal/d (29.3 percent) of this was consumed, and the rest (241,000 Mgal/d, or 70j7 percent) was returned. 1 I From 1960 to 1980, total water use, as well as the water use for each majoruse category, increased. Hpvjrever, from 1980 to 1995, total water use, as well as usage in several individual categories declined, though water used for public supply continued to grow (Exhibit 2-2). The two largest uses of wjater in the U.S.—irrigation and'coolinj; (during electric power generation)—were responsible for much of the decline in total use between 1980 and 1995. 2-6 2.1 Extent and Use of Water Resources Chapter 2 - furer Water ------- Decreases in withdrawals by self-supplied industrial users also con- tributed to the overall decline. In many areas of the U.S., withdrawal of ground water has significantly depleted ground water reserves. Since ground water and surface water are closely related, this depletion can reduce river flows, lower lake levels, and reduce discharges to wetlands and springs. These reductions may, in turn, affect drinking water supplies, riparian areas, and critical aquatic habitats (Alley, et al., 1999). \|n the southwestern U.S., for example, the High Plains aquifer covers 174,000 square miles under eight states stretching from South Dakota to Texas. By 1999, an estimated 220 million acre-feet (270 cubic kilometers, or something over half the amount of water contained in Lake Erie) had been removed (USGS, 2002), primarily for irrigation. I [:,. ra r "o p-fc I" Q_ U c Mr ' "Wl ' C g a. ^- - ' 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 .50 0 Source of Freshwater -Withdrawals " _~._fr~:-.^--.. - . ..-. ' . _' - - . ,- , Surface Water -_~~-=sci-- ^T. Ground Water \| ; txhibit 2-2: Sources of fresh water withdrawals, 1960-1995 400 350 >, -3 300 s. £ 250 _o \| 200 in J 150 3 100 50 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Coverage: all SO.states Source: Solley et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 7995. 1 998, Freshwater Withdrawals Irrigation Thermoelectric - Rural I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 195 Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.1 Extent and Use of Water Resources 2-7 ------- 2.2 Waters and Watersheds A watershed is the area that drains to a common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary, wetland, or ultimately the ocean. It is a land feature that is identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations (often a ridge) between two areas on a map. Watersheds come in all shapes and sizes, and smaller watersheds drain into larger watersheds which may cross county, state, and national boundaries. For example, a small stream running through a farmer's field in Pennsylvania may drain only a few acres within the larger Susquehanna River watershed, which in turn is a portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which extends across six states and the District of Columbia. The watershed's natural processes (e.g., rainfall runoff, ground water recharge, sediment transport, plant succession) provide beneficial services when functioning properly, but may cause ecological and physical (flooding) disasters when misunderstood and disrupted. Watersheds are subject to many different pressures (or "stressors"), including pollution and human activities (see Exhibit 2-3). Because of their many influences on water quality, watersheds are often the focus of efforts to manage water use and reduce pollution. Traditionally, managers have focused on reducing pollution from specific sources (such as sewage discharges) or within specific water resources (such as river segments or wetlands). This approach successfully reduces pollutant loads, but often does not adequately address the combined concentration of multiple sources that contribute to a watershed's decline. For example, pollution from a sewage treatment plant might be reduced significantly after a new Exhibit 2-3: Selected activities affecting water, watersheds and drinking water resources Air deposition Urban and suburban activities Forestry Agricultural P™ctkes practices technology is installed, and yet the local river may still suffer if other factors in the watershed, such as habitat destruction or non-point source pollution, are not addressed. Watershed management can offer a stronger foundation than more traditional segmented approaches fqr elucidating the many stressors that affect a watershed ami for developing effective ma lagement strategies to protect water resources. ; I Section 2.2 addresses five questions about our nation's waters and watersheds: j H What is the condition of fresh surface waters and watersheds in theUS.? ,.'... , ' .. ' i • What are the extent and condition of wetlands? H What is the condition of coastal waters?" \| What are pressures to water quality? \ • What ecological affects are associated ^ith impaired waters? [ Loss of wetlands and the diversion of strejam flows are important to understand and quantify condition. Coition, which is addressed in the first three questions, is a function of the quality, extent, and location of the water and how that water equality affects the condition of the biotic resources that depend on that water. To answer questions about condition, a watershed's extent, as well as its chemical, physical, and biological attributes, must be defined. Section 2.2 addresses extent and chemical and physical attributes. Chapter 5, Ecological Condition, describes the biotic condition of waters and watersheds.: Indicators Altered jjresh water ecosystems Lake Trophic State Index Because the components of condition vjary naturally, condition is most often defined as a trend in concentrations or as concentrations relative to standards adopted by state Agencies or set by EPA. Only a few programs collect information on the; condition of waters at a national scale. One of the most widespread among these programs is EPA's state;data collection and reporting program, mandated under Section 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act' (CWA), and the associated biennial National Water Quality Inventory (NWQI). At this time, however, these data cannot be used to produce a national indicator that can answer this question with sufficient confidence and scientific credibility because the programs vary greatly from state to state in the: H Percentage of waters assessed. • Monitoring approaches used. 2-8 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Chapter2-Purer Water , I ------- • Water quality standards upon which the assessments are based • Water quality characteristics measured in those assessments. The CWA vests responsibility in states, territories, and tribes to assess the health of their waters at least every two years. The purpose of these assessments is to determine if the water quality in different areas is supporting "designated uses," which are defined under state procedures and approved by EPA. Typical state designated uses include aquatic life protection, drinking water supplies, fish and shellfish consumption, recreation, and agricultural, industrial, and domestic uses. Because'of the high cost of monitoring, states, territories, and tribes typically collect data and information for only a portion of their waterbodies. Their programs and sampling techniques differ. Compounding these differences is the fact that states also have the responsibility to set water quality standards, many of which differ between states. States monitor water quality to identify and address problems, and they often place a higher priority on immediate management concerns than on characterizing all their water resources. These issues limit the ability to use CWA-mandated state data to describe water quality conditions at the national level. Two indicators, "altered fresh water ecosystems" and "lake trophic state," partially address the question of the quality of the nation's waters. These indicators are somewhat limited at this time, but they do show that 23 percent of fresh water resources have been altered physically to some degree and that 22 percent of northeastern U.S. lakes exhibit eutrophic conditions. In addition to the CWA 30S(b) reporting program, several other exist- ing programs also contribute to our understanding of the condition of aquatic resources: The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) National Water Quality Assessment(NAWQA) program is a perennial program designed to provide consistent descriptions of the status and trends of some of the largest and most important streams and aquifer systems of the nation and to link the status and trends to the natural and human factors that affect water quality. The program involves physical, chemical, and biological assessments of 42 large hydrologic systems, which are-conducted on staggered 10-year cycles. These assessments include targeted sampling designs to measure stream flow, habitat, water, sediment, and tissue chemistry, and to characterize algae, invertebrate, and fish communities. NAWQA studies cover watersheds and aquifers contributing a high percentage of the water used in the U.S. The NAWQA program has made valuable contributions in documenting the close relationship between land use, chemicals used in watersheds (e.g., for urban/industrial or agricultural activities), and the presence and concentrations of chemicals found in streams and ground water. . EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) conducts representative sampling of estuarine and stream resources and incorporates biological measures in condition estimates. Geographic coverage for fresh water resources is limited to the mid-Atlantic region and the western states. Coverage of estuarine resources has been primarily limited to coastal areas on the East Coast south of Cape Cod, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in some western states. EMAP data on biological condition have been report- ed for fish and macroinvertebrates in Mid-Atlantic Highland streams and for macrobenthos in East Coast and Gulf of Mexico estuaries. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Status and Trends program (NS&T) collects information on the chemical contamination of sediments and organisms and potential biological effects in the nation's coastal areas. Sampling of sediments .and bivalves was initiated in the mid-1980s from over 250 sites along the U.S. coast in areas not considered to be heavily pol- luted. On a national scale, the higher levels of contamination in sedi- ments are clearly associated with the urbanized areas of the north- east states and with areas near San Diego, Los Angeles, and Seattle on the West Coast Except at a few sites, higher levels of sediment contamination are relatively rare in the Southeast and along the Gulf of Mexico coast. The Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS's) National Resources Inventory (NRI) is a statistically-based sample of land use and natural resource conditions and trends on U.S. non-federal lands. NRI collects data on land cover and use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity, selected conservation practices, and related resource attributes. Many of the resource inventories have recognized relationships to water quality. The NRI provides comprehensive data on land use on the 1.5 billion acres of non-federal lands which are made up of roughly equal parts of rangeland (27 percent), forest land (27 percent), and cropland (25 percent). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS's) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) project produces information on the characteristics and extent of the nation's wetlands that is used by the USFWS to produce status and trends reports. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act requires USFWS to update this information at 10-year intervals. Data collected from over 4,300 randomly selected sample plots provide important long-term trend information about specific changes in wetland extent, where those changes take place, and the overall status of wetlands in the U.S.. Data are produced by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, which has mapped 89 percent of the conterminous U.S. USFWS results are discussed further in Section 2.2.2 of this chapter. These programs portray a general picture of widespread fresh water ' and coastal wetland loss, of water quality widely impacted by stream bank habitat loss, and of chemical contamination as urban land uses ancl agriculture encroach into riparian areas. They show that the abun- dance of nutrients from agriculture and atmospheric sources impacts coastal areas, with 40 percent of estuaries exhibiting eutrophic condi- tions (high nutrient concentrations and algae production), and some estuaries also experiencing hypoxia (insufficient oxygen levels to sup- port marine life) and reduced water clarity. Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2'Waters and Watersheds 2-9 ------- Pesticides from agricultural and urban areas are found widely in surface waters, and residues from past chemical uses are found in sediments and fish tissue. Mercury and mercury compounds are foremost among pollutants contaminating fish. Bacterial contamination is found throughout surface waters used for drinking, although treatment of public water supplies is an effective barrier to protect human health. Contamination of swimming beaches by bacteria, however, continues to be a concern. An improved ability to report on the condition of surface waters will require a collaboration of states, tribal authorities, and federal agencies. This may involve a nationally coordinated program/Under Section 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to report on the condition of their waterways. This requirement could serve as a platform upon which national condition estimates could be compiled using a consistent sample design approach and comparable data collection and analysis procedures. EPA has long sought to increase the coverage of water quality assessments made and submitted biannually in conformance with Section 305 (b) of the CWA. Historically, states have employed monitoring programs with sampling methods targeted to known problem areas that exhibit well-defined point and non-point pollution sources. While these approaches are effective in relating pollution sources to water quality conditions, they cannot accurately represent both the extent and condition of water quality problems and resources. EPA issued guidance on water quality assessments in 1997 (EPA, OW, September 1997), and produced a major supplement to this guidance in 2002 (EPA, OW, July 2002). These documents describe a comprehensive assessment as an evaluation of water resources that covers a complete geographic area or resource; provides information on the resource condition and spatial and temporal trends in the resource condition; and identifies the stressors (causes) and sources of pollution. The approach to these assessments is defined as either a complete survey (census), a judgmental or targeted design, or a statistical survey (probability- based) using randomly selected sample locations that allow researchers to make valid inferences about the condition of the water resource. The targeted approach is effective for relating specific pollution sources to water-condition and is used in guiding pollution abatement, whereas the statistical/census survey approaches provide a complete or representative assessment of the entire resource. In 2000.14 states reported that they had monitored and assessed more than 95 percent of their lakes, and 10 states reported that they had assessed at least 98 percent of their rivers. Two years. later, in 2002, three states reported that they had made these assessments using a statistically valid sampling design. Several states are engaged in multi-year studies that are adding probabilistic surveys to their assessments. Examples of states that are collecting data from statistically-based monitoring networks are described in the sidebar. Statistically-based water quality monitoring in states: Two examples j I Indiana , ! I In its 2002 State of the Environment Report, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management'(IDEM) used a sta- tistical su[vey to assess stream water quality by major water- sheds. Historically, IDEM assessed 6^000 to 8,000 miles of stream e>jlry two years. Beginning in 1996, 20 percent of the state's streams Were sampled each year in its watershed moni- toring program and then assessed for ihe ability to support aquatic life. The results allowed IDEM to estimate the water quality W thin each major water basin 'in the state. IDEM reports His data with 95 percent confidence. Accuracy varies between aasins, but is Between 11 anci 16 percent. Of the 3 5,430 stream miles assessed over the past five years, approximately 64.5 percent were estimated to fully support the maintenance of welLbalanced aquatic communities. Fish and benlhic macroinvertebrate community'assessments provid- ed a measurement of adverse response to stressors. -Some of the com nunity responses included'loss of sensitive species, lack of Diversity, and increase in tolerant species. As a result, several rundred stream miles were classified as not fully sup- porting aquatic life based on the fish'and macroinvertebrate commurity surveyed. AAarylana The Maijyland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) uses a probability- based survey design to assess the states of biological resources in Maryland's non-tidal streams. The state intends to: B Characterize biological resources and ecological conditions. • Assets theJ condition" of these resources. • Idenjify the likely sources of degradation. The state has developed an interim framework for applying biocrite- ria in t^ state's water quality inventory (305 [b] report) and list of impairetwaters (303 [d] list). To date,'the proposed biocriteria for wadeafclie, non-tidal (first to fourth-order) streams rely on two bio- logical 'indicators from tne MBSS; the fish and benthic indices of biotic (integrity (IBls). The approach'centers on identifying impaired waterbjodies at the Maryland 8-digit watershed and 12-digit subwa- tershec levels. A preliminary evaluati nary evaion using MBSS 2000 data was conducted to watersheds failing to meetth4 requirements of the interim eria framework: For a portion of the state, three 8-digit water- [hat were assessed passed, and six were inconclusive. Of the rsheds sampled at the 12^-digit subwatershed level, 69 32 passed, and' 22 were inconclusive. !' 2-10 2.2 Waters and Watersheds IKapter 2 - Purer Water ------- Altered fresli water ecosystems - Category 2 Physically altering a fresh waterbody can change its character and the benefits it provides local communities and land owners Fresh waterbodies may be altered to increase some other benefit— for example, to control floods; improve navigation; reduce erosion- increase the available area for farming, livestock grazing, or devel- opment; and increase the amount of water available for drinking and industrial purposes. However, these alterations also change fish and wildlife habitat, disrupt patterns and timing of waterflows serve as barriers to animal movement, and reduce or eliminate the natural filtering of sediment and pollutants. In addition water usage, particularly in the arid West, but also in suburban areas that rely on wells, may deplete aquifers and thus cause permanent damage to the physical characteristics of surface water resources including reduced base flows. The altered fresh water ecosystems indicator reports the percentage of each of the major fresh water ecosystems (rivers and streams, riparian areas, wetlands, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs) that are altered. "Altered" is defined differently for each of these ecosystems: • Streams and rivers (all flowing surface waters) are altered if they are leveed or channelized or impounded behind a dam. • Riparian zones along rivers and streams are considered altered if they are used for urban or agricultural purposes. • Lakes and reservoirs are considered altered if any portion of the area immediately-adjacent to the shoreline is either urban or agricultural land. Since there is no agreed-upon proportion of shoreline that must be in these land use categories to classify an mdividual lake as "altered," this indicator simply reports the overall percentage of lake or reservoir shoreline with agricultural or urban land use in the shoreline zone. (Note that, at present, data for lakes and reservoirs are aggregated, even though a reservoir is a man-made structure or seriously altered habitat If,' in the future, natural lakes can be.distinguished from reservoirs ' these may be reported separately. In this case, the number or ' percent of natural lakes whose waterflow has been altered by damming would also be reported.) • Wetlands are considered altered if they are excavated, impounded, diked, partially drained, or farmed (Cowardin, et al., 1979). What the Data Show Data reported for this indicator were produced using remote sensing imagery and the USCS stream/lake database (National Hydrography Data Set). These data characterize areas adjacent to a waterbody at a resolution of about 100 feet across. Thus they present the general land cover surrounding a lake or stream rather than a fine-scale picture of the exact composition of a shoreline or bank. The available data indicate that 23 percent of the banks of both nvers and streams (riparian areas) and lakes and reservoirs have either croplands or urban development in the narrow area immedi- ately adjacent to them. Data on the degree to which streams and rivers are channelized, leveed, or impounded are not available. - Dahl (2000) does provide some information on the extent to which wetlands are altered. For example, from 1986 to 1997- • A total of 78,100 acres (31,600 hectares) of forested wetlands were converted to fresh water ponds. • Human activities, "such as creating new impoundments or raising the water levels on existing impoundments (thus killing the trees), created conversions to deep water lakes. • Additionally, fresh water unconsolidated shores exhibited an 8 percent gain in acreage or about 32,000 acres (13,000 hectares). This was. due, in part, to peat mining operations that removed the wetland vegetation and exposed the substrate. Because these areas were not drained, they remained wetland, but their classification was changed from "fresh water shrub bogs" to "fresh water unconsolidated shores." Indicator Caps and Limitations There is no nationally aggregated database that records the num- ber of impounded or leveed river miles. As noted above, there is . also no method for calculating the extent of downstream effects of .dams, other than by conducting site-specific investigations for each dam. At present, there are no nationally aggregated databases that list whether natural lakes are dammed at their outlets. It is possible that existing databases on dam locations, such as those main- tained by the US. Army Corps of Engineers, could be merged with other datasets, such as the National Hydrography Data Set (MHD), to derive this information. Data on the alteration of rivers and streams are not collected in a ' manner that allows for aggregation to provide a national perspective. Data Source Data on altered wetlands are available only in paper form on a quad-sheet by quad-sheet basis. The data sources for this indicator were the: • Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium and U S Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset, processed by Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-T1 ------- SjfjJiliSllillSMisls^^ i F Altered fresh, water ecosystems - Category 2 (continuecjl , ^ ; : n—:ILI the EPA's Office of Research and Development (National Exposure Research Laboratory). Lake Trophic State Index - Category 2 Lakes can be divided into three categories based on trophic state: oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic. These categories reflect a lake's nutrient and clarity levels. • Oligoirophlc lakes are generally clear, deep, and free of weeds or large algae blooms. They are low in nutrients and do not sup- port large numbers offish. Oligotrophic lakes often develop a food chain capable of sustaining a very desirable fishery of large game fish. • Eutrophic lakes are high in nutrients and support a large biomass (all the plants and animals living in a lake). They are usually either weedy, or subject to frequent algae blooms, or both. Eutrophic lakes often support large fish populations, but are also susceptible to oxygen depletion. A subcategory, hyper- irophic lakes, is used below to describe lakes that are extremely eutrophic (i.e., very nutrient-enriched), resulting in particularly high productivity (Peterson, et al., 1999). • Mesotropbic lakes lie between the oligotrophic and eutrophic stages. A natural aging process occurs in all lakes, causing them to change from oligotrophic to eutrophic over time. This process is acceler- ated by nutrient enrichment from agriculture, lawn fertilizers, streets, septic systems, and urban storm drains. Various methods are used to calculate the trophic state of lakes. Common characteristics used to determine trophic state are: total phosphorus concentration (important for algae growth); concen- tration of chlorophyll a (a measure of the amount of algae pres- ent); and secchi disc readings (an indicator of water clarity). No national data regarding the trophic state of lakes are available. However, regional patterns of lake trophic condition were assessed for a target population of 11,076 northeast lakes, which were sampled during the summers of 1991 to 1994 using a trophic state index based primarily on their nutrient or total phosphorus (TP) concentrations (Peterson, et al., 1999). A total of 344 lakes were sampled once. \| Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish ancj Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory (See Appendix B, page B-9, for more information.). j. I - The following trophic state categories wefe established based on total phosphorus concentrations: • Oligotrophic for nutrient poor (less than 10 parts per billion [ppb]). ; I . U Mesotrophic to denote nutrient concentrations sufficient to support natural algal communities (frojri 10 to 30 ppb). II Eutrophic for enriched nutrient conditions (from 30 to 60 ppb). llHypertropWcforvery nutrient-enriched (greater than 60 ppb). What tlhe Data Show i The trophic state analysis (Exhibit 2-4) phowed that 37.9 percent of the northeast lakes were oligotroph'icj 40.1 percent were - mesotrophic, 12.6 percent were eutro'prjic, and 9.3 percent were hypertrophic (Peterson, et al., 1999). ; f" "B^pt 2-4: Tropnic State Index for northeast lakes, 2-12 2.2 Waters and Watersheds lapter 2 - Purer Water ------- Lake Trophic State'index - Category 2 (continued) Indicator Gaps and Limitations These data reflect a one-time sample of lakes in one region, the Northeast, and cannot be extrapolated to the national scale or provide trends data. Also, trophic status in and of itself does not .necessarily imply that water quality problems exist (i.e., that olig- otrophy is a common natural state). Data Source The data source for this indicator was the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Lakes Data Set. (See Appendix B, page B-9, for more information.) Indicators Wetland extent and change Sources of wetland change/loss When European settlers first arrived, wetland acreage in the area that would become the 48 states was more than 220 million acres, or about five percent of the total area of the conterminous U.S. More than one- half of the wetlands in the conterminous U.S. have been lost or convert- ed to other uses since pre-colonial times. However, in as little as four recent decades, the rate of wetland loss has declined dramatically, from about 500,000 acres per year to less than 100,000 acres per year (Dahl, 2000). By 199? total wetland acreage was estimated to be 105.5 million acres (Dahl, 2000). Almost 50 percent of wetland loss occurring in the 1990s was due to conversion to urban and suburban development. Wetland ecosystems are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support (and that under normal circumstances do support) a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil . conditions. There are different types of wetlands, including: fresh water wetlands, inland wetlands, and coastal wetlands (see glossary for definitions). These habitats provide many benefits to humans and ecological systems. For example, wetland habitats are critical to the life cycles of many plants and fish, shellfish, migratory birds, and other wildlife. They provide essential breeding habitat for roughly one- quarter of all North American breeding bird species (Davis, 2000). In 1997, it was estimated that 81 percent (72 species) of the U.S. bird species on the Endangered Species List were dependent on or associated with wetlands (Day Boylan and MacLean, 1997). An estimated 95 percent of commercial fish and 85 percent of sport fish spend a portion of .their life cycles in coastal wetland and estu- arine habitats. Adult stocks of commercially harvested shrimp, blue crab, oysters, and many other species throughout the U.S. (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001) are directly related to wetland qua'lity and quantity (EPA, OW, OWOW, March 2002). More than half of all U.S. adults (98 million people) hunt, fish, birdwatch, or photograph 1 wildlife (USFWS, 2002). Many of these activities are associated with healthy wetlands. Wetlands also filter residential, agricultural, and industrial wastes, thereby improving surface water quality. They buffer coastalareas against storm and wave damage. Wetlands function as natural sponges that trap and slowly release surface water, rain, snowmelt, ground water, and flood waters. Trees, root mats, and other wetland vegetation also slow the speed of flood waters and distribute them more slowly over the floodplain. This combined water storage and braking action lowers flood heights and reduces erosion. Wetlands within and downstream of urban areas are particularly valuable, counteracting the greatly increased rate and volume of surface water runoff from pavement and buildings. The holding capacity of wet- lands helps control floods and prevents water logging of crops. Preserving and restoring wetlands can often provide the level of flood control otherwise provided by expensive dredge operations and levees. For example, the bottomland hardwood-riparian wetlands along the Mississippi River once stored at least 60 days of flood water. Now these wetlands store only 12 days of flood water because most have been filled or drained (EPA, OW, December 1995). Wetlands are diverse. Inland wetlands are most common on flood- . plains along rivers and streams (riparian wetlands), in isolated depressions surrounded by dry land (e.g., playas, basins, and "pot- holes"), along the margins of lakes and ponds, and in other low-lying areas where the ground water intercepts the soil surface orwhere precipitation sufficiently saturates the soil (e.g., vernal pools and bogs). Inland wetlands include marshes and wet meadows dominated by herbaceous plants, swamps dominated by shrubs, and wooded swamps dominated by trees. Many wetlands are seasonal (i.e., they are dry one or more seasons every year). In fact, particularly in the arid and semiarid West, wetlands may be wet only periodically. The quantity of water present and the timing of its presence in part determine the functions of a wetland and its role in the environment. Even wetlands that appear dry at times for significant parts of the Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-13 ------- !!!!!!!!!i!!!!!!!!!!!i!™9i iiiiiiiiuli li ensure that both wetland extent and condition can be properly described in the future. i Wetland extent and change - Category 1 Two programs, the USFWS NWI status and trends studies and the NRCS NRI, estimate wetland extent. The USFWS surveys all wetlands in the conterminous U.S. The NRI surveys wetlands on non-federal lands, which make up approximately 75 percent of the nation's land base. The methods employed differ, but the Statistical results from the most recent survey period were not significantly different. USFWS data are used for the "wetland extent and change" indicator due to their broader coverage. This indicator is derived from three separate analyses: one covering the 1950s to the 1970s; one covering the 1970s to 1980s, and one covering the 1980s to the 1990s. The USFWS counts all wetlands every 10 years, regardless of land ownership, but only recognizes wetlands that are at least three acres. A permanent study design is used, based initially on stratification of the 48 conterminous states by state boundaries and 35 physiographic subdivisions. Within these subdivisions are 4,375 randomly selected, four-square-mile (2,560 acres) sample plots. These plots were examined with the use of aerial imagery, ranging in scale and type; most were 1:40,000 scale, color Infrared, from the National Aerial Photography Program. Field verification was conducted to address questions of image inter- pretation, land use coding, and attribution of wetland gains or losses; plot delineations were also completed. For example, for the 1980s to 1990s analysis, 21 percent of the sample plots were verified. What the Data Show : When European settlers first arrived, wetjarjd acreage in the area that would become the 48 states was more than 220 million acres, or about five percent of the total area of the conterminous U.S. Since then, extensive losses have occurred, and over half of our original wetlands have been-drained and filled. By 1997, total wetland acreage ', was estimated to be 105.5 million acres '(CJahl, 2000). Of that total, nearly 95 percent or 100.2 million acres Were fresh water and about five percent or 5.3 million acres were int:erj:idal marine and estuarine. Between 1986 and 1997, 98 percent of'allj wetland losses in the con- terminous U.S. were fresh water wetlands.; Rates of annual wetland losses have been decreasing from almost 500,000 acres a year three decades ago to less than 100,000 acres, averaged annually since 1986 (Exhibit 2-5). The USFWS estimated the annual rate of loss at 58,500 acres per year between 1S86 and 1997. This represent^ an 80 percent reduction compared to the previous decade's ratejof loss. The slower rate of wetland loss is due to several factors, including: • Federal farm policies that discourage drainage and encourage restoration. j II More effective government regulation. H Better land stewardship. • ; H Acquisition and protection of sensitive environmental areas. H More state, tribal, and local involvement in wetland protection programs. 2-14 2.2 Waters and Watersheds tnapter 2 - Purer Water : ------- Wetland extent and cnange - Category:1 (continued1) Exhibit 2-5: Average annual wetland loss, 1954-1974,1974-1983,1986-1997 600,000 500,000 1954-74 1974-83 Coverage: Conterminous United States Source: Frayer et al. Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterrn'mous United States, 1950s to 1970s. T983; Dahl, T.E. and C. E. Johnson. Wetlands Status and Trends in the ' Conterminous United States:.! 970s to 1980s. 1 991; Dahi.T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 7997.2000. ... . ... ... ..... .. In addition to loss of wetland acreage, a major ecological impact has been the conversion of one wetland type to another, such as clear- ing trees from a forested wetland or excavating a shallow marsh to create an open water pond. Open water ponds have more than dou- bled in area since the 1950s and are not the ecological equivalent of fresh water emergent marshes. These types of conversions change habitat types and community structure in watersheds and impact the animal communities that depend on them. Wetland types include fresh water forested, shrub, and emer- gent wetlands, plus open water ponds. Forested and emergent wetlands make up over 75 percent of all fresh water wetlands. Since the 1950s, fresh water emergent wetlands have declined by nearly 24 percent—more than any other fresh water wet- land type. Fresh water forested wetlands have sustained the greatest overall losses—10.4 million acres since the 1950s (Exhibit 2-6). Coastal wetlands are the vegetated interface between aquatic and terrestrial components of estuarine ecosystems. Estuarine emer- gent wetlands account for nearly 75 percent of coastal wetlands. The loss of coastal wetland habitats in the U.S. is significant (Exhibit 2-7). Since the 1950s, coastal and estuarine losses were about 1.4 million acres-a nearly 12 percent decline. Emergent and forested intertidal wetlands experienced the greatest absolute and proportional losses during this four-decade measurement period. Proportional losses along the West Coast have been the largest (68 percent), although the actual number of acres lost there is among the smallest. Absolute and proportional acreages lost in the Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico are also high (about 50 percent of wetlands that existed in pre-colonial times). Even in more recent years (mid- to late 1990s), wetland losses in south- eastern and Gulf of Mexico states continue at a high rate—more than one percent per year. txhibit 2-6: Long-term trends in selected freshwater wetlands, 1954-1997 s (in Thousands) ~6T,150 66,6.06. ~ ~ .™_ = _ t^m A. Freshwater Forested IB -^ 56,000- jgr54.666 SS.-.-S2,000- fcso.ooo1 1 950s 1970s 1980s £=.-v Acres (in Thousands) Ss:2o;ooo- B™-~ - ' B. Freshwater Shrubs 15,506 18,366 S"ource: Frayer et al. Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the ":• Conterminous United States, 79SOs.fo 7970s. 1983; Dahl, T.E. andCE. Johnson. "^ . Wetlands Status and Trends in the Conterminous United States: 1970s to 1980s. 1991;,;, .. Dahl, f. E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to " 7997.2000. "..-... Chapter 2 - Furer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-15 ------- Ililll: Wetland extent and change - Category I (continued) wr 6.200 'Exnioit 2-7: Long-term trends in selected" estuarine wetlands, IQ54-I997 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s B. Estuarine Vegetated Wetlands 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s 741 i" „ C. Estuarine Non-vegetated Wetlands 678 ~IT— *-——— _J80 580 '. sc Of H flf mil • » t?' » Ift * q Slim in I iiiiii KHIIUI Is* ''„ '" • * 1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s Coverage; Conterminous United States Sour cc Frayer et »L Stains and Trends of Wetlands and Deepmter Habitats in the '.; G»»(«tiiiK«(Me(lState, TSSOsto 1970s. 1983;Dahl,T.EandCE.Johnson. ,.; WdfanAStetasoikf Trends in tlw Conterminous United States: I970sto 1980s. 1991;.. DM, T. L State oaf Trends ofWettamli in the Conterminous United States 1986 to ' I9J7, 2000. 4rVnflFT-p»r™-ErHigp-t-1'fp . Indicator Gaps and Limitations This indicator' does not effectively address the question of wet- land condition. While it is possible to inventory wetlands that have been lost, many wetlands have suffered degradation of con- dition and functions, which cannot be quantified nationally. i Different methods were used in some of the early classification schemes to classify wetland types. The currently used classifica- tion system was not applied to some of the earlier (1970s) maps. As methods and spatial resolution have improved over time, acreage data were adjusted, resulting in changes in the overall wetland base over time. Thus, the evaluation process is evolving, which contributes to reducing the accuracy of the trends observed. Forested wetl.snds are difficult to photointej-pret and are generally underestimated by the USFWS. Ephemeral Wetlands and effectively drained palustrine wetlands observed in farfn production are not recognized as a wetland type by the USFWJi and, therefore, are not included. Also, USFWS does not survey wetlands under 3 acres in size; therefore, no record exists of the exterjit and change in these valuable resources. Pacific coast estuarine wetlands are not surveyed due to the discontinuity in their patch sizes,. The temporal coverage of the coastal wetland loss indicator (length of record) is not consistent ac'oss the U.S. i i Data Source The data for this indicator are from the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, S,taj;us and Trends Report. (See Appendix B, page B-9 for more information.) 2-16 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Cmapter 2 - Furer Water ------- sources OT f wetland cnanqe/ loss - Cateqory 2 :gory. This indicator attempts to estimate the causes or sources of wet- land losses. The extensive survey data collected in the NRI by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory provides land use information that can be associated with estimates of wetland extent. This database is a compilation of natural resource informa- tion on non-federal land, which comprises nearly 75 percent of the nation's total land area. The 1997 NRI captures data on land cover and use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity, selected conservation practices; and related resource attributes at over 300,000 primary sample units (nominally 160 acres each) containing over 800,000 sample points. Data used for the NRI were collected using a variety of imagery, field office records, historical records and data, ancillary materials, and a limited number of on-site visits. The data have been com- piled, verified, and analyzed to provide a comprehensive look at the state of the nation's non-federal lands. What the Data Show According to the USDA Agricultural Research Service, between 1954 and 1974, agriculture accounted for 81 percent of all wetlands conversions. As a result of changing federal agricultural policies that emphasize wetlands conservation, agriculture accounted for only 20 percent of national wetlands conversion between 1982 and 1992 (USDA, 2000). In surveys conducted between 1992 and 1997, NRI determined that 506,000 acres of wetlands on non-federal lands were lost, while 343,000 were gained, for a net loss of 163,000 acres. Agriculture accounted for 26 percent of the net national wetlands loss for this survey period, although this varies by region. For example, in the Midwest and northern plains, about 50 percent of the losses were from agriculture (Exhibit 2-8). Since the mid-to late 1980s, urban, suburban, and commercial development have been the major contributors to net losses of wetland resources and were responsible for 49 percent of those losses. The East, Southeast, and South Central states had the highest percentages of wetland losses due to development. In the East, 67 percent of the wetland losses were a result of development (USDA, 2000). Timber harvesting practices and conversion of land to silvicultural uses •Exhibit 2-8: Non-Federal wetland losses and gains and reasons for conversion, 1992-1997 Silviculture Development coverage does not include Alaska, Hawaii or Puerto Rico Sburce: Summary Report 1937 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000). 2000. Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-17 ------- I ^WiMB^" Indicat Sources of wetland cnange/loss - Category 2 (continue/: j^^T^-niw^^ipm^^iTn yp^j^Bfn^iYSjta^ ^"'^11 lliStlllf^ have also contributed to losses in wetland resources. The NRI analysis attributed 12 percent of the wetland losses between 1992 and 1997 to silviculture. Using different methods, the USFWS reported a similar result from 1986 to 1997: 30 percent of wetland losses were attributed to urban development; 21 percent to rural development; 23 percent to silviculture; and 26 percent to agriculture (Dahl, 2000). Indicator Gaps and Limitations The differences in survey design between NRI and USFWS will continue to cause difficulties in assessing the effectiveness of current wetlands policies. The USFWS dataj are gathered from interpretation of aerial imagery and remotely sensed data, and are repeated every 10 years. The NRI data are based on statistical sampling, but cio not include an adequate sample of coastal resources. They provide information at a coarse scale, summarized by state, and jire useful for national reporting. The NRI does not collect data oi) federal lands or for the state of Alaska. Data Source i Data for this indicator come from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Niational Resources Inventory (;2000). (See Appendix B, page B-10, for more information.) Indicators Water clarity in coastal waters Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters Total organic carbon in sediments Chlorophyll concentrations Coastal waters—the interface between the land and the sea— provide a wide range of habitats for animals and plants essential to global ecosystems, and they support the majority of commercial and recreational fisheries in the U.S. Coastal waters also contain significant energy and mineral reserves, travel lanes for shipping, and a base for outdoor recreation and tourism industries (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). Coastal waters include estuaries—bodies of water that are balanced by fresh water and sediment influx from rivers and tidal action of the oceans. They provide a transition zone between fresh water and saline water. Estuaries are unique environments that support wildlife and fisheries and contribute substantially to the economy of coastal areas. These natural areas are under the most intense devel- opment pressure in the nation. This narrow fringe accounts for only 17 percent of the total conterminous U.S. land area, but is home to more than 53 percent of the population, today, that proportion is growing faster than in any other area of the U.S. (NRC, 2000). : i Four indicators have been selected to address the condition of coastal waters: water clarity, dissolved oxygen content, organic carbon content of sediments, and chlorpphyll concentrations. The first three—water clarity, dissolved oxygen, and organic carbon content—are I derived from EPA's EMAP, which samples estuaries using a probability- based design. •; i For water clarity and dissolved oxygen, estuaries in the East, West, and Gulf of Mexico coast are well represented. These two indicators, as reported in EPA's Coastal Condition Report (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2C 01), show that water clarity ?nd oxygen conditions are good. Organic; carbon data indicate that 1^ percent of the area of mid-Atlantic estuaries have enriched carbon levels. About 33 percent of the mid-Atlantic estuarine area had chlorophyll concentrations exceeding the Chesapeake Bay restoration goal for survival of submerged aquatic vegetation. Coastal waters overall exhibited much lower chlorophyll concentrations. Chlorophyll concentrations were the most proriounced in the Gulf of Mexico. Eutrophication is also an important parameter for understanding the condition of coastal waters; however, insufficient data were available to develop a scientifically robust indicator for this parameter at the national level. Eutrophication is discussed following the indicator descriptions. j .; . \| 2-18 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Chapter 2 - furer Water ------- Water clarity in coastal waters - Category 2 Light penetration is an important characteristic of many estuarine and coastal habitats. Reduced penetration is often associated with eutrophic conditions, algal blooms, and erosional events. Reduced clarity can impair the normal algal growth that contributes to oligotrophy and the extent and vitality of submerged aquatic vegetation. This is a critical habitat component for many aquatic animals. For purposes of this indicator, water clarity is defined as a measure of light penetration (i.e., the amount and type of light reaching a one - meter water depth compared to the amount and type of \|" Exhibit 2-9: Estuarine area with good (>25% of light incident S-at the surface),-fair (between 25 and 10% of incident light), and \|:: poor ( ------- Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters - (Category 2 Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a fundamental requirement for all estuarine life. Low levels of oxygen often accompany the onset of severe bacterial degradation, sometimes resulting in algal scums, fish kills, and noxious odors, as well as loss of habitat and aesthetic values. Often, low dissolved oxygen occurs as a result of the process of decay of large algal blooms whose remnants sink to the bottom. Concentrations of oxygen below about 2 parts per million are thought to be stressful to estuarine organisms (Diaz and Rosenberg, 1995; EPA, OW, October 2000). Under EPA's EMAP, data were collected generally at one-meter above the bottom using electronic DO meters. In some cases, data were point-in-time measurements taken once during the summer months (e.g., in the Virginian Province), while in other cases data were predominantly collected by continuous readings over a mul- tiple day/time period (e.g., in the Louisianian Province). Values of dissolved oxygen were classified into three condition categories: • Poor, less than 2 parts per million (ppm) • Fair: between 2 and 5 ppm • Good: greater than 5 ppm What the Data Show Dissolved oxygen conditions in the nation's estuaries are reported by EPA, ORD, OW (September 2001) in its Coastal Condition Report as "good" because 80 percent of the estuarine waters assessed exhibited dissolved oxygen at concentrations greater than five ppm. Both EMAP and NOAA's National Eutrophication Assessment examined the extent of estuarine waters with low dissolved oxygen. EMAP estimates that only about four percent of bottom waters have low dissolved oxygen (Exhibit 2- 10). However, low dissolved oxygen is a problem in some individual estuarine systems like the Neuse River Estuary and parts of the Chesapeake Bay. Hypoxia resulting from anthropogenic activities is a relatively local occurrence in Gulf of Mexico estuaries, accounting for about 4 percent of the total area, however, hypoxia in the shelf waters of the Gulf of Mexico is more significant. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxia zone is the largest anthropogenic coastal hypoxic area in the western hemisphere (CAST, 1999). Since 1993, mid-summer bottom water hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico has been larger than 3,860 square miles (except in 2000). In 1999, it reached over 7. 700 square miles (CENR, 2000). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Coverage of the nation's coastline is limited. Probabilistic surveys like those in the Northeast, the Southeast, and the Gulf Coast do not exist for areas north of Cape Cod or for the Great Lakes. Similar probabilistic data do not exist for Ruget Sound or San Francisco Bay. ', I . j The relationship between threshold values and effects on aquatic life is neither well established nor expected(to be consistent across all regions. For example, warm water\|environments would be naturally lower in DO. The criteria of two ppm might not be sufficiently protective in cold water environments. Much of the data apparently represent point-in-time measures. If so, the data contain limitations, and the length of time that dissolved oxygen concen- trations were below two ppm would riot haye been considered. j f The data set incorporates a mix of time series and point-in-time measures based on historical data sets collected. Where time series data are available and used, better estimates of oxygen conditions would be achieved. Point-in-tirrje measures are weaker. Since only one season, the summer, was generally represented, oxygen stressi in other seasons would be rpissed. Data Source ; ! i j Dissolved oxygen data used for this indicator are from the EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Estuaries database. (See Appendix B, page B-10, fo\|r more information.) 2-10:,Estuarine area with \|>oor (<2 ppm), .ween 2 and 5 ppm), and good (>5 ppm) \| j'gsojved oxygen conditions, 2000 4% •Ppm 16% 807o ' I Coverage Urated States eas^ coast (exclu3mgwa tersViortli of" Cape CoclJ, west coanTand Gulf of Mexico " * """ ..... ' .......... """""* ........ "" ' * Source '" Naiiomjj ^ ^ •[ ^ft < fc. \|, j H jf * \|PA, Office, of Research and Development ond Office of Water. ^ C ------- Total organic carton in sediments - Category 2 Total organic carbon (TOC) is a measure of the concentration of organic matter in sediments. It represents the long-term, average burial rate of organic matter in the sediments. High TOC values can arise from frequent algal blooms in the overlying waters or transport of sewage or high organic waste from point sources TOC can also sequester or chelate organic compounds and some metals and make them less biologically available for uptake fEftt 2-11: Wages of Mid-Atlantk estuarine area \| witn low, intermediate, and Kign total organic carbon content in sediments, 1997-1998 Note: High is > 3%; Intermediate is >1 to 3%; Low is <1% rCh 3nd DeVel°Pment- Mid-Atlantic Integrated >^^!>°rt. Mai;2003. TOC values are calculated as percent carbon in dried sediments Assessment categories for the Mid-Atlantic estuaries were- • Low: 1 percent • Intermediate: >1 to 3 percent • High: >3 percent What the Data Show Carbon values ranged from 0.02 to 13 percent throughout the m.d-Atlantic estuaries (Paul, et al., 1999). For the mid-Atlantic reg.on, about 60 percent of the estuarine sediments had low rOC values, about 24 percent had intermediate TOC values and 16 percent had high TOC sediment values (EPA ORD May 2003); (Exhibit 2,11). Values ranged from Delaware Bay w,th about 95 percent of its sediments having low TOC values to the Chowan River in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary with 65 percent of its sediments having high TOC values (EPA, ORD May 2003). The Chesapeake Bay mainstem had about 65 percent of its .sediments with low TOC values and about 15 percent with high TOC values. Indicator Caps and Limitations These data are from a survey of mid-Atlantic estuaries and cannot be extrapolated to national-scale estimates. Samples were collected dunng an EMAP-defined index period of summer months. Data Source The total organic carbon data for this indicator come from EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Program. (See Appendix B, page B-10, for more information.) Chlorophyll concentrations - Category 2 Chlorophyll concentrations are a measure of the abundance of phytoplankton. Phytoplankton account for most of the plant production in the ocean. Excessive growth of phytoplankton as measured through chlorophyll concentrations, can lead to degraded water quality, such as noxious odors, decreased water clarity, oxygen depletion, and harmful algal blooms. Excess phytoplankton growth is usually associated with increased nutrient inputs (e.g., watershed or atmospheric transport, upwelling) or a declme ,n filtering organisms such as clams, mussels, or oysters (The Heinz Center, 2002). Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-21 ------- ^^-. -a--: i... —I-TT— (. r:'«sjE;:iH«;ss CKIoropKyll concentrations - Category 2 (continued) Chlorophyll concentrations were considered for both estuarme and ocean waters within 25 miles of the coast (The Heinz Center, 2002). Three categories of concentrations were established by EPA for mid-Atlantic estuaries: • Good: 15 ppb • Fain 15-30 ppb • Poor: > 30 ppb The lower threshold of 15 ppb chlorophyll is equal to the restoration goal recommended for the survival of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay (Batiuk, et al., 2000). For ocean waters, the indicator reports the average value for the sea- son, displaying the highest concentrations for each region. Estuarme chlorophyll concentrations are not available for national reportmg. Ocean data, based on surface reflectance, were inferred from National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Sea-viewing W,de field-of-View-Sensor. Data were analyzed for nine ocean regions by NOAA's National Ocean Service. The estuarine chlorophyll concentra- tions were obtained from field measurements as part of the EPA EMAP Mid-Atlantic Estuaries Program. ibit 2-12: Chlorophyll concentrations in U.S. coastal waters, 1Q98-2OOO —•— North Atlantic ';,„» —•— Mid-Atlantic S-S •— South Atlantic ;,;,„; —•— Gulf of Mexico j-\| —•— Southern ^ > California p-\| " • • Pacific pi Northwest g™,™ t Alaska ;,; a —•-- Bering Sea r. J 8 Hawaii ' : Coverage: all U.S. waters, including Alaska and Hawaii, within 25 miles of the coast. 1995 96 97 98 99 2000 Source; Modified from The Heinz Center. The Stale of the Nation's Eeo»!«ms, 2002. Data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric ^Service. What the Data Show Analysis of the data showed that: j • Ocean chlorophyll concentrations ranged from average season- al concentrations of 0.1 to 6.5 ppb '(Exhibit 2-12) (The Heinz Center, 2002). ; • The highest ocean chlorophyll concentrations (4.8 to 6.5 ppb) occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, with the lowest concentrations ( 0.1 ppb) in Hawaiian waters (Exhibit 2-1^). • Southern California had the next lowest cjhlorophyll concentra- tions—between 1.1 and 1.5 ppb (Exhibit 2-12). H Other ocean waters (e.g, north, mid-, ancj south Atlantic, and the Pacific Northwest) had chlorophyll coricejntrations ranging from 2 to 4.5 ppb (Exhibit 2-12). j a Chlorophyll concentrations in the mid-A{lantic estuaries ranged from 0.7 to 95 ppb in 1997 and 1998 ^EPA, ORD, May 2003). • About 33 percent of the mid-Atlantic estuarine area had chloro- phyll concentrations exceeding 15 ppb. ; • The Delaware Estuary showed a wide range of chlorophyll concen- trations, from a low (< 15 ppb) in the Delaware Bay, to intermediate (15-30 ppb) in the Delaware River, to very high (> 80 ppb) in the Salem river. ; I . • The western tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay were consistently high in chlorophyll a, with more than 25 percent of the area showing > 30 ppb chlorophyll concentrations. • Chlorophyll concentrations in the cqastal bays were generally low (< 115 ppb), even though nutrients were elevated because of increased turbidity and low light penetration. Indicator Gaps and Limitations Algorithms used to translate spectral reflectance data into chlorophyll concentrations currently provide only roijgh estimates of concentra- tions in those waters where concentrations of suspended sediments and colored dissolved organic matter arejhigh (e.g., near-shore waters influenced by surface and ground water discharges, coastal erosion, and sediment resuspension). ; The data presented here are based on a [fairly coarse scale (six-mile. resolution). Currently, data showing relative changes in chlorophyll within a region can be reliable; however, data showing actual concen- trations for any given region might vary by a factor of two. Thus, unless differences are large, meaningful comparisons between reg,ons are not yet possible. • : The mid-Atlantic estuary data are one-time estimates of chlorophyll content in mid-Atlantic estuaries only, sp these data cannot be pro- jected to the national scale or to different time periods. Samples were 2-22 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Qapter 2 •• Purer Wateri ------- if"? Indicator-- Chlorophyll concentrations — Category 2 (continued) collected during an EMAP-defined index period of summer months and do not represent conditions at different times. Data Source Ocean data are found'in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Sea-Viewing Wide Reld-of-View Sensor. Estuarine chlorophyll concentrations are found in the EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Program. (See Appendix B, page B-11, ' for more information.) - Additional Consideration: Eutropnication Another key issue relevant to understanding the condition of coastal waters is eutrophication. Eutrophication is a natural process, through which there is "an increase in the rate of supply of organic matter" to a waterbody (Nixon, 1995). This process usually repre- sents an increase in the rate of algal production. Under natural con- ditions, algal production is influenced by a gradual buildup of plant nutrients in ecosystems over long periods of time and generally leads to productive and healthy estuarine and marine environments. However, in recent years, human activities have substantially increased the rate of delivery of plant nutrients to many estuarine and marine areas (NRC, 2000; Peierls, et al., 1991; Turner and Rabalais, 1991). As a result, algal production in many estuaries has increased much faster than would occur under natural circum- stances. This accelerated algal production is referred to as "cultural" or "anthropogenic" eutrophication and often results in a host of undesirable conditions in estuarine and marine environments. These conditions, which include low dissolved oxygen concentrations, declining sea grasses, and harmful algal blooms, might impact the uses of estuarine and coastal resources by reducing the success of commercial and sport fisheries, fouling swimming beaches, and causing odor problems from the decay of excess amounts of algae (NRC, 2000; Duda, 1982). Despite much research, however, the link between coastal eutrophication and effects on living marine resources and fisheries is not well understood or quantified (NRC, 2000; Boesch, et al., 2001). Between 1,992 and 1998, NOAA conducted a survey and series of regional workshops to synthesize the best available information on eutrophication-related symptoms in 138 estuaries. Data from these surveys are presented in NOAA 's National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment (Bricker, et al., 1999). They indicate that the nation's estuaries exhibit strong symptoms of eutrophication, which were reported by EPA to be "poor" (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). When data on the symptoms of eutrophication are combined, they suggest that 40 percent of the surface area of the nation's estuarine waters exhibit high levels of eutrophic condition (Exhibit 2-13). Exhibit 2-13: Percent of estuaries with high, moderate, and low levels of eutrophic condition, 1998 IF- fjuC,,Coverage: United States, excluding the Great Lakes ^j Source: Bricker et al. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of \|_ .Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation's Estuaries. 1999; EPA, Office of Research and is:.;: Development and Office of Water. National Coastal Condition Report. fj:':: September 2001.- Many of these waters are in the mid-Atlantic and gulf regions of the U.S. Moreover, based on expert opinion, eutrophic conditions are expected to worsen in 70 percent of U.S. estuaries by 2020 (Bricker, et al., 1999). These eutrophication estimates are largely based upon best professional judgement. They do not adequately reflect regional differences that may occur naturally, so high scores may not be a true measure of eutrophication. Also, there are no strong scientific data to indicate that the thresholds used are indeed indicative of eutrophic conditions on a region-by-region basis. Use of SAV loss, macroalgae, and epiphytic growth is not appropriate for regions/areas where SAV beds or macroalgae are not present (e.g., South Carolina, Georgia). Standard methods do not appear to have been used among states.. For all these reasons, these data were judged not to be sufficiently robust to qualify as an indicator for purposes of this report. Nevertheless, accelerated eutrophication can be an important symptom of environmental decline in estuarine and marine areas. Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-23 ------- Therefore, eutrophication should be reconsidered as an indicator in the future if and when scientifically sound data become available. .a •^atv'w- t'-i1 . - ;.;; ::!.::«: t Indicators Percent urban land cover in riparian areas Agricultural lands in riparian areas Population density in coastal areas Changing stream flows Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in grassland/shruWa nds Sedimentation index Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water Total nitrogen in coastal waters Phosphorus in farmland, forested and urban streams Phosphorus in large rivers Total phosphorus in coastal waters Atmospheric deposition of mercury Chemical contamination in streams and ground water Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams Toxk releases to water of mercury, dioxin, lead, PCBs, and PBTs Sediment contamination of inland waters Sediment contamination of coastal waters Sediment toxlcity in estuaries A complex suite of pressures weighs on surface water resources. EPA data on water qualify provide some measure of the major stressors. Under the Clean Water Act, EPA requires states to define and list waters under their jurisdiction that are impaired, and to identify the causes of those impairments and develop a program to manage and control the causes. In 1998, more than 21,000 waterways were identified as impaired under the provisions of Section 303 (d) of the CWA (EPA, OW, March 2003). The following top five causes of impairment accounted for 60 percent of the cases: • Sediment/siltation • Pathogens • Metals • Nutrients • Organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen The next five causes account for additional 21 percent of impairment: • Habitat alteration • Thermal modifications • Low or high pH • Pesticides ! r • Fish consumption advisories ; Twenty indicators have been identified to help answer the question "What are the! pressures to water quality?" These indicators have been divided jnto three categories: General pressures—Section 2.2.4.a presents six indicators of general pressures that relate in some way to habitat quality but do not fall into a specific: stressor category. j i ' i I Nutrient pressures—Section 2.2.4.b presents six indicators that relate specifically to nutrient enrichment. ; I Chemical contaminant pressures—Sectiori 2.2.4.C discusses eight indicators that describe chemical contamination. 1 • i These indicators do not address sediment/siltation or pathogens (the two most important causes of water quality impairment as iden-, tified under Section 303 [d] of the Clean Water Act), nor do they address another key concern—the impact of invasive species. Additional pressures to water quality are discussed in the Ecological Condition, Better Protected Land, and Clejaner Air chapters. 2.2.4.a Querieral Tressures [ General pressures that alter aquatic ecosystems and for which indicators are; available, include (1) the extent of urban land cover and agricultural lands in stream riparian;areas, and (2) the extent of coastal development, as represented by population density. Additional indicators of pressures on streams relate to changes in stream flow and altered in-stream habitatThese six indicators, discussed in -;his section, address pressures directly on stream ecosystems and coastal areas, but they dcj not attempt to define pressures on lakes, ponds, reservoirs, or wetland resources, even though the pressures are likely comparably. The difference in pressures related to urban development versus pressures from agricultural activities generally are a function of the location of, extent of, and change in urban and agricultural areas. Coastal deve'opment data, in the form of population density, suggest strong pressures on coastal systems today and in the future. Data on stream flow indicate that changes in minimum and maximum flow have inc'eased slightly over the last three decades and that maximum flows in some areas have increased significantly. Zero (no) flow data forgrassland and shrubland streams are consistent with these observations in that the percent of istreams with no- flow periods has decreased. ; I 2-24 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Chapter 2 - Purer Water ------- •a??gf s?^?ps^-dOT^\3«£SHmsigES(p»^^^ Percent urban land cover in riparian .areas - Category 2 This indicator provides a snapshot in time of the potential stress to stream ecosystems across the nation due to urban develop- ment. Specifically, the indicator examines the extent of land cover within riparian zones, which are defined as the 30-meter buffer on each side of a stream or river. The indicator focuses on land cover along streams or rivers within watersheds catego- rized by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as eight-digit HUCs under its hydrologic unit code (HUC) categorization system. To calculate the extent of urban land cover, each of these buffer zones was divided into grid cells (of IS minute latitude by IS minute longitude dimensions). The extent of urban land cover was calculated as the percent of grid cells with land cover, divided by the total number of grid cells. To make this calculation: • Stream map sets were derived from remote sensing techniques, generally aerial photography and satellite imagery. • The land cover data sets were collected using remote sensing techniques, generally satellite imagery, with ground truth field- work. • Stream extent and. locations were defined as any line or poly- gon feature attributed as "stream/river." This is consistent with the definition in the USGS's National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), a key data source for this indicator. • Urban land cover was defined as (1) the sum of low-intensity residential, high-intensity residential, and commercial/industri- al/transportation land cover types in the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and (2) the sum of both high-intensity and low-intensity developed land cover types in the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). What the Data Show The analysis indicates that nearly 80 percent of the watersheds (8-digit HUCs) in the continental U.S. have less than 2 percent urban land uses within 30 meters of streams. Five percent of watersheds (8-digit HUCs) have urban land uses of greater than 8 percent within 30 meters of streams. Less than 1 percent of the nation's watersheds (8-digit HUCs) have more than 25 percent urban uses within stream riparian areas. Watersheds with stream- side urban development tend to be concentrated in certain parts of the country (e.g., the Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast). Indicator Gaps and Limitations The streams data set is known to contain both systematic and random errors. Many of these errors, such as positional accuracy of stream segments due to digitizing accuracy, are minimized due to the scale of this analysis (i.e., at the 8-digit HUC level). But stream omission, the degree of which varies between different scale maps (i.e., 30- by 60-minute quadrangle maps), has a higher impact on potential error. In addition, the accuracy of whether or not a stream was perennial also varied between quadrangle maps, preventing a more accurate representation of riparian areas. This indicator only examines urban land within 30 meters of streams and rivers, which means that more significant urban devel- opment at distances beyond 30 meters is not evaluated. The analysis is not a standardized ongoing assessment. Because the land cover data sets exists only for a single year, changes in the amount of urban land cover over time are not addressed by this indicator at present. Data Source Information is available from the specific program datasets (National Land Cover Database, Coastal Change Analysis Program, National Hydrography Dataset, and Hydrologic Unit Code). Data were summarized by the EPA. (See Appendix B, page B-11, for more information.) Chapter 2 - Turer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-25 ------- jfaBJSl Agricultural lands in riparian areas - (Category 2 Agricultural land uses in riparian areas may have environmental effects, due to erosion and disturbance of riparian habitat. When land immediately adjacent to streams is used for agricultural pur- pose, this may affect water quality in a number of ways: I Runoff from plowed fields can potentially become a source of stream sediment • Fertilizers and pesticides are often conveyed to streams by runoff or by drainage. • Grazing animals may contaminate streams with coliform bacteria. Results for this indicator are expressed in bank miles, calculated as the percent of agricultural land cover within the stream corridor, multiplied by the total length of stream bank within the 8- digit HUC. The data sets and analytical procedures are the same as those for the urban land in riparian areas indicator described above. What the Data Show The major areas of high agricultural activities in riparian areas of the U.S. are found in the Midwest, in the Southeast, east of the Cascade Mountains in Washington state, and in the inland valleys of California. The arid Southwest has very few stream miles in agriculture, due both to a low stream density and limited agricul- ture. Conversely, areas with the highest number of stream miles in Srl^ffPI^!^ agriculture are in watersheds that have expensive agriculture and high stream density. Only one percent of the watersheds (8-digit HUCs) in the: conterminous U.S. have no Stream miles in agricul- ture. Ten percent of the watersheds (8-di^it HUCs) in the conter- minous U.S. have more than 1,500 miles of streams in agriculture. About half of the watersheds (8-digit HUCs) in the conterminous U.S. have lesis than 250 miles of streams in agriculture. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The issues associated with this indicator are the same as those described for the previous indicator "percent urban land cover in riparian areas." Because the classified land cover data sets were only produced once, changes in the amount of agricultural land cover over time are not addressed by this indicator at present. Refer to the ^'Indicator Gaps and Limitations" section in the discussion oFthe previous indicator for details. Data Source ; EPA's Office of Research and Developmenjt analyzed and summa- rized data from the National Land Cover Database for stream miles with agricultural uses. Information is available from the spe- cific program datasets (NLCD, C-CAP, NIJD, and HUC). (See Appendix B, page B-TI for more information.) fopulation density in coastal areas - Category 2 Land along the U.S. coastline is experiencing more acute pressure from population growth than other areas. Using primarily census data, NOAA has produced several reports on population distribu- tion, density, and growth in coastal areas. These reports describe the pressure on coastal environments from land development. What the Data Show The NOAA reports find that coastal areas are the most devel- oped in the nation. The narrow fringe of coastline, comprising 17 percent of our nation's total land area, contains 53 percent of the nation's population. The rate of population growth along the coast is faster than for the nation as a whole. At an average growth rate of 3,600 people per day, coastal population is expected to reach 165 million by 2015 (NOAA, 1998). Indicator Gaps and Limitations The NOAA estimates of coastal population and pressures are likely to be an overestimate, as data are aggregated by counties, which have extensive inland areas in addition to coastal shoreline. Data Source Data for this indicator are from a report !on urban development in coastal areas by the U.S. Department of,Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (See Appendix B, page B-11, for more information.) ' 2-26 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Gnapter 2 - Purer Water ------- ,. , ^_* ~-_ , ™* (—hanging stream flows - (Category Flow is a critical-aspect of hydrology in streams. Low flows define the smallest area available to stream biota during the year; high flows shape the stream channel and clear silt and debris from the stream. Also, some fish depend on high flows for spawning (The Heinz Center, 2002). The timing of a stream's high and low flows can influence many ecological processes. Changes in flow can be caused by dams, water withdrawal, changes in land use, and cli- mate trends. This indicator reports the percentage of streams or rivers with major changes in the magnitude or timing of their high or low flows over three decades (1970s, 1980s, 1990s) compared to a reference period from 1930 to 1949. The USGS stream gauge database, which served as the data source for this indicator, contains 867 gauging sites with at least 20 years of discharge records within the target dates 1930 to 1949, and 10 years of records for the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The measures were 7-day low flow and the corresponding Julian days and the average 1 -day high flow and Julian day. \|; Exhibit 2-W: Percent of streams with changes in high \| flows (l97Os-I990s) compared to baseline high flow F~ data (1930-19U9) 100 ;"- ra lu 80 60 II' II 40 rs 20 rs f£ Increase Decrease Timing 1970s , 1980s Coverage: lower 48 states 1990s , Note: Totals may add to more than 100%, because both the timing and magnitude may change in a single stream or river. • 1 Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002- Data „ from the U.S. Geological Survey. What the Data Show The percentage of streams and rivers with major changes in their high or low flows or the timing of those flows (i.e., compared to the same data for those streams or rivers as recorded between 1930 and 1949) increased slightly from the 1970s to the 1990s (The Heinz Center, 2002). The number whose high flows were well above the flows in those same streams and rivers between 1930 and 1949 increased by approximately 30 percent in the 1990s (Exhibit 2-14). The baseline period of 1930 to 1949 included some droughts, which may partially explain the increase in high flows in subsequent decades. However, much of this base- line period also preceded widespread irrigation projects, which means that fewer high flows would be expected in subsequent decades. Indicator Caps and Limitations Data from the period 1930 to 1949 are being used here as a practical baseline for historical comparison, even though many dams and other waterworks had already been constructed by this time, and even though this period was characterized by low rainfall in some parts of the country. For this reason, it may be more use- ful to compare changes in stream flows on a decade-by-decade basis rather than to the 1930 to 1949 baseline period selected here. ' Although the sites analyzed here are spread widely throughout the U.S., gauge placement by the USCS is not a random process. Gauges are generally placed on larger, perennial streams and rivers, and changes seen in these larger systems may differ from those seen in smaller streams and rivers. In addition, the USGS gauge network does not represent the full set of operating stream flow gauges in the U.S. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for example, operates gauges, and those data are not available through the USGS; they were not used in this analysis. Data Source Data for this indicator came from the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station network, compiled for The Heinz Center (2002). (See Appendix B, page B-12, for more information.) Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-27 ------- Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in grassland/snruDiands - Category 2 Many grassland/shrublands are located in arid climates where water availability is critical. The number and duration of dry peri- ods in streams and rivers is used as a hydrology/geomorphology indicator in the Heinz report (The Heinz Center, 2002). Changes in the number and/or duration of no-flow periods can significantly stress aquatic plants and animals. These alterations can result from changes in agricultural management or irrigation practices, development, change in flow regulation below dams, or depletion of shallow ground water. Riparian condition is critical for grassland and shrubland streams. Because most of the streams are ephemeral, aquatic organisms have evolved to complete their life histories during periods when water is available (Fisher, 1995). Increasing the percentage of no-flow periods can significantly stress riparian and aquatic communities. Gauging sites with at least 50 percent grassland/shrubland were identified for 4-digit HUC watersheds. The NLCD coverage was used to identify these areas as grassland/shrubland. The number of sites with at least one no-flow day in a year was determined for each year from 1950 to 1999. The corresponding percentage of area as grassland/shrubland for that year was also calculated. To analyze the duration of no-flow, only sites with at-least one no- flow day in each decade between October 1,1949, and September 30,1999, were considered. This analysis considered whether there was an increase, decrease, or minimal change in the number of no-flow days, compared to the long-term (50-year) average for each stream. What the Data Show i The percentage of no-flow periods has decreased in all grass- land/shrubland regions of the West (ThejHeinz Center, 2002). The percentage of no-flow periods was sifnilar in the 1950s and 1960s and then generally decreased in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (Exhibit 2-15) (The Heinz Center, 2002). The 1980s was a relatively wet period, during which some of the smallest per- centages of no-flow periods existed in a 5,0-year period of record (The Heinz Center, 2002). The duration 6f no-flow periods also decreased during the 1970s through the 1990s, compared to the 1950s and 1960s (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations These data are from USGS gauging stations, which may be found on larger, perennial streams; thus, these, data may not reflect con- ditions on very small streams. Data limitations, generally, are simi- lar to those described for the "number/duration of dry stream • f i j flow periods in grasslands/shrublands" indicator described on the previous page. ' j Data Source The data source for this indicator was the:U.S. Geological Survey gauging stations, analyzed by Colorado State University for The Heinz Center. (See Appendix B, page B-12, for more information.) Exhibit 2-15: Percent of streams that hi periods, I950s-1990s 2 zero-rlow 100 IK: Coverage: grassland/shrubland regions in lower 48 states, 1 . ' ' ' ' IB] _ _ _ Source: The Heinz Center, The State of the .Nation'} Eco Stems 2002 Data " from the U.S. Geological Survey. F 2-28 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Chapter 2 - Furer Water ------- Sedimentation index - C-ategory 2 Stream channels undergo a long-term adjustment to a region- specific rate of sediment supply that is delivered by erosion processes from natural disturbance. The size distribution of streambed particles is dependent upon the relationship between sediment supply and stream sediment transport capability. Under a natural disturbance regime, sediment supply in watersheds that are not altered by human disturbances may be roughly in long- term equilibrium with stream sediment transport In watersheds that are relatively undisturbed by humans, the relationship between bed particle size and stream transport capability should tend toward a characteristic value that is typical to the region. Human activities may increase sediment input rates to streams, resulting in higher amounts of fine substrates in sediments tha.n the predicted regional value. Higher sedimentation rates can significantly alter instream habitat. These alterations are the greatest stressor to mid-Atlantic streams and many other streams throughout the U.S. For example, change in channel morphology can affect stream biota and ecological condition. Thrush, et al. (2000) provide 10 geomorphic attributes that are needed for suitable stream habitat, in addition to critical channel morphological indicators. A sedimentation index was developed for Mid-Atlantic Highland streams to assess the quality of instream habitat to support aquatic communities (Kaufmann, et al., 1999). Stream sedimentation was defined as an increase or excess in the amount of fine substrate particles (smaller than 16-mm diameter) relative to an expected reference value that is based on the region and the sediment transport capability of each sample stream reach. Streams were given the following ratings with respect to sedimentation: • "Good" when the proportion of fine particles was at least 10 percent below the predicted value. • "Fair" when the population of fine particles ranged from 10 per- cent below to 20 percent above the predicted value. • "Poor" when the proportion of fine particles was more than 2Q percent above regional mean expectations. What the Data Show Based on the sedimentation index, about 35 percent of the Mid-Atlantic Highland stream miles had good instream habitat, &^ - ' • ^Exhibit 2-16: Percent of Mid-Atlantic highland streams {^exhibiting good, fair, and poor habitat condition based jfe» upon a sedimentation index, 1993-1994 - -• • ,-~ • • • -- £ "Source: EPA Region 3 and the Office of Research and Development. Mid-Atlantic 1 Highlands Streams Assessment._August 2000. ^~ ^_ _^ __-.__ '. ,-•----;._• ,^ T . . J^ ^ .. ' - ., •- . 40 percent had fair instream habitat, and 25 percent of the stream miles had poor instream habitat (Exhibit 2-16) (EPA, ORD, Region 3, August 2000). Indicator Gaps and Limitations This sedimentation index has been applied only in the context of the mid-Atlantic region and cannot be used for a national assessment. The index itself may not apply equally to other regions of the nation. Data Source The data source for this indicator was EPA's Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment, part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. (See Appendix B, page B-12, for more information.) C-napter 2 - furer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-29 ------- 2.2 AD Nutrient Pressures Nutrient enrichment by nitrogen and phosphorus is one of the leading causes of water quality impairment in the nation's rivers, lakes, and estuaries. In a 1998 water quality report to Congress, nutrients were listed as a leading cause of water pollution. About half of the nation's waters surveyed by states do not adequately support aquatic life because of excess nutrients. In 1998, states reported that excessive nutrients have degraded almost 2.5 million acres of lakes and reservoirs and over 84,000 miles of rivers and streams to the extent that they no longer meet basic uses such as supporting healthy aquatic life. Nutrients have also been associated with both the large hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, the hypoxia observed in several East Coast states, and P/ister/a-induced fish kills and human health problems in the coastal waters of several East Coast and Gulf states. Many of the nutrients used in chemical fertilizers are water soluble. Consequently, one of the major potential environmental effects of fer- tilizer usage Is the nitrogen or phosphorus that may find its way into water systems, affecting water quality and aquatic habitats. Another major source of nutrients from agricultural lands are those related to animal feed operations. Nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phospho- rus, increase the levels of algae in receiving waterbodies. Most of the streams that are enriched with nutrients lie in drainage areas for agricultural and/or urban land. Forested landscapes rarely contribute to heightened water concentrations of these nutrients. Ground water from more than half the sites sampled in a nationwide study contained nutrients at concentrations higher than natural background levels. Data presented in Chapter 3, Better Protected Land, describe a USGS risk analysis that evaluated the likelihood of ground water contamination from nitrate resulting from a combina- tion of well-drained soils and a high proportion of cropland to wood- land. The data illustrate a clear relationship between potential ground water contamination and predominantly agricultural areas of the country (see Chapter 3-Better Protected Land). i "Nitrogen export" is the annual quantity of total nitrogen produced by nitrogen sources in a watershed that leaves the watershed through a river or stream that connects to other watersheds down- stream. Estimates of total nitrogen (TN) export were developed by Smith, et al. (1997) through analysis ofdata from monitoring sta- tions in the LiSGS's National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) SPARROW (SPAtially-Referenc^d Regressions On Watershed attributes). This model relates jn-stream measurements of TN export to point and non-point sources of pollution, and to land- surface and stream-channel characteristics in the watersheds that contain the monitoring stations. This modeling was performed using data from approximately 400 long-term stream monitoring sites. Using these data, the model empirically estimated the delivery of nutrients to streams and the outlets of watersheds from point and non-point sources. ' \| ; • • : I This section presents six indicators of pressures on water quality related to nutrient enrichment: \ • Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen • Nitrates in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water • Total nitrogen in coastal waters • Phosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams • Phosphorus in large rivers i • Phosphorus in coastal waters j Chapter 3-Bstter Protected Land, discusses the potential for nutri- ent runoff from farmlands. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen - Category 2 Nitrogen, essential to life, is a component of proteins and nucleic acids. Natural and human processes convert nitrogen gas to a variety of usable forms, including nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and organic nitrogen. Natural sources of nitrogen oxides and ammonia include volcanic eruptions, lightning, forest fires, and certain microbial processes. Anthropogenic sources contribute about the same amount of nitrogen oxides and ammonia to the • environment as do natural sources. The largest single source of nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere is the combustion of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, and gas) by automobiles and electric power plants (Schlesinger, 1997). The largest sources of ammo- nia emissions are fertilizers and domesticated animals (such as hogs, chickeris, and cows). In some placeis, nitrogen deposited from the atmosphere is a large percentage of the total nitrogen load. For instance, Albemarle- Pamlico Sound in North Carolina receives 38 percent of its nitro- gen from the Atmosphere (EPA, OAQPS, Jijne 2000). As human sources of nitrogen compounds to the atifiosphere increase, the importance of atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to bodies of water will increase as well. ! 2-30 2.2 Waters and Watersheds apter 2 - furer Water ------- -jT -' ' ',, J, a'dtl-JU^f ijjjp. ^iM.^^iiiSrfi^.-WY^W^^ -—i—-™.- ..^i-^Wi..... Jn^^^-^a.^i^^i4fl;ag^^ :mospheric deposition of nitrogen - Category 2 (continued) .Exhibit 2-17: Ammonium wet deposition, 2OOI AK01 0.1 kg/ha AK03 0.1 kg/ha HI99 0.5 kg/ha VI01 0.3 kg/ha National Atmospheric Deposition Program, National Trends Network. 2001. ' ttP:""afaWSM' i Exnitit 2-18: Nitrate wet deposition, 20OI LCqverage: lower 48 states .. . . . ^?M=r3;: &at™rr!AiT.os!?J'eric DeP°?'tion Program, National Trends Network. 2001. (March 25, 2003; http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/hopteths/maps200T/no3dep.pdf). "c The deposition of nitrogen compounds on land or water can take several forms. Wet deposition occurs when air pollu- tants fall with rain, snow, or fog. Dry deposition is the deposition of pollu- : tants as dry particles or gases. In either form, the pollutants can reach bodies of water as direct deposition falling directly into the water or as indirect i deposition—falling onto land and passing into a body of water as runoff. In either case, atmospheric deposition • is often one of the major sources of : nitrogen in surface waters. This indicator focuses on atmospheric ' deposition of inorganic nitrogen, as it - is the most immediately available form of nitrogen in the environment. Its components, nitrate and ammonium, are presented using the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) data collected in 2001. What the Data Show Ammonium deposition is lowest in the western states, where it is generally less' than 1 kg/ha. Highest rates occur in :; the upper midwestern states in the ; upper Mississippi River watershed i (Exhibit 2-17). Nitrate deposition also is low in the western states (< 4 kg/ha). ; Highest deposition rates occur in the upper Midwest and in the eastern i states (Exhibit 2-18). High ammonium values'are associated with wastes from animal agriculture, while nitrates are largely from fertilizers used in row crop : agriculture. i Indicator Gaps and § Limitations J This indicator measures wet deposition, * not dry deposition. Total nitrogen dep- I osition is not measured. Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-31 ------- H""1"""'""" "" " !nhjl" '"'"' " """"" J p """ Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen - Category 2 (continued) Additionally, the indicator estimates deposition only to the sur- face areas, not directly to the water, except where large waterbodies are present Data Source I i The data source for this indicator was thejinteragency National Atmospheric Deposition Program. (See Apjpendix B, page B-12 for more information.) . „ tiiiiiiiiiiiJiiHiliJfiii I ~" 1. , ndicator Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water - Category 2 if TV »i* ' Nitrogen is a critical plant nutrient, and most nitrogen is used and reused by plants within an ecosystem. Thus, in undisturbed ecosystems, minimal "leakage" occurs into either surface runoff or ground water, and concentrations are very low. However, when amounts of nitrate in streams and ground water are elevated, this generally indicates that inputs from human sources have increased or that plants in the system are under stress. Elevated nitrogen levels might come from fertilizer use, disposal of animal waste, onsite septic systems, sewage treatment plants, or rain and snow- fall (in the form of atmospheric deposition). This indicator reports on the concentration of nitrate in streams and ground water in farmland, forested, and urban areas. Specifically, the indicator reports the percent of streams with average nitrate concentrations in one of four ranges: less than two ppm; two-six ppm; six-10 ppm; and 10 ppm or more. The data, comprised of samples collected at over 100 stream sites in farmland areas, were collected and analyzed by the NAWQA program in 36 large watersheds across the U.S. during 1993 to1998. Thirty-six forested streams and 21 urban/suburban streams also were evaluated. Ground water samples were collect- ed from 20 to 30 private wells in each of 36 agricultural study areas and 13 urban study areas. What the Data Show USGS data, compiled for The Heinz Center (2002), indicate that: • Nitrate concentrations were above two ppm (mg/L) in about half of-the stream sites and 55 percent of ground water wells sampled in areas where agriculture is the primary land use (Exhibit 2-19). • Most nitrate concentrations in forested streams were less than 0.5 ppm (SO percent had concentrations of nitrate less than 0.1 ppm, 75 percent had concentrations of less than 0.5 ppm, and only one had a concentration of more than 1.0 ppm). i Forty percent of urban/suburban streams had nitrate concentra- tions above 1.0 ppm (25 percent had Concentrations below 0.5 ppm, and three percent had concentrations below 0.1 ppm). About 20 percent of the ground water wells and about 10 percent of stream sites had concentrations that exceeded the federal drinking water standard (10 trig/In), Only three percent of urban ground water wells had nitrate concentrations exceeding the standard. Sa triples of ground water in agricultural areas have nitrate concentrations higher than ground waters of forested or urban areas. ! In four of 33 major drinking water aquifers sampled, the federal drinking waller standard for nitrate was exceeded in more than 15 percent of samples collected. In these aquifers, all of which underlie intensive agricultural areas, nitrate most often is elevated in karst (carbonate) areas or where soilsiand aquifers consist of sand and gravel. These natural features enable rapid infiltration and downward movement of water and chemicals. Some of the more vulnerable areas of the nation are the Central Valley of California, and parts of the Pacific North-west, the Great Plains, and the Mid-Atlantic region. In contrast,^ contaminants are barely detectable "n ground water underlying farmland in parts of the upper Midwest, despite similar high ratei of chemical use. In these areas, ground water contamination may be limited, because of the relatively impermeable, poorly drained sbils and glacial till that cover much of the region, and because tile drains provide quick pathways for runoff to streams (Gilliom,jet al., 2002). Nitrate contamination in shallow ground water (less than 100 feet below land surface) raises potential cbnterns for human health, 2-32 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Chapter 2 - "Purer Water ------- ^^C^^ • 57" * ^ " 't-l^tt W~ W-t f^ * \ Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground Water - Category 2 (continued) particularly in rural agricultural areas where shallow ground water is used for domestic water supply. Furthermore, high levels of nitrate in shallow ground water may serve as an early warning of possible future contamination of older underlying ground water, which is a common source for public water supplies (USGS, 1999). Indicator Caps and Limitations These data only represent conditions in the 36 major river basins and aquifers sampled by the NAWQA program. While they were subjectively chosen to be representative of watersheds across the U.S., they are the result of a targeted sample design. The data also are highly aggregated and should only be interpreted as an indication of national patterns. For example, the definition of agricultural land included land use by cropland or pasture. The percentage of land used for agricultural purposes within specific watersheds varied from 10 to 99 percent of the land cover, so the characterization of lands as agricultural is subject to this degree of variation in land use. Data Source Data for this indicator were compiled for The Heinz Center (2002) from the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment Program. (See Appendix B, page B-13 for more information.) Exhibit 2-19: Nitrates in Farmland streams and ground water, 1992-1998 2-6 ppm 6-10 ppm 10 ppm or more fir;? less than 2 ppm H 2-6 ppm 6-10 ppm 1992-1998 Farmlands Forests Urban t Coverage: lower 48 states. Each sampling area was sampled intensively for approximately 2 years during 1 992-1 998. Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. .Qata from the U.S. Geological Survey: Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-33 ------- Total nitrogen in coastal waters - Category 2 tWSS^^fR!^ ' ''' " ::''- . • ;' '; •-' .' ' "\>'l. '.' /'";:," "V1.:" : .', ,"-" . c Nitrogen in estuaries is commonly regarded as the most important limiting nutrient. Nutrients can originate at either point sources (e.g., sewage treatment plants and industries) or non-point sources (e.g., farmlands, lawns, leaking septic systems, and the atmosphere). Excess nutrients can lead to eutrophication. Total nitrogen (TN) in the mid-Atlantic estuaries was calculated by summing the concentrations of total dissolved nitrogen and particulate organic nitrogen (EPA, ORD, May 2003). Assessment categories were determined based on the 25th and 75th percentiles. The categories are (EPA, ORD, May 2003): • Low: < 0.5 ppm nitrogen • Intermediate: 0.5 to 1.0 ppm nitrogen • High: > 1.0 ppm nitrogen Currently there are no national-level water quality criteria for total nitrogen in estuaries, but states are in the process of determining nutrient criteria for their waters. What the Data Show This analysis yielded the following results: • For the mid-Atlantic region, about 35 percent of the estuarine area had low TN concentrations, 47 percent had intermediate TN concentrations, and 18 percent had high TN concentrations (Exhibit 2-20). • About 50 percent of the mainstem area of the Chesapeake Bay had low TN concentrations, with only about five percent having high TN concentrations. • In contrast, about fives percent of coastal bays had low TN con- centrations, and about 35 percent had high TN concentrations. • The entire Delaware River estuary portion of Delaware Bay had high TN concentrations. ipil^jyii:;, Btjji'niii^ii ^:3^^ ^^^^4;^ ^ ^"4^ ^« .^11^-• i^M I Exhibit 2-'\|6: Extent of Mid-Atlantic estuaries with low, \|g::,L^ .ij ;.,,'>.^1 :.:;i.::5\|p^.!:;ss.:.^;S:ps^^^^^^ and high total nitrogen concentrations, lll\|"'™l\|l\|""!"p"" —" - — - ~'TS5E3!MKISK5W2T3;'EET1J.a ip I' J. '*»» ,. >, i 1 rsirjfe"{ ij fr y Source: EPA, Office of Research and Development. Mid-Atlantic Integrated f- AssessmentjtdAlA - Estuaries "l])97-98, Summary 'Report ^ May"2003. Indicator Caps and Limitations These TN estimations for estuaries apply only to the mid-Atlantic region and cannot be used to make national estimates of nitrogen concentrations. • Data Source ! The data soiirce for this indicator was EPyji's Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Program, part of EPA's Enviror.mental Monitoring and Assessment Program. (See Appendix B, page B-13, for more information.) 2-34 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Cnapter 2 - Purer Water ------- llMM\|pIi Thosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams - Category 2 Phosphorus, an essential nutrient for all life forms, occurs naturally in soils and aquatic systems. However, at high concentrations; phos- phates, the most biologically active form of phosphorus, can cause significant water quality problems by overstimulating algae growth. This is both aesthetically unappealing and can contribute to the loss of oxygen needed by fish and other animals. Human activity can increase phosphorus levels through fertilizer use, disposal of animal waste, sewage treatment, and use of some detergents. This indicator reports on the concentration of phosphorus in streams that drain watersheds comprised primarily of farmland, forested, or urban land use. Specifically, the indicator reports the percent of these streams that have average annual phosphorus concentrations in one of four ranges: less than O.I ppm; 0.1 to 0.3 ppm; 0.3 to 0.5 ppm; and 0.5 ppm or more. Thirty-six forested streams and 21 urban/suburban streams also were evaluated. What the Data Show Data compiled by the USGS indicate that: • About three-fourths of farmland stream sites had concentra- tions of phosphorus above 0.1 parts per million (mg/L) (Exhibit 2-21). • About 15 percent of farmland stream sites had phosphorus concentrations greater than 0.5 ppm of phosphorus. • Phosphorus concentrations in streams of agricultural lands were similar to but slightly higher than those in urban streams and much greater than those in forest streams. EPA has recently set new regional water quality criteria for phos- phorus levels in streams in agricultural ecosystems. These criteria range from 0.023 to 0.076 ppm and vary according to differences in ecoregions, soil types, climate-, and land use. Compared to nitrogen, a smaller proportion of phosphorus (originating mostly from livestock wastes or fertilizers) was lost from , watersheds to streams. The annual amounts of total phosphorus measured in agricultural streams were equivalent to less than 20 percent of the phosphorus that was applied annually to the land. This is consistent with the general tendency of phosphorus to attach to soil particles that move more slowly with runoff to surface water. Even though less phosphorus is transported from land than nitrogen, phosphorus is more likely to reach concentrations that can cause excessive aquatic plant growth. Nitrogen concentrations are rarely low enough to limit aquatic plant growth in fresh water, whereas phosphorus concentrations can be low enough to limit such growth. Thus, adding phosphorus to an aquatic system can have a greater impact than adding nitrogen. Hence, excessive aquatic plant growth and eutrophication in fresh water generally result from ele- vated phosphorus concentrations (typically greater than 0.1 ppm) (EPA, OW, June 1998). In contrast, nitrogen typically is the limiting nutrient for aquatic plant growth in saltwater and coastal waters. Indicator Caps and Limitations These data only represent conditions in the 36 major river basins and aquifers sampled by NAWQA. While they were subjectively Exhibit 2-21: Phosphorus in farmland streams and ground water, 1992-1998 less than 0.1 ppm 0.1 to 0.3 ppm 0,3 to 0.5 ppm J 0.5 ppm or more Forests Urban/Suburban Coverage: lower 48 states. Each sampling area was sampled intensively for approximately 2 years during 1 992-1 998 Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002 Data from the U S Geological Survey Cnapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-35 ------- Phosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams - ategory 2 (continued) ,,-^::,...d chosen to represent watersheds across the U.S., they are the result of a targeted sample design. The data also are highly aggregated and should only be interpret- ed as an indication of national patterns. For example, watersheds dominated by agricultural land included land use by cropland or pasture. The percentage of land used for these purposes varied from 10 to 99 percent, so the characterization of lands as agricul- tural is subject to this degree of variation in land use. Data Source i ' Data used for this indicator were compiled for The Heinz Center (2002) from the U.S. Geological Survey'? National Water Quality Assessment Program. (See Appendix B, page B-13, for more informsition.) : Pnospn lospnorus in large rivers -Cab :egory Increased phosphorus in large rivers and other waterbodies leads to an increase in growth of algae. While small amounts of algae provide the critical base of the food chains in these waterbodies, larger amounts lead to eutrophication. As discussed in Section 2.2.3, eutrophication can lead to loss of oxygen, shifts in fish • population, and "nuisance blooms" of algal species. Algal blooms generally degrade aesthetic and recreational values. Data on phosphorus were collected from 140 sites in large rivers (i.e., rivers with flows exceeding 1,000 cubic feet per second) at least 30 times over a 2-year period between 1992 and 1998 by the USCS (The Heinz Center, 2002). What the Data Show Half of the rivers tested had total phosphorus concentrations equaling or exceeding 100 parts per billion (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 2-22), which is EPA's recommended goal for pre- venting excess algal growth in streams that do not flow directly into lakes. None of the rivers had concentrations below 20 parts per billion, a level generally held to be free of negative effects (EPA, OW, November 1986). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Phosphorus measurements in rivers were restricted to those large rivers with flows exceeding 1,000 cubic feet per second. To ensure proper characterization of average values for each river, only sites that had at least 30 samples over the course of 2 years were included. Thus, only large rivers with adequate sampling are represented. £ > Jj lit 2-22: Distribution of phosphorus 's'? v^^TSSisf-- "',, A ~ / In large rwers, 1991-1996 - „-4 The data used for this indicator are from larger rivers. Larger rivers typically have both larger discharge volutnes and watersheds with more diverse land uses. These samples, therefore, represent the integrating influences of many different (and uses. Also, they were the result of a targeted sample design, a\|nd may not be represen- tative of large rivers across the U.S. Data Source The data u;;ed for this indicator were from the U.S. Geological Survey as compiled for The Heinz Center (2002). (See Appendix B, page B-14, for more information.) ; 2-36 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Chapter 2 - Purer Water ------- lotal phosphorus in coastal waters - Category 2 Phosphorus is an essential plant nutrient. It is derived from weathering and erosion of natural mineral deposits, runoff of fer- tilizers applied to agricultural and urban areas, and point source discharges of sewage, detergents, Pharmaceuticals, and other phosphorus-containing products. Phosphorus is generally considered the limiting nutrient in fresh water systems (Schindler, 1977), but it can also become limiting in estuarine areas if total nitrogen becomes abundant (EPA, ORD, May 2003). Total phosphorus data were collected in the mid-Atlantic estuaries (EPA, ORD, May 2003) during 1997 and 1998. TP assessment categories were based on the 25th and 75th per- centile concentrations measured throughout the mid-Atlantic region. These categories are: • Low: <0.05 to 0.1 ppm • Intermediate: O.OS to 0.1 ppm • High: >0.1 ppm What the Data Show Analysis of the data showed that: • TP concentrations in mid-Atlantic estuaries ranged from 0 to 0.34 ppm. • For the mid-Atlantic region, about 58 percent of the estuarine area had low TP concentrations, 30 percent had intermediate TP concentrations, and 12 percent had high TP concentrations (Exhibit 2- 23). • About 85 percent of the mainstem area of Chesapeake Bay had low TP concentration with no areas having high TP concentrations. • The coastal bays, in contrast, had no areas with low TP concen- trations and about 35 percent with high TP concentrations. • The Delaware River estuary portion of Delaware Bay had 100 percent of its area with high TP concentrations. \|£xhit>it 2-23: Extent of Mid-Atlantic estuaries with low,; tpntermediate, and high total phosphorus concentrations, £J..-.,l;..±,,_._;.,,.;i997-l.998.... ' '-- Source: EPA, Office of Research and Development Mid-Atlantic Integrated ^-Assessment, MAIA - Estuaries _W7-98, Summary Report. May 2003. Indicator Gaps and Limitations These TP estimations apply only to estuaries of the mid-Atlantic region and cannot be used to make national estimates of phos- phorus concentrations. Data Source Data for this indicator came from EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Program. (See Appendix B, page B-14, for more information.) Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-37 ------- 2.2.4.C Chemical Contaminant Pressures The waters of our rivers, lakes, and oceans have been contaminated by pollutants. Some of these pollutants, such as the pesticide DDT and the industrial chemicals known as PCBs, were released into the environment long ago. The use of DDT and PCBs in the U.S. was banned in the 1970s, but these chemicals persist for many years. Other contaminants enter our waters every day. Some flow directly from industrial and municipal waste dischargers, while others come from non-point source pollution in urban and agricultural areas. Additionally, other contaminants are carried through the air and eventually are deposited on lands and in lakes and streams far from the facilities that produced them. When this happens, sediments in waterbodies may serve as a reservoir for these contaminants and, ultimately, as a source of contamination. The USGS has compiled contaminant data for waterbodies as part of Its National Water Quality Assessment Program. Gilliom, et al. (2002) summarized some of major NAWQA findings as follows: • Detectable concentrations of pesticides were widespread in agri- cultural area streams. DDT was the most commonly detected organochlorine compound, followed by dieldrin and chlordane. • Water in urban areas has a characteristic "signature" that is reflec- tive of the chemicals used in the watersheds. Insecticides—such as diazinon, carbaryl, cholorpyrifos, and malathion—were detected more frequently and usually at higher concentrations in urban streams than in agricultural streams. • Concentrations of selected trace elements, such as cadmium, lead, zinc, and mercury, are elevated above background levels in heavily populated urban settings. • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are used in plastics, cleaning solvents, gasoline, and industrial operations, are prevalent in shallow urban ground water. Eight indicators have been chosen to describe chemical contaminant pressures on water resources: ; • Atmospherip deposition of mercury. , • Chemical contamination in streams and ground water. • Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water. • Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams. : • Toxic releases to water of mercury, dioxifi, lead, PCBs, and persist- ent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals (PBJTs). • Sediment contamination of inland watete. • Sediment contamination of coastal waters. H Sediment toxicity in estuaries. , Mercury contamination of waters and sediments is one of the lead- ing causes of closed fisheries and fish consumption advisories in the U.S. (see Section 2.5). Atmospheric [deposition in the Great Lakes and northeastern area of the U.S. is the primary source of this contaminant. Discharges to waterways as indicated by data from EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRIJ are a relatively small source of mercury contamination. I ' ; j The EPA National Sediment Inventory (NSIJ) has extensively reviewed sediment qusility data collected predominantly from sampling programs targeted at sites of known contamination (See ). NSj classifies these sites as demonstrating, by association or otherwise, probable biological effects related to the contamination. Not surprisingly, the most contaminated watersheds are found in the Great Lakes region and northeast corridor in areas of dense populations and industrial development. Data show that a small proportion (1 percent or less) of the sampled estuarine areas of the eastern U.S. and Gulf of Mexico coasts contain chemicals at concentrations high enough to be associated with biological effects. '" Atmospheric deposition of mercury - Category 2 The primary sources of mercury emissions on a national level are coal-fired power plants (33 percent), municipal waste incinerators (18 percent), and medical waste incinerators (10 percent) (EPA, OW, December 1997). Coal-fired power plants produce mercury by burning coal, which contains trace amounts of mercury that are released during combustion. Incinerators emit mercury when they burn wastes containing mercury. For medical waste incinerators, mercury waste comes from medical devices like thermometers and blood pressure cuffs. For municipal waste incinerators, mercury comes from discarded appliances, such as thermostats and fluorescent lights and lamps. Mercury deposition was estimated from measurements made by the Mercury Deposition Network (MDN), which is part of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program. Precipitation samples were collected weekly and analyzed for fatal mercury and methylmeniury. The MDN began a transjtion network of 13 sites in 1995 and, !n the next year, became an official network in the NADP with 26 sites. During 2000, more than ko sites were in operation. 2-38 2.2 Waters and Watersheds ;Chapter2-Purer Water ------- - > 'i-f.f-y-- « ww-es? S-J£i«v ™rscP'«typia9«8 Atmospheric deposition of mercury - Category 2 (continued) What the Data Show Estimates of annual mercury wet deposition in 2001 are presented in Exhibit 2-24. Mercury deposition ranges from a low of 2.4 micrograms per square meter (pg/m2) measured at a California site to over 14 pg/m2 at sites in eastern Texas, south Florida, and eastern Wisconsin. The Great Lakes and southeastern states are those most greatly affected by mercury deposition. Indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations for this indicator include: • The spatial coverage provided by the Mercury Deposition Network is somewhat limited, though the measurement sites have been distributed relative to major mercury emission sources. • Only wet deposition of mercury was measured. Data Source The interagency National Atmospheric Deposition Program served as the data source for this indicator. (See Appendix B, page B-14, for more information.) Exhibit 2-24: Annual mercuiy wet deposition in 2OO1 per square meter (\|Jg/m2) Note: Coverage does include Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico Source: National Atmospheric Deposition Program, Mercury Deposition Network 2001. March 25, 2003; (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edU/mdn/maps/200T/0 7 MDNdepo.pdf). Chapter 2 - Turer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-39 ------- iilili Cnemical contamination in streams and ground water - Category 2 The U.S. Geological Survey reported on contaminants in stream waters and streambed sediment for the entire U.S. (see The Heinz Center, 2002). The contaminants reported include many pesticides, selected pesticide degradation products, PCBs, polyaromatic hydro- carbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds, other industrial con- taminants, and trace elements. In sufficient concentrations, any of these chemicals can harm wildlife, but for many of these com- pounds, there are no standards or guidelines for acceptable levels in aquatic systems. In the USGS analysis, water contaminant data were derived from 36 major river basins, which included 109 stream sites with data sufficient to calculate annual averages. Stream water samples gen- erally were collected on 20 to 40 occasions over a one-year peri- od (Cilliom, et al., 2002) during 1992 to 1998. Ground water data were collected from 3,549 wells in these major river basins and aquifers. What the Data Show All stream waters averaged one or more contaminants at detectable levels throughout the year. More than 80 percent averaged five or more (Exhibit 2-25). About 90 percent of ground water sites averaged one or more detectable contaminants. 40 percent contained five or more contaminants. Indicator Caps and Limitations The sites sampled are representative of a wide range of stream sizes, types, and land uses broadly distributed across the U.S. (Gilliom, et al., 2002; The Heinz Center, 2002). it 100 o I* ij* ;is t£o ., JE 43 _ c . f. ro \|\|\| &a ft 80 60 40 20 licit 2-25: Occurrence of contaminants in \|S i i\| , 1 t '- * iJ* \|t st gtreams and cjroi d around water, IQ92-1998 C oVe I " SKiii-L'iiii"h ,1 rt-S"»r I m 1 "n * fe T llrcei'f he "fleinz Center The 5ta& of the Nation's Ecosystems 2002 SI'K'«!!!»> \|-:\|y;™« n IfT^ ^%y4^rw ^ y \| st a from the U.S Geological Survey ?ssi",! -ffKtfi fi r* p si n ; '( t i i 11 t it _ I'll f L\| '* * 1' U J J 1 »^ Data Source i i i Date for this indicator came from U.S. Geological Survey, as com- piled for The Heinz Center (2002). (See Appendix B, page B-15, for more information.) • Testicides in farmland streams and ground water - Category 2 Nearly one billion pounds of pesticides are used in the U.S. each year to control weeds, insects, and other organisms that threaten or undermine human activities such as agriculture. The vast majority of pesticides—about 80 percent—are used for agricul- tural purposes. Although pesticide use has resulted in increased crop production and other benefits, it has also raised concerns about potential adverse effects on the environment and human health. Pesticide contamination of streams, rjvers, lakes, reser- voirs, coastal areas, and ground water mjay cause unintended adverse effects. These water resources support aquatic life and related food chains and are used for recreation, drinking water, irrigation, and many other purposes. In addition, water is one of the primary pathways by which pesticides are transported from their application areas to other parts of the environment. 2-40 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Chapter 2 - Furer Water ------- lesticides in farmland streams and ground water - Category 2 (continued) From 1992 to 1998, the USGS, under its National Water Quality Assessment Program, conducted the largest data collection effort ever performed for pesticides (including insecticides and herbi- cides) in ground and surface waters. This effort involved analysis for 76 pesticides and seven selected pesticide degradation prod- ucts in 8,200 samples of ground water/surface water in 20 of the nation's major hydrologic basins. Sampling sites included streams and ground water in both agricultural areas and urban areas. What the Data Show In all streams, at least one pesticide was present at detectable levels throughout the year. Data were analyzed separately for agricultural and urban areas: • Agricultural areas. About 75 percent of monitored farmland streams had an average of five or more pesticides at detectable levels, and over 80 percent had at least one pesticide that exceeded aquatic life guidelines. About 60 percent of ground water sites in agricultural areas had a least one detectable pesticide, and seven percent had an average of five or more compounds at detectable levels. A very small proportion (less than one percent) of ground water sites in farmland areas had one or more pesticides in concentrations that exceeded human health standards or guidelines (The Heinz Center, 2002). A relatively small 'number of these chemicals—specifically the herbicides atrazine (and its breakdown product desethylatrazine), metolachlor, cyanazine, and alachlor—accounted for most detections in ground water. The high detection frequency for these pesticides is related to their use. All are among the top five herbicides used in agriculture across the nation (Gilliom, et al., 2002). • Urban areas. Water in urban areas has a characteristic "signa- ture" that is reflective of the chemicals used in the watersheds serving those areas. Insecticides such as diazinon, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, and malathion were detected more frequently, and usually at higher concentrations, in urban streams than in agri- cultural streams. Herbicides were detected in 99 percent of urban stream samples and in more than SO percent of sampled weljs. The most common herbicides in urban streams and ground water were simazine and prometon. Frequency of detection, expressed as a percentage of pesticides in water samples, serves as a basic indicator (Exhibit 2-26): • Streams. The data suggest that pesticides are fairly ubiquitous in both farmland and urban streams and rivers. As noted above, at least one pesticide was present at detectable levels through- out the year in all monitored streams. Most pesticide detec- tions were found in rivers associated with mixed land uses, fol- lowed by streams associated with urban land use, then streams associated with agricultural land uses. • Ground water. Significantly fewer detections of pesticides were found in shallow ground water, and the least detections were found in major aquifers. For the 21 most detected pesticides, data suggest that their occurrence, in both streams and ground.water, closely mirrors their use. Surprisingly, pesticides were detected as frequently, or sometimes more frequently, in urban streams than in streams associated with agricultural lands. The NAWQA data indicate that, in urban and agricultural streams and shallow ground water, pesti- cides most often occur in mixtures (i.e., more than one compound is present in the sample). The human health and environmental impacts of pesticide contamination, particularly when the pesti- cides occur as mixtures, are not well understood. Data Gaps and Limitations Knowing how many pesticides are detected and at what concen- trations provides basic information on the extent to which these compounds are found in streams and ground water. However, the presences of pesticides does not necessarily mean that the levels I Exhibit 2-26: jummaiy of detections of one or more ilif"- pesticides in streams and ground water, 1992-1998 f • All Detections H Detections >0.01 \|ig/L I: Detections >0.05 ug/L . !f;9° 6% 80 I 70 "- Streams Shallow , . CW !. Agricultural .Coverage: lower 48 states.. Streams Shallow GW Urban Rivers Major Aquifers Mixed Land Use Source: Modified from The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. Data from the U.S. Geological Survey. Cnapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-41 ------- ,j!, Testicides in farmland streams ana ground water - (_ategi sry 2 (continued) are high enough to cause problems. Comparison to standards and guidelines provides a useful reference to help judge the signifi- cance of contamination. Drinking water standards or guidelines do not exist for 43 percent (33 of 76) of the pesticides analyzed, and aquatic life guidelines do not exist for 63 percent (48 of 76) of the pesticides analyzed. Current standards and guidelines do not account for mixtures of chemicals and seasonal pulses of high concentrations. In addition, potential effects on reproductive, nervous, and immune systems, as well as on chemically sensitive individuals, are not yet well understood. Data Sources \ I ' :,.. , i I The data sources for this indicator were The U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment Program, as compiled for The Heinj: Center (2002), and The EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.(See Appendix B, page B-15, for more information.) Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams - Category 2 " ? Airborne nitrogen and sulfur gases (i.e., nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides) are referred to as acid precursors because they react with water, oxygen, and other compounds to form sulfuric acid and nitric acid. For example: • They combine with water vapor and oxygen in the atmosphere to form acids that fall to earth as a component of snow, fog, dry particles, gases, or acid rain. • When they reach a waterbody through dry deposition, they combine with surface water to form nitric acid and sulfuric acid. • Indirect deposition can occur when these precursors are deposited on land and then washed into a waterbody by storm water runoff. The effects of indirect deposition are particularly serious if the storm deposits acid rain. Acidification is common in waterbodies in the eastern U.S., where weather patterns deposit acids made from air pollutants generated in the Midwest and points further west. Also, many eastern water- bodies are naturally acidic, making them more susceptible to the effects of acid deposition because their underlying soils and rock are not able to buffer incoming acids. This is particularly true for many lakes in the Adirondack Park, located in upstate New York. Acidification affects ecosystems in many ways. For example: • Aquatic organisms in acidified waters often suffer from calcium deficiencies that can weaken bones and exoskeletons and can cause eggs to be weak or brittle. • It affects the permeability of fish membranes and, particularly, the ability'of gills to take in oxygen frotjn water. • Increasing 'amounts of acid in a waterbody change the mobility of certain trace metals like aluminum, cadmium, manganese, iron, arsenic, and mercury. Species that are sensitive to these metals, particularly fish, can suffer as a iresult. Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams is determined based on a suite of chemical measurements, including pH, conductivity, dis- solved organ'c carbon (DOC), cations, an\|ons, and acid-neutraliz- ing capacity (ANC). Using data for these parameters, it is possible to distinguish, on a national scale, natural: sources of acidity such as wetlands, from anthropogenic sources such as acid deposition and mine drainage (Baker, et al., 1991). For example, in low pH waters: ' • High conductivity and high sulfate concentrations indicate acid- mine drainage. • High DOC concentrations with low conductivity indicate acid contributions from wetlands. \| • Low conductivity, moderate sulfate concentrations, and low DOC concentrations indicate acid deposition. i What the Data Show EPA's 1984 to 1986 National Surface Water Survey (NSWS) esti- mated that, in acid-sensitive regions of the northern and eastern 2-42 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Cnapter 2 - Purer Water ------- Acid sensitivity in laRes and streams - Category 2 (continued) U.S., 4.2 percent of lakes and 2.7 percent of streams were acidic. Of those acidic lakes and streams, 75 percent were acidic due to acid deposition, 22 percent were acidic due to organic sources, and three percent were acidic due to acid-mine drainage (Exhibit 2-27). These surveys have been repeated periodically for smaller proba- bility samples of lakes in the Northeast, the Adirondacks and streams in the Appalachians (Stoddard, et al., 1996). More inten- sive monitoring also has been conducted on lakes in the Northeast, the Appalachians, and the Midwest, and on streams in the Appalachian Plateau and Blue Ridge to assess long-term acidi- ^ , -,^ ^ „ .__,_ _ ,n_r_r^. ^ ~~ • ' "':','. "'•'--:' ' ~ ~ • ~ - , "^ txnioit 2-27: jources or acidity in acid-sensitive lakes and streams, 1984-1986 Watershed sources 3% Coverage: Acid sensitive regions of the United States north and east, inclusive of the upper midwest, New England, Adirondack Mountains in New York, the ' northern Appalachian Plateau, and the Ridge and Blue Ridge Provinces of - Virginia Source: Baker et al. Acid Lakes and Streams in the United States: The Role of Acidic Deposition. (1991). fication trends (Stoddard, etal., 1998). Based on these programs, EPA estimated that in three regions, one-quarter to one-third of lakes and streams previously affected by acid rain were no longer acidic, although they were still highly sensitive to future changes in deposition (EPA, ORD, January 2003). EPA has concluded that the decrease in acidity is a result of reduced sulfate emissions under its acid rain programs. Specifically: • Eight percent of lakes in the Adirondacks are currently acidic, down from 13 percent in the early 1990s. • Less than two percent of lakes in the upper Midwest are cur- rently acidic, down from three percent in the early 1980s. • Nine percent of.the stream length in the northern Appalachian plateau region is currently acidic, down from 12 percent in the early 1990s. Lakes in New England did not show decreases in acidity, and streams in the Ridge and Blue Ridge regions of Virginia were unchanged. Even though acid deposition has been decreasing in the Ridge and Blue Ridge regions, waterbodies in these areas are expected to show a lag time in their recovery due to the nature of the soils in those regions. Immediate responses to decreasing deposition were neither seen nor expected in these two regions. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The NSWS has not been repeated nationwide since the mid- 1980s, so there are no data to assess trends in surface water acidification in other sensitive areas of the country. Data Source The data source for this indicator was EPA's National Surface Water Survey. (See Appendix B, page B-1S, for more information.) C-napter 2 - Furer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-43 ------- Toxic releases to water of mercury, dioxin, lead, TCDS, a,id TDis - Category 2 The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain industries as well as by federal facilities. This inventory was established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), which requires facilities to use their best readily available data to calculate their releases and other waste management estimates. This indicator is based on reported TRI releases of mercury, dioxins, PCBs, sum of all persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals (PBTs), and lead to water in calendar year 2000 (EPA, OEI, May 2002). PBT chemicals include dioxins, mercury, PCBs, PAHs, and pesti- cides (but not lead). PBT pollutants are chemicals that are toxic, persist in the environment, and bioaccumulate in food chains, thus posing risks to human health and ecosystems. They transfer easily across and among ecological systems. Under EPCRA, most dischargers must report releases of toxic chemicals. Specifically, a facility must report to TRI if it meets all of the following criteria: • Conducts manufacturing operations within Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39 or, beginning in the 1998 reporting year, is in one of the following industry cate- gories: metal mining, coal mining, electric utilities that combust coal and/or oil, chemical wholesale distributors, petroleum ter- minals, bulk storage facilities, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities, and solvent recovery services. Also, fed- eral facilities must report to TRI regardless of their SIC code classification. • Has 10 or more full-time employee equivalents. • For all but certain PBT chemicals, manufacturers or processes more than 25,000 pounds or otherwise uses more than 10,000 pounds of any listed chemical during the calendar year. What the Data Show . During 2000, facilities reporting to the TRI released over 7 billion pounds of chemicals (EPA, OEI, May 2002J). Of that total, nearly 261 million pounds (3.7 percent) were discharged to water, including 21318 pounds of PBTs, 29 pouijds of PCBs, 5 pounds of dioxin compounds, and 2,302 pounds of mercury compounds. (Note that the total for PBTs includes all RBT compounds report- ed under TRI. Total releases for specific types of PBT compounds, such as PCBs and mercury compounds, ate also aggregated and reported separately.) Indicator Gaps and Limitations The TRI data have several limitations: • The TRI program only accounts for direct releases to water (i.e., it does not include releases from nonrppint sources). However, it does identify releases of metal and metal compounds from publicly owned treatment works (POT\Vs). • It does not include releases below the reporting thresholds. • Reporting is made by the releasing facilities, and no standard estimation procedure is employed (see Chapter 3-Better Protected Land). Data Source The data souxe for this indicator is EPA's Toxics Release Inventory program. (Sec Appendix B, page B-15, formore information.) 2-44 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Chapter 2 - Purer Water ------- jediment contamination of inland waters - Category 2 Contaminated sediments generally have localized impacts, with the severity of impact depending on the degree of chemical contami- nation. Contaminated sediments affect benthic organisms, such as worms, crustaceans, and insect larvae that inhabit the bottom of waterbodies. In some cases, toxic sediments kill these benthic organisms, reducing the food available to larger animals such as fish. Also, some contaminants in sediments may be taken up by benthic organisms and passed onto larger animals that fe'ed on these contaminated organisms. In this way, toxins in sediment move up the food chain in increasing concentrations. As a result, fish and shellfish, waterfowl, and fresh water and marine animals, as well as benthic organisms, may be affected by contaminated sediments. As part of EPA's National Sediment Inventory (described in the introduction to Section 2.2.4c), sediment chemical concentra- tions were evaluated in over 19,000 samples in the U.S. and cate- gorized into three groups: • Tier 1 (associated adverse effects on aquatic life or human health are probable). • Tier 2 (associated adverse effects on aquatic life or human health are possible). • Tier 3 (no indication of associated adverse effects on aquatic life or human health). Tier 1 sampling stations were distinguished from Tier 2 sampling stations based on the magnitude of a contaminant concentration in sediment, or the degree of corroboration among the different types of sediment quality measures. What the Data Show Of the sampling stations evaluated, 8,348 stations (43 percent) were classified as Tier 1, 5,846 (30.1 percent) were classified as Tier 2, and 5,204 (26.8 percent) were classified as Tier 3. The sampling stations were located in 5,695 individual river reaches (or waterbody segments) across the conterminous U.S., which constitute approximately 8.8 percent of all river reaches in the country (based on EPA's River Reach File 1). • Approximately 3.6 percent of all river reaches in the contermi- nous U.S. had at least one station categorized as Tier 1. • Approximately 3 percent of reaches had at least one station categorized as Tier 2 (but none as Tier 1). • In about 2.3 percent of reaches, all of the sampling stations were classified as Tier 3. In the National Sediment Inventory, watersheds (8-digit HUC) containing areas of probable concern (APCs) for sediment con- tamination were defined as those that include at least 10 Tier 1 sampling stations and in which at least 75 percent of all sampling stations were classified as either Tier 1 or Tier 2. APC designation could result from extensive sampling throughout a watershed, or from intensive sampling at a single contaminated location or a few contaminated locations. Analysis of survey data showed that: • Ninety-six eight-digit HUC watersheds were identified as con- taining APCs (Exhibit 2-28). • These watersheds represent about 4.2 percent of all eight-digit HUC watersheds in the U.S. (96 of 2,264). • In many of these watersheds, contaminated areas may be con- centrated in specific river reaches in the watershed. For example, within the 96 watersheds containing APCs across the country, 97 individual river reaches or waterbody segments have 10 or more Tier 1 sampling stations. • Twenty-four percent of reaches in watersheds (eight-digit HUC) containing APCs have at least one Tier 1 sampling station and 18.3 percent have no Tier 1 sampling station but at least one Tier 2 sampling station. The evaluation results indicate that sediment contamination asso- ciated with probable or possible adverse effects for both aquatic life and human health exists in a number of watersheds across the country. Indicator Gaps and Limitations Two general types of limitations are associated with the National Sediment Inventory: • Limitations of the compiled data. These limitations include the mixture of data sets derived from different sampling strategies, incomplete sampling coverage of geographic regions and moni- tored chemicals, the age and quality of the data, and the lack of measurements of important assessment parameters, such as TOC and acid volatile sulfide. • Limitations of the evaluation approach. These include uncertain- ties in the interpretive tools used to assess the sediment quality, use of assumed exposure potential in screening-level quantitative risk assessment (e.g., fish consumption rates as a surrogate for human health risk), and the subsequent difficul- ties in interpreting assessment results. Also, because this analysis is based only on readily electronically formatted data, the survey does not include a vast amount of information available from sources such as local and state governments and published academic studies. Chapter 2 - Furer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-45 ------- Sediment contamination of inland waters - Category 2 (continued) -ti,—_... «..«_ H.,™™-—™ . ——i : : . i ., . ... L .... _. iffcmft nr ,\|iui ,iin,; 1111 ,„ „ ; j in VI Exhibit 2-28: Watersheds in sediment quality inventory (198O-1999) identified as containing areas of particular concern (Af Cs) - 'I ERA. Oflke of Water. T/u Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Another key limitation is that most of the NSI data were compiled from monitoring programs that focus their sampling efforts on areas where contamination is known or suspected to occur. While this is important for meeting the stated objective of the NSI sur- vey, which is to identify contaminated sediments, it means that the data cannot be used to accurately characterize the overall condition of the nation's sediment, because national sampling coverage is incomplete and because uncontaminated areas are most likely substantially under-represented. In addition, the data analyzed for this indicator were collected over a relatively long time period; therefore, they do not definitively assess the current condition of sediments, but can serve as a baseline for future assessments. Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Qualify Data Source The data are described in Appendix A of the draft report The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the U.S., National Sediment Quality Survey; second edition (EPA- 822-R-01 -01). A draft is available. The final report is expected to be released in 2003. Summary reports oh the data are not avail- able. (See Appendix B, page B-1S, for more information). 2-46 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Cpapter 2 - "Purer Water i i ------- Sediment contamination of coastal waters - Category 2 Estuaries are important habitats for migratory birds, and many species offish and shellfish rely on the sheltered waters of estuaries as protected places to spawn. Contamination of sediments in estu- aries can pose a threat to individual species and to estuarine ecosystems. Contaminated sediments may harm benthic organisms that feed on these sediments, and they may accumulate up the food chain as larger organisms feed on smaller organisms, eventually posing a risk'to human health. Additionally, contaminants in sediments may be resuspended into the water by dredging and boating activities. One of the challenges of assessing sediment contamination is distinguishing among naturally occurring contaminants, such as certain organics and metals, from those created by human activities. PAHs and metals occur naturally in estuarine sediments, so a specia[ approach must be used to determine how much of their concentrations in sediment are contributed by human sources (Windom, et al., 1989). On the other hand, pesticides and PCBs are relatively easy to evaluate, as they can only come from human activities. Under the EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), contamination was measured for sediments from estuaries in the Virginian, Carolinian, and Louisianian Provinces of the eastern U.S. Chemical concentrations were identified as enriched by human sources if they exceeded values expected to occur naturally. Sediment chemical concentrations also were com- pared to NOAA-derived effects range low (ERL) values and effects . range median (ERM) values. These values identify threshold con- centrations that, if exceeded, are expected to produce ecological or biological effects 10 percent and SO percent of the time, respectively. A site was considered contaminated if five or more chemical concentrations exceeded the ERL, or if one or more exceeded the ERM. What the Data Show Sediment contaminant concentrations indicate that 40 percent, 45 percent, and 75 percent of U.S. estuarine sediments that were sampled are enriched with metals from human sources, PCBs, and pesticides, respectively (Exhibit 2-29). One to. two percent of estuarine sediments show concentrations of contaminants (PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals) that are above ERM values (Exhibit 2-30). Between 10 and 29 percent of sediments have contaminant concentrations between the ERM val- ues and lower-level ERL values (Exhibit 2-30). Most of the loca- 2-29: 'Regional sediment enrichment (1990-1997) • /' "- due to numan sources Source: EPA, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water. National ondition Report. September 2001. tions exceeding the ERM guidelines are in the northeast coastal area, while the Gulf of Mexico coast contains many locations where concentrations of five or more contaminants exceed the ERL values. The highest contamination is found in the Northeast. Estuaries most affected are: Hudson River-New York, New Jersey Harbor system; eastern Long Island Sound; Delaware River; Potomac River; and upper Chesapeake Bay. Indicator Gaps and Limitations Several limitations are associated with this indicator: • Assessment of contamination is limited to the three provinces noted above. Probabilistic assessments of coastal watersjaf the Great Lakes, West Coast, and northern New England do not exist, so this indicator does not include data for these regions. I The sampling design did not proportionately represent shallow habitats (less than 3 meters), which may represent as much as 50 percent of the total estuarine area in the Southeast and Gulf of Mexico. • While the data currently are adequate to address regional con- dition, they provide little information on gradients from major sources of contamination (e.g., large urban areas). • Many factors control availability of contaminants in sediments, including organic content, acid volatile sulfides, pH, particle size and type, and the specific form of chemical (e.g., chromium). Therefore, sediment chemical concentrations, in and of them- selves, do not directly estimate the biological availability of those contaminants. C-napter 2 - Turer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-47 ------- Sediment contamination or coastal waters - Category 2' II- (continuea) Exhibit 2-30: Distribution of sediment contaminant concentrations in sampled estuarine sites, 1990 - 1997 1 % > ERM i 10% i between ERL and ERM Pesticides Metals PAHs/PCBs Contaminant Concentrations with Adverse Effects on Organisms I Below Levels Associated with Adverse Affects • Effects Possible But Unlikely S Effects likely t Umted States fust coast (excluding waters north of Cape Cod) and Gulf of Mexico Source Ef%, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water. National Coastal Condition Report September 2 301 1 I • The scientific basis for the ERL/ERM criteria may vary among estuaries, habitats, and regions depending upon the kinds and abundances of indigenous biota. H Sediment contamination is not directly related to the biological availability of contaminants in sediments. Bioavailability of con- taminants in sediments can be directly measured by sediment toxicity testing, which forms the basis for the next indicator dis- cussed, "sediment toxicity in estuaries." Data Source , Sediment contamination data are from the EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Estuaries dataset. (See Appendix B, page B-16, for more information.) \|1 Pill, Indicatot Sediment toxicity in estuaries - Category 2 Many factors control the biological availability of contaminants in sediments, including acid volatile sulfides, pH, particle size and type, organic content, resuspension potential, and specific species/form of contaminant (e.g., chromium). Sediment toxicity tests are the most direct current measure for determining the bioavailability of contaminants in sediments. These tests provide information that is independent of chemical characterization and ecological surveys (Chapman, et al., 1987). They improve upon the direct measure of contaminants in sediments (the basis for the previous indicator "sediment contamination of coastal waters"), because many contaminants are tightly bound to sedi- ment particles or are chemically complex and are not biologically available. Thus, the presence of contaminants in sediments does not necessarily mean that the sediments are toxic. To assess bioavailability of sediment contaminants in estuaries, the EPA's EMAP Estuaries Program, in conjunction with the NOAA Status and Trends Program, conducted sediment toxicity tests on estuarine sediments. What the Data Show i The EPA's EMAP Estuaries Program found that about 10 percent of the sediments in estuaries in the Virginian, Carolinian, Louisianian, West Indian, and Californian provinces were toxic to 2-48 2.2 Waters and Watersheds Chapter 2 - Purer Water ------- Sediment toxicity in estuaries - Category 2 (continued) the marine amphipod, Ampelisca abdita, over a 10-day period (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). The NOAA Status and Trends Program also used a sea urchin fertility test and a microbial test to evaluate chronic toxicity in selected estuaries, NOAA found that 43 to 62 percent of the sediment samples from these selected estuaries showed chronic toxicity. Indicator Gaps and Limitations Sediment toxicity tests are a useful tool to establish the potential availability of contaminants in sediments. That availability can, however, be affected by artifacts of laboratory procedures that may make contaminants more or less available. Also, natural sedi- ment features such as particle size and the presence of ammonia and sulfides may cause toxicity that is not related to the presence of contaminants. Data Sources Data for this indicator came from EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Estuaries Program to Estuaries Dataset, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Status and Trends Program. (See Appendix B, page B-16, for more information.) No single program examines the ecological condition of our nation's surface waters. However, a number of regional programs do track the biotic condition of aquatic organisms and attempt to relate degrada- tions in their condition to observed pressures on aquatic systems. Biotic condition does not fully represent the breadth of ecological parameters that ideally would be needed to answer the question, "What are the ecological effects of impaired waters?" However, bio- logical condition is widely acknowledged as a valuable indicator that contributes to an understanding of overall ecological condition. There are several pleasures of biotic condition; three were selected for this report: • Fish index of biotic integrity (IBI) in streams. • Macroinvertebrate IBI for streams. • Benthic community index (coastal waters). These indicators are discussed in detail in Chapter 5, Ecological Condition. As they are relevant to water quality, they are briefly sum- marized below to demonstrate their effectiveness for future national assessments. Fish and Macroinvertebrate Indices of Biotic Integrity Consistent sampling methods and index development procedures were used to measure the biotic integrity offish and benthos in streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands (EPA, ORD, Region 3, August 2000). The mid-Atlantic streams were assessed using both fish and benthic insect indicators. Of the stream miles assessed in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, the fish IBI indicated that 17 percent of the streams were in good con- dition and 31 percent were in poor condition. The macroinvertebrate condition measures indicated that 17 percent of the Mid-Atlantic Highland streams were in good condition, while 26 percent were in poor condition. (See Chapter S-Ecological Condition, for definitions of these categories.) The assessment permits estimates of both the number and propor- tion of stream miles in good, fair, or poor condition, but it does not provide information about where these categories of streams are located. Associations of biological condition with specific stressors have not been completed. While the stressors found in the streams can be identified, it is not possible to determine which stressors are contributing to the observed biological condition. uentnic Community Index (Coastal Waters) Samples of bottom sediments were collected and benthic index scores were assessed for the northeast, southeast, and Gulf coastal areas. In these three areas, 56 percent of the coastal waters were " assessed in good condition, 22 percent in fair condition, and 22 percent in poor condition. The work of associating biological condition with specific stressors has been completed for these coastal waters, so the stressors that co-occur with poor benthic condition can be evaluated. Of the 22 percent of the coastal areas with poor benthic condition, 62 percent also had sediment contamination, 11 percent had low dissolved oxygen concentration, seven percent had low light penetration, and two percent showed sediment toxicity (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.2 Waters and Watersheds 2-49 ------- 2.3 Drinking Water Drinking water comes from surface water and ground water. Large- scale water supply systems tend to rely on surface water resources (including rivers, lakes, and reservoirs), while smaller water systems tend to use ground water. Slightly more than half of our nation's population receives its drinking water from ground water by means of wells drilled into aquifers (USGS, 1998). To protect human health, EPA, under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), sets health-based standards (called maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs) for contaminants in drinking water. These standards specify the maximum allowable level of each regulated contaminant In drinking water. The standards also prescribe protocols, frequen- cies, and locations that water suppliers must use to monitor for about 90 regulated contaminants. The SDWA standards and associ- ated monitoring and treatment by water suppliers provide a critical barrier that serves to protect the quality of much of our nation's drinking water. Some 55,000 community water systems in the U.S. test and treat water to remove contaminants before distributing it to customers. This section addresses three questions relevant to evaluating progress in drinking water protection: • What is the quality of drinking water? • What are sources of drinking water contamination? • What human health effects are associated with drinking contami- nated water? An indicator has been developed to help answer the first of these questions (Section 2.3.1). The second and third questions are addressed in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, respectively; however, no indicators were identified to answer these questions. Indicators Population served by community water systems that meet all health-based standards In 2002, state data reported to EPA showed that approximately 251 million people were served by community water systems that had no violations of health-based standards. This number repre- sents 94 percent of the total population Served by community water systems, up from 79 percent in 1993. Under-reporting and late reporting of violations data by, states to EPA affect the accuracy of this data. : ! i • i The drinking water standards set by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act apply to public water systems (P^WSs). PWSs are systems that serve at least 25 people or 15 service connections for at least 60 days a year. They may be publicly or privately owned. PWSs include: ! • Community water systems (CWSs)— systejns that supply water to the same population year- round. Thereiare some 55,000 commu- nity water systems in the U.S. ; • Non-transient non-community water systems—systems that regularly supply water to at least 25 of the same people at least 6 months per year, but not year-round (e.g., schools, factories, office build- ings, and hospitals that have their own Water systems). • Transient non-community water systems—systems that provide water in a place where people do not remain for long periods of time (e.g., a gas station or campground). : Under the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA, EPA must go through several steps to determine, first, whether setting a standard is appro- priate for a particular contaminant, and if £o, what the standard should be. To make these determinations, JEPA considers many fac- tors for each contaminant, including: • Its occurrence in the environment. ; • Human exposure and the risks of adverse health effects in the , general population and sensitive subpopulations. • Analytical .methods of detection. I • Available technology. ! • How the regulation would impact water systems and public health. As of 2003, about 90 contaminants are regulated in drinking water under the SDWA. ; 2-50 2.3 Drinking Water Cpapter 2 - furer Water ------- • -.vp-igesg IndicatQC Topulation served by community water systems that meet all health-based standards - Category I Under SDWA regulations, all-public water systems must monitor the quality of their drinking water and report the monitoring results to their state. Using these results, states determine whether a maximum contaminant level has been violated and must report all violations of federal drinking water regulations to EPA quarterly. The indicator presents the total population across the nation that is served by community water systems that met all health-based drinking water standards. What the Data Show In 2002, community water systems (CWS) served 268 million people—just over 95 percent of the U.S. population as recorded in the 2000 census. Analysis of state-reported violations data shows that, in 2002, 94 percent of this population was served by systems that met all drinking water standards (i.e., did not report violations of health-based standards) for the entire year (Exhibit 2-31). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Under-reporting and late reporting of CWS violations data by states to EPA affect the ability to accurately report the quality of our nation's drinking water. EPA last quantified the quality of viola- tions data in 1999. Based on this analysis, the agency estimated that states were not reporting 40 percent of all health-based vio- lations to EPA. EPA is continuing to verify state-reported CWS data and expects to issue an updated estimate of data quality in 2003. Data Source The underlying database for this indicator is EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal version. (See Appendix B, page B-16 for more information.) txnibit 2-31: Topulation served by community water systems (CWSs) with no reported violations, of heajth-oased standards, 1993-2002 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 250,596,287 239,927,650 239,299,701 229,805,285 224,808,251 215,351,842 213,109,672 208,700,100 202,626,433 - 196,229,162 94 91 91 91 89 87 86 84 83 79 {^Coverage: all 50 states jESource: EPA, Office of Water. Safe Drinking Water Information Systems/Federal version f(SBWIS/FED).20te. " . ;,.,.,, C_-napter 2 - Turer Water 2.3 Drinking Water 2-51 ------- Ill ! I a I Ill B £ II ^ Microbiological, chemical, and radiological contaminants can enter water supplies. These contaminants may be produced by human activity or occur naturally. For instance, chemicals can migrate from disposal sites or underground storage systems and contaminate sources of drinking water. Animal wastes, pesticides, and fertilizers may be carried to lakes and streams by rainfall runoff or snow melt. Nitrates from fertilizers can also be carried by runoff and percolate through soil to contaminate ground water. Arsenic and radon are examples of naturally occurring contaminants that may be released into ground water as it travels through rock and soil. Human wastes from sewage and septic systems or wastes from animal fecdlots and wildlife carrying microbial pathogens may get into waters ultimately used for drinking. Coliform bacteria from human and animal wastes may be found in drinking water if the water is not properly treated or disinfected. These bacteria are used as indicators that other harmful microbial pathogens, such as Ciardia, Cryptosporidium, and E. coli O157:H7, might be in the water. Disinfection of drinking water is a critical public health measure as it provides a barrier against harmful microbes. Under the SDWA, all surface water supplies, and ground water supplies with close hydro- logical connections to surface water must disinfect (and most must also filter) their water to remove pathogens. However, disinfectants such as chlorine react with naturally occurring organic matter in source water and in distributions systems to form chemical by-prod- ucts (known as disinfection by-products) such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acid compounds. For systems that disinfect, water leaves the plant with a disinfectant residual. However, in some cases water could become contaminated if there is a breach in the distribution system. • Chemical contaminants. Chemical contarpinants found or expected to occur ir drinking water can include metals, pesticides, and sol- vents. Most of these would be expected to cause no health effects at the levels found in treated drinking water, but they may cause a variety of biological responses at high doses. These could include cosmetic effects (such as skin discoloration) or unpleasant odors,. as well as more severe health effects such as nervous system or organ damage, developmental or reproductive effects, or cancer. One well-studied consequence of drinking contaminated water is the formation of methemoglobin in iiifaVits drinking formula with. more than! 10 ppm nitrate. This altered [hemoglobin does not carry oxygen efficiently; too much of it in the blood of very young chil: dren can be fatal (i.e., blue baby syndrome). • Pathogens. The consequences of consuming water with pathogenic microbes can include gastrointestinal illnesses causing stomach pain, diarrhea, headache, vomiting, and fever. Waterborne pathogens can cause diseases that are jess common in the U.S., such as typhoid fever and cholera, as w\|ell as more common water- borne diseases such as giardiasis or cryptosporidiosis. Pathogenic microbes can enter water from human and animal wastes. One of • the largest outbreaks of disease from contaminated water occurred in Milwaukee in 1993, when an estimated 400,000 peo- ple became ill from exposure to Cryptosporidium, a single-celled parasite that is found in the large intestines of a large number of animals, including cattle and humans! That outbreak killed more than SO people, the vast majority of whom had seriously weak- ened immune systems (Hoxie, et al., 1997). Drinking water disinfection is one of the great public health success stories of the 20th century. It has been a critical factor in reducing the incidence of waterborne diseases such as typhoid, cholera, and hepatitis, as well as gastrointestinal illness in the U.S. Though drinking water disinfection is a critical public health measure, the process does generate disinfection by-products, as mentioned earlier. These compounds have been associated with cancer, develop- mental, and reproductive risks, the extent of which is still uncertain (see Chapter 4-Human Health). , Effects of exposure to contaminants in drinking water will vary depending on many factors, including the type of contaminant, its concentration in drinking water, and how much contaminated water is consumed over what period of time. 2-52 2.3 Drinking Water lapter 2 - Purer Water ------- i^^-MliMMiS^^ 2.4 Recreation in and on the Water Our nation's rivers, lakes, and oceans are used for recreation in many different ways, including swimming; fishing, and boating. . Environmental programs implemented under the Clean Water Act (CWA) have significantly improved the quality of many of our nation's waters since the early 1970s. These programs help to main- tain the quality of waters that have been specifically designated for recreational uses and ensure that they do not become degraded in the future. Despite this progress, recreational waters are threatened or affected bypollution at some times and in various locations. For example: • During and following heavy rainfall, the sewer systems in some cities may become overloaded, resulting in the temporary dis- , charge of raw sewage, wastewater, and storm water into rivers and coastal areas. • Lakes and ponds may be affected by non-point source pollution, for example from septic tanks and agricultural sources, resulting in chemical contamination and elevated levels of nutrients. • Industries are issued permits under the Clean Water Act that allow discharges of certain treated wastewaters to rivers and streams. These discharges compromise our ability to also use those waters for recreational purposes. Perhaps the greatest human health concern associated with pollution of recreational waters is the potential for exposure to human pathogens. Many Americans risk illness from exposure to contaminated recreational waters. Epidemiology studies in the U.S. and abroad have consistently found an association between disease burden and con- taminated waters. State and local officials monitor water quality at pub- lic beaches and close the beaches or issue advisories when monitoring indicates that pathogens in water may have exceeded thresholds for public safety. The fact that hundreds of beach advisories and closings are issued every year at recreational rivers, lakes, and coastal waters throughout the U.S. suggests that our recreational waters are signifi- cantly impacted by pollution. Three questions are posed with regard to recreational waters: • What is the condition of waters supporting recreational use? • What are sources of recreational water pollution? • What human health effects are associated with recreation in con- taminated waters? An indicator has been developed to help answer the first of these three questions; at least with regard to pathogens in recreational waters. The second and third questions are addressed in Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3, respectively. No indicators were identified to answer these two questions. Note that concerns associated with consumption offish and shellfish, including fish and shellfish caught through recreational activities, are discussed in Section 2.5. Indicators Number of beach days that beaches are closed or under advisory As described in Section 2.2.1, a number of programs collect infor- mation on the condition of waters at a national scale, including the conditions that support recreational uses of waters. However, for a variety of reasons described in Section 2.2.1, none of these pro- grams (including the widespread CWA-mandated 305 [b] state data collection and reporting program) produce data with sufficient confi- dence and scientific credibility to serve as a national indicator for water quality condition. Nevertheless, data from an entirely different source (state and local monitoring of water quality at beaches) can be used to help answer the question "What is the condition of sur- face waters that support recreational use?"—at least with respect to pathogen contamination. When local and state officials monitor water quality at beaches, they generally test for indicator.organisms, such as coliforms. Not all of these organisms are harmful themselves, but their presence generally suggests that disease-causing microorganisms are also likely to be present When indicator organisms exceed certain thresholds, local or state officials will close the beach to the public. The number of days that beaches are closed or under advisory provides the basis for an indicator for recreational water quality with respect to pathogen contamination. This indicator reflects decisions made by state and local governments about whether pathogen levels are above their public health thresholds at beaches under their jurisdic- tion. Beach closure/advisory data predominantly represent coastal and Great Lakes areas. Data on inland waterways generally are not available or are not collected and reported. Thus, the question "What is the condition of surface waters that support recreational use?" can only be addressed for a portion of coastal and Great Lakes beaches on a national level at this time. CJnapter 2 - Turer Water 2.4 Recreation in and on the Water 2-53 ------- Number of beach days that beaches are closed or undei advisory - (Category 2 Data on beach closures are collected by EPA under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Program. This program is authorized by Section 104 of the Clean Water Act and described in EPA's Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters (EPA, ORD, OW, March 1999). The BEACH program collects data for the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches by sending a questionnaire to man- agers (usually in health or environmental quality departments in states, counties, or cities) who are responsible for monitoring swimming beaches on the coasts or estuaries of the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico, and the shoreline of the Great Lakes. Information on some other inland fresh water beaches has also been collected. Responses to these surveys are voluntary and have increased substantially from 159 local, state, and federal agencies reporting in 1997, to 237 agencies reporting on 2,445 beaches in 2001. What the Data Show Using the survey data, EPA compiles the number of days that beaches are closed or under advisory and compares that to the total number of "beach days"—i.e., days that the beaches would normally be open to the public. In 2001, survey respondents reported a total of approximately 320,000 beach days during the swimming season for the 2,445 beaches for which data were col- lected. These beaches were closed or uncjer advisory on almost six percent (over 19,000) of those beacrj days. Indicator Gaps and Limitations I . . ; This indicator has a number of limitations: H Since reporting is voluntary, the data cannot be extrapolated to accurately! determine the suitability on ja national level of sur- face waters to support recreation. '• H The indicjitor applies primarily at this time to coastal and Great Lakes beaches, as relatively few fresh water inland beaches are surveyed.; r H The causes of closures vary greatly ampng states; therefore, linking bench closures to human health problems or stressors is difficult. ' '. H Some reports are based upon infrequent monitoring. Infrequent monitoring could miss events that woujd cause closures. • In interpreting the data, the assumptioji is made that the public was at minimal risk of exposure to waterborne illness on days the beach was open. However, this may not always be true. Data Source Data for this indicator came from EPA's National Health Protection Siurvey of Beaches. (See Appendix B, page B-17 for more information.) ' -••..•' As mentioned earlier, beach advisories and closings in the U. S. are generally due to elevated levels of indicator organisms, such as coliforms, some of which do not themselves cause disease but may indicate the presence of disease-causing microorganisms. In the survey of beaches (see Section 2.4.1), respondents are asked to identify, based on best professional judgment, the sources of pollu- tion (i.e., the indicator organisms and any associated pathogens) that caused a beach advisory or closing. Exhibit 2-32 presents the sources reported for the 2001 swimming season. For just over half the cases, the sources were unknown. Storm water runoff was the reported cause for one-fifth (20 percent) of the beach closing or advisories. Rainfall, particularly heavy rain, creates runoff from farmland, city streets, construction sites, suburban lawns, roofs and driveways. This runoff contains harmful contaminants, including human and animal wastes, sediments, and excess nutrients. Runoff can enter waterbodies directly or yia the storm water drainage system. Other reported causes of beach closings and advi- sories were: wildlife (10 percent), sewage line blockages and breaks (four percept), improperly functioning .onsite wastewater facilities (i.e., septic systems—see Chapter 3-Better Protected Land) (three percent), combined sewer overflows (three percent), sanitary sewer overflows (two percent), boat discharges!(two percent), and publicly owned treatment works (one percent). No indicators have been identified to answer the question "What iare the sources of recre- ational water pollution?" at this time. The primary health concern associated With recreational waters is the risk of infection from waterborne pathogens. People may be at 2-54 2.4 Recreation in and on the Water (Chapter 2 - Turer Water ------- Exnioit 2-32: Reported sources of pollution that resulted in oeacn closings or advisories, 2001 : Septic system 3% rp°TW1% SSO 2% —v \ \ T Sewage line blockage/break 4% Boat discharge 2% • CSO 3% Wildlife 10% Stormwater runoff 20% Unknown 52% it CSO - Combined Sewer Overflow Is: SSO - Sanitary Sewer Overflow '.....' ..".-.'..'."'. .'. . p POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment Works flrSource: EPA, Office of Water. EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 2007 Swimming Season. EOvfay2002.. " • •-------.- risk if they ingest or inhale contaminated water, or simply through general dermal contact with the water. Some people may be more vulnerable than others, either because they are more susceptible to infection or because they have greater exposure to the water. For example, children may be more vulnerable to environmental exposure due to their active behavior and developing immune systems. Elderly and immunosuppressed persons may also be more vulnerable. The health effects of swimming in contaminated waters are usually minor—sore throats, ear infections, and diarrhea. In some instances, however, effects can be more serious and even fatal. Waterborne microbes can cause meningitis, encephalitis, and severe gastroenteri- tis (EPA, ORD, OW, March 1999). However, data on the effects and number of occurrences are limited. The number of occurrences are likely under-reported because individuals may not link common symptoms (e.g., gastrointestinal ailments, sore throats) to exposure to contaminated recreational waters. At this time, .no indicators have been identified to quantify the health effects associated with recre- ation in contaminated waters. Additional research is needed to better understand the types and extent of health effects associated with swimming in contaminated water. CJiapter 2 - turer Water 2.4 Recreation in and on the Water 2-55 ------- 2.5 (Consumption of Fish and jnellrisn Many coastal and fresh water environments are contaminated with a variety of toxic substances. Of particular concern are mercury, DDT, and PCBs because they persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in the food chain. Though PCBs and DDT are no longer manufactured or distributed in the U.S., they persist in his- torical deposits in watersheds and near-shore sediments. These deposits continue to provide an active source for contaminating fish and shellfish. Mercury can come from several sources, including industrial releases, abandoned mines, the burning of fossil fuels for electric power generation, and natural sources such as weathering of rock and volcanoes. Persistent chemicals enter the food chain when they are ingested by bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms. Benthic organisms are eaten by smaller fish, which in turn are eaten by larger fish, which may be consumed by humans or wildlife. Levels of PCBs and DDTs are a concern fn bottom-feeding fish and shellfish, as well as in higher-level predators. Mercury is concentrated particularly in larger and longer-lived predators, such as large-mouth bass, tunas, swordfish, and some sharks. Concentrations of all these com- pounds, especially in larger fish, can reach levels that are harmful to humans. To protect human health, state and local officials monitor levels of these compounds in fish and shellfish, and issue advisories when tissue concentrations exceed threshold levels. Typically, a fish or shellfish advisory will suggest that intake of a particular species be limited, especially for those at higher risk of health effects such as children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers. Three questions have been posed concerning consumption offish and shellfish: • What is the condition of waters that support consumption offish and shellfish? • What are contaminants in fish and shellfish, and where do they originate? • What human health effects are associated with consuming con- taminated fish and shellfish? Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3, respectively, discuss these ques- tions and, where available, the indicators that are used to help answer these questions. Indicators Percentage of river miles and lake acres with fish consumption advisories;," , -,•••• Contaminants in fresh water fish ^ - -, ,-;,-• Number fif watersheds exceeding health-based national water ijrjtKi'1,,' "". „',,»', ; „ i , quality cttena.. for mercgry and PCB? in fish tissue Three indicators, presented on the following pages, are available to help answer this question: j • Percentage of river miles and lake acres with fish consumption advisories. : • Contaminants'in fresh water fish. • Number of watersheds exceeding health-based national water quality criteria for mercury and PCBs iri fish tissue. The first indicator describes the extent of fish advisories, such as closed fisheries and/or restricted fish consumption. Fish advisories are issued by state or local authorities when levels of contaminants J • i in monitored fish exceed threshold levels. These advisories, which are widespread across the U.S., limit or restrict consumption of contami- nated species. Mercury, dioxin, PCBs, D,DT, and chlordane are responsible for many of these advisories (EPA, OW, May 2002a). Increases in the number of advisories over the years may reflect increased monitoring, increased contamination, and in some cases, more stringent health standards. : 5 The second indicator examines the number of contaminants in fish tissue from samples across the nation. This indicator shows that more than 90 percent of sampled fish had at least one contaminant and more than half had at least five. j The third indicator compares average fisrrtissue concentrations of mercury and PCBs across watersheds to rjuman-health based water quality criteria. This analysis showed that more than 30 percent of the watersheds for which there are data exceed mercury criteria. These watersheds are predominantly located in eastern coastal states, New England, and the lower portidn of the Mississippi River watershed. ! ; i For all three indicators, data are based on; fish tissue data collected by state or local government agencies, which tend to focus primarily on areas where these agencies believe there may be contaminated fish. This bias may result in inaccurate estimates of the extent of contamination. 2-56 2.5 Consumption of Fish and Shellfish Gliapter 2 - Purer Water ------- C-oastal risk For coastal fish, insufficient data on the edible portion of these fish are available to provide a national indicator. However, examination of fish tissue collected in coastal waters of the eastern U.S. and Gulf of Mexico shows that compounds of concern were present at levels above EPA's threshold for issuing an advisory. No national indicators are available for shellfish. However, as discussed below, data are available on the extent of shellfish waters that were classified as harvest-limited or harvest-prohibited from 1966 to 1995. These data show a steady decrease over this time period in the extent of waters classified as harvest-limited or harvest-prohibited. Still, as of 1995, harvesting was limited in 31 percent of shellfish waters and prohibited in 13 percent (NOAA, 1997). The predominant causes of closures are both human and non-human coliform bacteria. Data on shellfish waters come from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which records areas that are closed to shellfishing or are subjected to restricted or conditional harvesting. NOAA obtains its data from coastal states, which identify, survey, and classify shellfish-growing waters according to National Sanitary Survey Program (NSSP) guidelines (FDA, 1993). Classification status is based on sanitary surveys of water quality and shoreline surveys of pollution sources. Individual shellfish-growing areas are classified either as approved for harvest or as one of four harvest-limited categories: conditionally approved, restricted, condi- tionally restricted, and prohibited. All identified shellfish-growing waters must be classified as prohibited unless sanitary surveys indicate that water quality meets specific : NSSP standards for the other categories. Harvesting is permissible in approved areas year-round. The conditionally approved and condi- tionally restricted categories are for voluntary use by states when a predictable pollution event such as seasonal population, heavy rain- fall, or fluctuating discharges from local sewage plants affects the suitability of an area for harvest. Most shellfish harvest restrictions are made based on the concentration of fecal coliform bacteria in shellfish. This organism is not directly harmful to humans, but typi- cally is associated with human sewage and with organic wastes from livestock and wildlife. The National Shellfish Register provides a record of the acreage of all classified shellfish-growing waters in the conterminous U.S. The Register was first published in 1966 to meet the need for summary ' information on the status and extent of the nation's commercial shellfish-growing areas. Since the publication of the first Register, the acreage of classified shellfish-growing waters has increased more than two-fold from 10 million acres to more than 21 million acres (Houserand Silva, 1966; FDA, 1971; EPA, OE, 1975; DOC and HHS, 1985; NOAA, 1991; NOAA,1997), primarily due to an expanding consumer demand for shellfish. Since 1966, the percentage of all classified waters approved for har- vest has decreased 10 percent. However, data compiled for the 7995 Register, the last available compilation, suggest significant improve- ments. For example, the overall percent of harvest-limited waters decreased from a high of 42 percent in 1985 to 31 percent in 1995. The percent of prohibited waters also decreased from a high of 26 percent jn 1974 to 13 percent in 1995—the lowest percentage recorded. CJiapter 2 - Purer Water 2.5 Consumption of Fish and Shellfish 2-57 ------- Percent of river miles and lake acres under fish consumption advisories - Category 2 State and local governments protect people from possible risks of eating contaminated fish by monitoring local waters and issuing fish advisories when contaminant levels are unsafe. A consumption advisory may recommend that people limit or avoid eating certain species offish caught from certain lakes, rivers, or coastal waters. Advisories are often very specific. They may apply to specific water types (such as lakes), or they might include recommenda- tions for specific groups (such as pregnant women or children). Advisories apply to locally caught fish or wildlife as well as fish purchased in stores and restaurants. EPA has compiled these advi- sory data into the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) database, which lists, among other things, the species and size offish or wildlife under advisory, the chemical contami- nants covered by the advisory, the location and surface area of the waterbody under advisory, and the population subject to the advisory. What the Data Show Exhibit 2-33 shows the percent of the nation's river miles and lake acres under advisory for the years 1993 to 2001. Note that the Great Lakes and their connecting waters are considered separately from other waters and are not included in the calculations of total lake acres or river miles. Except for 1998, the percentage increased continuously during this 8-year period. Approximately 79,119 lakes (11,277,276 lake acres) and 485,205 river miles were under advisory in 2001, compared to 14,962 lakes and 74,505 river miles under advisory in 1993. Note that the increase in the total size of waters under advisory is due in part to increased monitoring for chemical contaminants in fish and wildlife tissue Exnioit 2-33: Trends in percentage or river miles and lake acres under fish consumption advisory, 1993-2001 1993 1994 199S 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Coverage: ad SO jUtes Source: EPA, Office of Water. Update: National Listing of Tab and Wildlife Mtisoria, May 2002. and the states' increasing use of statewide advisories. Currently, the 2,618 advisories in the national listing represent almost 28 percent of the nation's total lake acreage and 14 percent of the nation's total river miles. .: In addition to the NLFWA data, much information is available on the advisory status of our nation's waters. EPA and FDA issued a national mercury advisory in January 200\|l recommending that women of childbearing age and young children limit their con- sumption offish (). :• f Many great waters of the U.S. are currently under fish advisories for a variety of pollutants. The great waters include the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, the Chesapeake Bay, 20 National Estuary Program (NEP) sites, and 14 National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) sites. , • M All of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters are under advisory. ; n Lake Charnplain is under advisory for PCBs and mercury. H Although the Chesapeake Bay is not under any advisories, the Potomac, )ames, Back, and Anacostia Rivers, which connect to it, are all under PCB advisories. ; SI Baltimore Harbor, which also connects; to the Chesapeake Bay, is under advisory for chlordane and PCB contamination in fish and blue crabs. II Many of the major estuaries listed in the NEP and/or designated as NERRS sites are under fish and/or shellfish advisories for multi- ple chemical contaminants. Sixty-five percent of the total number of NEP, NERRS, and combined sites are under fish consumption advisories. Seventeen sites have no current fish consumption advisories. Several states have issued fish advisories for all of their coastal waters. An estimated 71 percent of the coastline of the conterminous 48 states currently is under advisory. This includes 92 percent of the Atlantic coast and 1o6 percent of the gulf coast. The Atlantic coastal advisories have been issued for a wide variety of chemical contaminants, including mercury, PCBs, dioxins, and cadmium. All of the gulf coast advisories have been issued for mercury, although other contaminants may also be present. No Pacific coast state has issued a statewide advisory for any of its coastal waters, although several local areas along the Pacific coast are under advisory. : Indicator Gaps and Limitations Currently, fish consumption advisories are being used as a way of informing the public of risks associated with eating contaminated 2-58 2.5 Consumption of Fish and S.hellfish Chapter 2 - Purer Water ------- tercent of river miles and lake acres under fisK consumption advisories - Category 2 (continued) fish in certain waterbodies. Advisories are based on fish tissue monitoring data collected by states and are largely focused on areas where states know fishing occurs or suspect contamination. Criteria used to issue advisories vary among states, with some having more stringent criteria and more robust advisory programs than others. Due to the large range in geographic size of lake acres and river miles affected by chemical contaminants that may be contained under a single advisory, the number of advisories is not as accu- rate a measure of the contamination as geographic extent. As a result, information is now provided on total lake acres and river miles where advisories are currently in effect. A large-scale fish tissue study is underway and will help identify waters that require further monitoring to determine whether advisories are necessary. This indicator is based on fish tissue monitoring data collected by the states. It does not provide unbiased geographical cover- age, and it is largely focused on areas where states know fishing occurs or suspect contamination problems. At present, 43 states issued risk-based advisories. Data Source Fish advisory indicator data are from the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories program. (See Appendix B, page B-17, for more information.) Contaminants in fresn water fish- Category 2 From 1992 to 1998, fish samples were collected from 223 stream sites in the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. Tissue composites from whole fish were analyzed for PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, and trace elements. These contaminants may harm organisms directly or by affecting their reproduction, and they may make fish unsuit- able for consumption by humans. These data were compiled for the entire U.S. What the Data Show More than 90 percent of sampled fish had at least one contami- nant detected and about half of the fish tested had at least five contaminants at detectable levels (Exhibit 2-34) (The Heinz Center, 2002). All fish tested from the Great Lakes had five or more detected contaminants. Indicator Caps and Limitations The sites sampled are representative of a wide range of stream sizes, typesrand land uses broadly distributed across the U.S., but they do not represent a probability sample, so confidence bounds on the estimates could not be calculated (Gilliom, et al., 2002; The Heinz Center, 2002). Fish .tissue concentration data are derived from composites of whole fish and not from edible portions alone. Thus it is not pos- sible to compare tissue concentrations to aquatic or human health ig=« exhibit 2-34: Occurrence or contaminants in stream -^-:•_:'--" : fish, 1992,1998 flCpyerage: lower 48 states. \|p Nate: Partial indicator data: freshwater stream fish only, tSburce: The Heinz Center, Tte State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. Data from the ^r U.S. Geological Survey. Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.5 Consumption of Fish and Shellfish 2-59 ------- Contaminants in fresk water fisn - Category 2 (continued) 13!WRW:53fB!f:W^ u guidelines. These data do, however, indicate organism exposure to Data Source measured chemicals. Data for this indicator came from the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment Program as compiled for The Heinz Center (2002). (See Appendix B, page B-17, for more information.) • Number of watersheds exceeding health-based national in fish tissue - Category 2 water quality criteria for mercury and For this indicator, fish tissue concentrations of each chemical in the NLFWA database were averaged across 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds. The average concentration was then compared to fish- tissue based criteria for mercury and PCBs. The average fish tissue concentration is for all monitored species, fillet samples only (whole fish samples were omitted from the analysis as these are not recommended for use in assessing human health i: Watersheds with fisn tissue concentrations exceeding health-based national water c criteria for mercury, 2001 dality I Cortta-m Other Sources I NoCtcnfnoxcdMDju Coverage does not include Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico Stale* cumn% u$e wtter column concentration-based mercury water quatcty itandwdj and wouid need to adopt, Rsh tissue-based tanjet te«h XI orftr to tnc Ml apprca* for nanny Total Majiimim Da«y Id*, AS6wat ndtKttaw "">* be moored to meet EPA rational aifld jwert vtate Ith adittwy te«,«h, hich are often set below the Note: Watersheds highlighted yellow have "significant" mercury sources ot^j deRned as where the total estimated load frojn Publicly Owned Treatment^! impact). Thus, the average is meant to represent the potential exposure concentration for persons consuming fish from typically frequented local lakes, streams, and rivers. The mercury criterion used in this comparison was the national fish-tissue-based criterion. The PCBs criterion was based on the fish tissue levels used to derive the curreht national health-based water concentration criteria. Criteria ~1 exceedancesi can be interpreted as \| meaning that the watershed, on aver- 1 age, is not meeting maximum tissue contaminant levels designed to be protective of human health. What the Data Show The data for mercury are a fairly good representation of conditions in the eastern U.S. and California. Of the 696 8-digit HUC watersheds with available data, 225 exceeded the mer- cury criterion (Exhibit 2-35). These are predominantly located in eastern coastal states, New England, and the lower portion of the Mississippi River watershed. Data for PCB concentra- tions are less available; 114 of 153 watersheds where data were available contained tjssue above the criterion level (Exhibiit 2-36). r, than deposition s (POTW/s) and pulp and paper mills is greater than 5% of estimated wateitody delivered merdjry^at a typical air deposition load (10 gAm2/yr) and/or wrier mercury ceH chlor Jluli faciln res mercury raineS significant past producer gold mines are present ! SMK« CM, Ofltee of Wrtec Htbatml t&tiy of Tab ------- ass Number of watersheds exceeding health-based national water quality criteria for mercury and fCBs in fish tissue - Category 2 (continued) Indicator Gaps and Limitations Several limitations should be noted for this indicator: • The data were compiled based on voluntary contributions from individual states and have not undergone an independ- ent quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review. Data quality is a function of the distinct programs for which the data were collected. • Sampling by state agencies was not generally done on a statistical basis, but rather was targeted toward specific water- bodies and fish species. Some selection of sampling locations was based on fishing pressure and/or suspected elevated con- taminant levels. For example, there appears to be a bias in the mercury data towards top predator or sport fish (of the top 10 most frequent species sampled, 83 percent are trophic level 4 species). This bias could potentially skew the average watershed concentration level to higher than actual exposure depending on real consumption patterns. • Some states may not have reported tissue data when resultant concentrations were found to be below state fish advisory levels. • Substantially more data are available for the years 1990 to 1995. than for more recent years. • Spatial gaps in the data are readily apparent from the indicator maps. Since a large fraction (roughly two-thirds) of the data- base was not georeferenced (i.e., no latitude/longitude coordi- nates were created), those data could not included in the indica- tor. Bias imposed by these miss- ing data was not examined. Latitude/longitude coordinates will be assigned in a database update in the near future and can be incorporated in future indicators. • The human health-based criteria of 0.3 ppm methylmercury that was used for comparison is considerably higher than the more recent federal advisory of 0.18 ppm for consumption of mercury-contaminated fish. State consumption advisories are typically at levels closer to the 0.18 ppm than to the 0.3 ppm level. • Sampling patterns of state agen- cies are largely being directed toward areas of higher fishing pressure or based on suspected elevated contaminant levels. Thus this indicator, which is based on generalizing from specific sampling locations to watershed averages, is expected to represent a somewhat conservative estimate of the average concentration in consumed fish in each respective area. Data Sources The fish tissue indicator data are from the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories program. (See Appendix B, page B-18, for more information.) Exhibit 2-36: Watersheds witji fish tissue concentrations exceeding health-based national water quality criteria for polycWorinated biphenyls (f Cfis), 2OOI I \| All Results are Non-Detect Half for Less Than Detection 8 Currently Meets EPA Criterion >1000% Above Criterion 100% to 1000% Above Criterion <100% Above Criterion No Georeferenced Rsh Tissue Data Coverage does not include Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico. inr Note: Graphic was created for this report in ArcView using NLFVVA data. ip—SSurce: EPA, Office of Water. National la&y offish ™K WiUifeAMsorlei (NLFWA>. June 2001. C-napter 2 - Hirer Water 2.5 Consumption of Fish and Shellfish 2-61 ------- ,,ii!ji! "7\"»n"»i" jiff j '••••• j'li^^ 1 'BIB ^ i a djj ^S&^Jnll; 1EM^^ . • . ri!.'-i- ,-'•'•••'''• :"•;•'•••'-••; :1:' :•:«•.•;:•.^; istiiSa tilSi^^ :W:^ ilini T* fi ijaiil / '" 4ri f"l 'Cni n 3 T & il\|!t ;'":l'ii!!:ip\|:i«:'ii!S!!'•• '''^"'i sis™: . :!!Si!i;.i!i:i:::::i:". ^i1 :;::! i1 fes1 ' 't::^:.;'::1!:^!^1!!;!':::!^^:. iiiiiJ» iiii\|H^ Information is available to help answer this question in a general sense. Rsh and shellfish can be contaminated by both chemical pol- lutants and pathogens. Chemical contaminants of greatest concern tend to be those that are toxic and persistent and that bioaccumu- late. Contaminants with these properties that are common in fresh and coastal waters include: • DDT mid PCBs.The manufacture and use of these compounds have been banned in the U.S. However, deposits from past pollu- tion persist in sediments and land-based sources, and these deposits continue to pollute watersheds. In addition, PCBs can be found in some products manufactured prior to the ban (e.g., elec- trical transformers). • Mercury This metal, a natural and highly toxic element, can now be detected (although in small amounts) in all waters. Sources of mercury include wastes from past mining practices and the burning of fossil fuels and wastes, which can create mercury emissions that settle on land and water. In water, bacteria convert mercury to methylmereury, a toxic compound that is absorbed by fish and accumulates in their tissue. Biological threats to shellfish consumption include bacterial con- tamination from human and animal wastes and contamination from naturally occurring toxins that shellfish accumulate from consuming certain algae. Some data are availabte on the sources of bacterial contamination. When state managers close or otherwise restrict a shellfish-growing area due to high levels of fecal coliform bacteria, they typically cite potential sources of that contamination. This information was col- lected for the 1990 and 1995 Shellfish Registers (NOAA, 1991; NOAA, 1997). In 1995, sources of shellfish contamination cited by reporting officials were (in decreasing order of frequency): • Urban runoff (40 percent) • Unidentified sources upstream of coastal watersheds (39 percent) • Wildlife (38 percent) • Individual wastewater treatment systems (e.g., septic tanks) (32 percent) • Wastewater treatment plants (24 percent) • Agricultural runoff (17 percent) • Marinas (17 percent) • Boating (13 percent) • Industrial facilities (9 percent) • Combined sewer overflows (7 percent) • Direct discharges (4 percent) • Feedlots (3 percent) The 1990 Register reflects the same top five sources of pollution, although in slightly different order. Marine biotoxins associated with "red tideb" and other naturally occurring contaminants such as Vibrio spejdes (a free-living marine and estuarine bacteria associated with stomach and intestinal disor- ders of varying intensity) can also cause temporary closures, although the;/ are not usually regarded as:a pollution source (Rippey, 1994; FDA, 1993). ! i : \| At this time, insufficient data are available to develop national-level indicators about the type and origin offish and shellfish contaminants. The health effects of consuming contaminated fish and shellfish depend on many factors, including the type of contaminant, its con- centration in the organism, and how much contaminated fish or shell- fish is consumed. Health effects include the following: ' • Risk assessments show that exposure to sufficient levels of some contaminants in fish tissues may increase the risk of cancer • Mercury, in sufficient quantities, is toxif—especially to the nervous system. ; • Shellfish contaminated with fecal wastes can cause gastrointestinal illness and even death in individuals with compromised immune systems. Mollusks, mussels and whelks [are the main shellfish that carry biotoxins causing common symptoms, such as irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and tingling of the lips and tongue. Advisories warn the public of these risks and suggest limits or out- right bans on consuming some species in certain problem areas. Certain groups may be at higher risk for health effects from contami- nated fish and shellfish. These include children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers, who may be more vulnerable to effects, and tribal, ethnic, and other populations that fish for subsistence and therefore consume more fish or shellfish. At this time,; insufficient data are availably to develop indicators that can monitor! at the national level, the health effects of consuming contaminated fish and shellfish. Chapter 4, Human Health, provides more information on the human health impacts of contaminated fish. 2-62 2.5 Consumption of Fish and S>hellfish Chapter 2 - Purer Water ------- 2.6 Challenges and Data G aps Tremendous amounts of data are being collected on water resources. These data provide evidence of water quality condition at the national, regional, and state scales. Some of these data are sufficiently comprehensive in scope to serve as the basis for indicators of water quality at the national level. These indicators provide a starting point for describing our nation's water quality. However, as discussed below, they also have limitations.that make it difficult to make confident statements about the condition of water resources at the national scale or to thoroughly describe the stressors that degrade that condition. 2.6.1 Waters and Watersheds ' Several indicators are available that provide information about the quality of our nation's waters and watersheds. For wetlands, for exam- ple, the relevant indicator shows that the rate of wetland loss has dropped dramatically in recent years. However, as discussed in Section 2.2.2, there currently are no indicators of wetland biological condition and none are being implemented at the national or regional scale. Without these indicators and an assessment process, ensuring that the net gain goal is sustaining not only wetland extent, but also wetland condition, will not be possible. Drawing accurate conclusions about the condition of surface waters can be equally as challenging as for wetlands, but the indicators in this area do provide evidence of some success in reducing important stressors. In addition, data suggest that atmospheric deposition of sulfates has been reduced (EPA, ORD, January 2003), which will help improve the quality of acidic surface waters. Ongoing efforts by EPA (for example, through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and individual states to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged to our nation's waters from both point and non- point sources will also help to improve water quality. However, many challenges remain in monitoring water quality and taking steps to improve water quality. This is, in part, because signifi- cant environmental problems persist, despite environmental manage- ment activities to address these problems. Persistent hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and fish contaminated by toxic organics and mercury are examples. To better address water quality problems in the future, more and better quality data on the condition of waters and watersheds will be needed. This will require a greater collaboration among the federal agencies that participate in monitoring and managing our nation's waters so that results and metadata can be provided in a common format. Data in a common format will be much more useful for developing or improving indicators and can also more easily be made available to the public. In addition, the relevant federal agen- cies should work with the states to design and implement cost-effi- cient water quality monitoring programs whose data will be useful not only to the state water quality programs, but also to national water quality characterizations. State resources often are limited for such key activities as characterizing waters, identifying sources of watershed stress, and monitoring the effects of implementing pollu- tion controls. Therefore, it is critical to encourage the development, dissemination, and use of cost-effective monitoring and assessment tools, such as biological methods for water quality assessment and a new framework for design and data collection in water quality monitoring programs. 2.6.2 Drinking Water The indicator for the quality of treated drinking water in the U.S. shows that quality of drinking water has improved from the early 1990s through 2002. This indicator is based on health standards violations by community water systems that are reported by states to EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). The systems that are monitored under SDWIS serve water to about 95 percent of the U.S. population. Compliance trencjs may change in the future as new regulations create new compliance challenges for public water systems. The primary limitation of this indicator is under-reporting and late reporting of community water systems violations by states to EPA. This affects the accuracy of annual reports produced using SDWIS and thus the quality of the indicator. EPA last quantified data quality in 1999 and estimated that states were not reporting 40 percent of all health-based violations. EPA and states are taking steps to address identified deficiencies and to improve data quality. A survey of reporting completeness is underway. Another limitation of the indicator is that it does not cover the quality of water from private wells. It is important to understand the condition of the raw waters (both ground water and surface waters) that serve as drinking water sources. For example: • States are currently conducting assessments to delineate the extent of source waters and identify potential contaminant sources. • Data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey under its National Water Quality Assessment program and occurrence data for unreg- ulated contaminants collected by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) also provide information about raw water stres- sors, and are used by EPA to determine whether additional con- taminants should be regulated under the SDWA. • It is important that EPA assure that the frequency of sampling is adequate to characterize episodic events affecting source water quality. Chapter 2 - Purer Water 2.6 Challenges and Data Gaps 2-63 ------- The incidence of waterborne disease is another parameter that could be used to describe and track water quality at the national level. Additional efforts to obtain data could help provide a basis in the future for a national-level indicator in this area. This would, however, require significant new work, as the existing data likely reflect an unknown but probably very large degree of under- reporting. For example, there currently are no consistent national surveillance and reporting requirements for doctors or states with respect to incidence of diarrhea, except as associated with Hepatitis A, cholera, salmonellosis, or shigellosis. Doctors rarely order the tests that would identify these diseases, or tests that would identify other, more common diseases that can be caused by contaminants in drinking water. 2.6.3 Recreation in and on the Water • The quality of recreational waters is compromised when pollution increases the level of pathogens or (to a lesser extent) chemical con- taminants in those waters past thresholds judged safe for human exposure. When this happens at a monitored beach, particularly for pathogens, local or state authorities close or issues advisories for beaches. Sufficient information is available to provide the basis for an indicator about the risks to public health from exposure to pathogens in recreational water at coastal and Great Lakes beaches. Although the indicator shows that the number of beaches with advi- sories or closures has increased in recent years, this trend simply represents the fact that more beaches are providing information. In fact, as the indicator shows, the percent of beaches under advisory or closure has been fairly constant over the last few years. Overall, relatively few days (six percent of the days beaches could be open) have been lost due to pathogen exposure. This indicator is limited by three considerations: • The number of beach days closed or under advisory does not directly measure pathogens or contaminants in water. • Reporting of beach days closed or under advisory is voluntary, thus the ability of this indicator to describe conditions nationwide is unknown. • At this time, this indicator applies primarily to coastal and Great Lakes beaches, as most fresh water inland beaches are not surveyed. • Improving the value of this indicator as a national measure of recreational water qualify would entail an assessment of the pres- ence of pathogens in all waters used for recreational activities. Chemical contaminants would need to be selectively measured in waters with known risk from contamination. 2.6.4 Consumption of Fish and Shellfish Three indicators are available to help describe the condition of surface waters that support fish and shellfish consumption. For example, information about specific areas where contaminants in fish are above public health thresholds is available. One indicator suggests thsit the number of lake acres and river miles for which fish consumption advisories have been issued is increasing. This trend may represent an increase in monitoring, more stringent state health standards, or increased contamination. Other indica- tors show that the vast majority of sampled fish are contaminated to some degree and that contamination for particular pollutants (mercury and PCBs) tends to be concentrated in certain areas of the country.i For all three indicators, it is important to note that sampling tends to focus on areas where ;states know fishing occurs or suspect there may be a contaminatiop problem, so the data may over-report or under-report the degree pd extent of contamina- tion. Also, monitoring offish and shellfish at the state level is very inconsistent, and different criteria are used to issue advisories. A true national assessment of the safety of fish and shellfish for human consumption can only be accomplished through a comprehensive, representative survey of pathogens and chemical contaminants in edible fish tissue in all jvaters. A national survey of this type, involving 500 lakes and reservoirs, is underway. Initial data on 268 contaminants in the tissue'of fresh water fish have been collected. These data are not presented in this report because th«y reflect only one year of a [four-year study and, as such, are not ready for public release. However, they should be available for future use as a potential indicator. 2-64 2.6 Challenges and Data Claps Chapter 2 - furer Water. ------- f ------- Indicators that were selected and included in this chapter were assigned to one of J3«q categories: ijil,level data coverage for more than one time period. I by sound collection methodologies, data management • Category 1 -The indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by nations The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are characterized ' systems, and quality assurance procedures. I Categoiy 2 -The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data af regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for more than c indicator have been measured (e.g., data has been collected for birds, but not fi comparable across the areas covered, and are characterized by sound collectiorj quality assurance procedures. ' j"available only for part of the nation (e.g., multi-state cine time period, or not all the parameters of the >r plants or insects). The supporting data are "methodologies, data management systems, and ------- 3.0 Introduction The U.S. landscape can be characterized in many different ways—by its diversity and distribution of natural resources, by its complex pat- tern of land uses reflecting population distribution and management . strategies, and by the various ecological systems that provide habitat for thousands of plant and animal species. This landscape is continu- ously changing due to population growth, the demand for resources and energy, and changing land management practices. Our nation's land provides the foundation on which cities are built and from which food and other resources are derived to support the population. At the same time, land used for these purposes can be changed by pollution, waste disposal, and various physical processes (e.g., land clearing) that can change natural processes, such as the hydrologic cycle. Numerous laws and practices have been - implemented—especially over the last 30 years—to help protect human health and ecosystems from these types of human actions. This chapter addresses the types, extent, and uses of land in the geographic area of the U.S., which comprises approximately 2.3 billion acres of land and water (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). This area includes all 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In, total, 2.263 billion acres of the U.S. are land, while 116 million acres are water. This land acreage is the basis for all calcula- tions of percentages in this chapter, unless otherwise noted. Population growth is probably the single most important factor that has changed and continues to change the land environment of the U.S. The use of land is, to a major extent, a function of human needs and population density. According to the 2000 Census, more than 281 million people live on our nation's land. The U.S. has added at least 20 million people per decade to its population over the last 50 years, and in the last decade (1990-2000), the U.S. population has increased by more than 32 million (13 percent) (Exhibit 3-1). The density of population has also continuously increased, although not evenly across the country (Exhibit 3-2). According to the 2000 Census, the average density of people across our nation is approxi- mately 0.125 people per acre. This represents a significant change from the first census of population, conducted in 1790, showing only 0.007 people per acre (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). The exponential growth in the U.S. and world population has created demands for resources and uses of land that have major effects on both human health and ecological condition. The land indicators outlined in this chapter are descriptors of the status, trends, and effects of various conditions and land practices. These indicators are often limited in their capacity to paint an accurate picture of the effects of various human practices, due to incomplete, inconsistent, or dated data. The specific issues explored in this chapter include changing uses of land for development, agriculture, and forest management; the use and presence of chemicals in the form of pesticides, fertilizers, and toxic releases; the generation and management of various types of waste; and the extent of contaminated lands. The chapter poses fundamental questions about these issues and their health and ecological effects, and it uses indicators drawn from well-reviewed data sources to help answer those questions. Exhibit 3-3 lists these questions and indicators, and identifies the chapter section where each indicator is presented. The chapter is divided into four main sections: II Section 3.1 examines the extent of various ecological systems and land uses in the U.S. II Section 3.2 looks at the extent and potential disposition of chemicals used or managed on land. II Section 3.3 addresses waste generation and management on land and the extent of contaminated lands. H Section 3.4 reviews the challenges and data gaps that remain in assessing the condition of our nation's land. Each of the topic sections (e.g., land use, chemicals, waste) also considers what is currently known about associated human health and ecological effects. I; Exhibit 3-1: Topulation and population density, 179O-2OOO hPopu jam f — . ,. 1250 pa fei-- - 13=:--- .- po OQQ P"-' - •• o ation in millions • Population (millions) ~ Population Density (per acre mile) Population per acre of land area / / ^/ / /\\ --— -"""fi 1 1 1 j. I • ! ajJU.1 iHiIiltl>iilil I 1 L 1 1 L L / L L 0.109 0.09 , 0.08 -0.06 0.05 : 0.03 0.02 1790 1810 1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 Note: Large amounts of land area were added to the United States in the early ISOQs (Louisiana Purchase, 1803), mid-1800s (adding the present states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, : Kansas, Arizona, and New Mexico), and in 1959 (Alaska and Hawaii statehood). These land increases explain population density decreases during these periods. ig these peri .Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statist/en/Abstract of the United States 2001: The National Data Book. Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.0 Introduction 3-3 ------- ,.._ K Exhibit 3-2: United States population aensit) :-jg-gg^^ ky county, 2000 Source; Brewer, Cynthia A. and Trudy A. Suchan. Mapping Census 2000: Tte Geography of U.S. Diversity JUrje 2001 Numerous gaps in the data exist that make it difficult or impossible to answer some of the questions posed about the condition of our nation's lands. The gaps and limitations of data are described briefly under each question and in more detail at the end of the chapter. There are several major sources of data that contribute to this chapter, and a report titled The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, developed oy The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment (The Heinz Center; 2002). These data sets contribute directly and indirectly to many of the indicators throughout the chapter. 3-4 3.0 Introduction C^napter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- Exhibit 3-3: Land - Questions and Indicators f Land Use 1 f i 1 • f- sf f 1 c--- 9 st 1- 1 te_ i K 1 1 - - - „ —...:.,.„..,. .... t.-"~ JjL-Hif j. ^.'^^!'""!"™''!:UtLiH"--- VtJferi3j.-;t) ;.i .--.a:. .;. Jn°'ga ------- m El Waste and Contaminated La nds How much and what types of waste are generated and Quantjty of RCRA hazardous waste generated and managed managed ? What is the extent of land used for waste management? What Is the extent of contaminated lands? What human health effects are associated with waste management and contaminated lands? What ecological effects are associated with waste management and contaminated lands? Quantity of radioactive waste gei Number and location of municipa Number and location of RCRA ha Number and location of Superfur Number and location of RCRA C< No Category 1 or 2 indicator idf No Category 1 or 2 indicator id< L ; •Hafff (MSW) :e gener erated I solid w zardous generated and managed ated and managed — i i and in inventory aste (MSW) landfills waste management facilities d National Priorities List (NPL) sites >rrective Action sites ; ntifled •ntified JipiliilHg 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 •JStSHES 3.3.1 3.3.1 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.2 .3.3.3 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3-6 3.0 Introduction Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ', ------- 3.1 Land U se Land ownership and the management objectives of the owners tend to determine how land is used; thus, U.S. lands are used for many d,fferent purposes. Nearly 28 percent of the nation (630 million .acres) is owned and managed by the federal government. State and local governments manage another 198 million acres (GSA, 1999) The more than 828 million acres of federal, state, and local government lands in the nation are managed for various public pur- poses. In contrast, the approximately 1.419 billion acres of private and tribal land are more likely to be managed in the interests of their owners, with various land use constraints imposed by zoning and other regulations (CSA, 1999; USDA, NRCS 1997- Alaska DNR, 2000). Management objectives are constantly changing on private and public lands and can have both positive and negative effects on the natural environment and human health. Such effects include loss of native habitat to agricultural practices; loss of prime agricultural lands to urban/suburban development; changes in patterns of runoff as a result of impervious surfaces, stream flow, dams, or irrigation systems; habitat restoration based on land reclamation; and urban/suburban development on previously contaminated land. There are differing estimates of the extent of various land uses. Those discussed in the context of the following questions are often due to different classifications, definitions, approaches to data collection, and the timing of data collection and analysis. Land cover and land use represent two different concepts and both are discussed in this section Land cover is essentially what can be seen on the land-the vegetation or other physical characteristics—while land use describes how a piece of land is being used (or not) by humans. In some cases, land uses can be determined by cover types, which are visible (e.g., the presence of housing indicates residential land use). Often, however, more informa- tion is needed for those uses that are not visible (e.g., lands leased for mining, "reserved" forest land, shrublands with grazing rights). Techniques for assessing land cover and land use vary, with different data required to accurately assess extent and practices. Remotely sensed data are increasingly being used to track land cover. When combined with knowledge^ local land use regulations or other infor- mation, such data can be useful for tracking land use. Six questions are posed in this section to examine the extent of various ecological systems and land uses, including development agriculture, and forest management. The questions considered are: II What is the extent of developed lands? II What is the extent of farmlands? • What is the extent of grasslands and shrublands? • What is the extent of forest lands? • What human health effects are associated with land use? H What ecological effects are associated with land use? Tracking national patterns of land use and activities that affect the land can be challenging, primarily because land use is regulated by many levels of government and also because of the significant varia- tions ,n land cover, geography, and land activities nationwide Data produced by different agencies at different levels of government must be integrated and analyzed continually to gain a national perspective of patterns and trends. The primary information sources for this section include the National Resources Inventory (NRI) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)- the report titled The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, which was developed by The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment (The Heinz Center, 2002); and data from the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program. This section presents various activities related to land use and land cover. Two examples of activities for which indicators have not been ident.fied, but that can have significant effects in different ways on land are 1) the formal protection or reservation of land for habitat or natural resources and 2) mining and extraction activities. Some data are collected locally and for federal lands (e.g., National Park acreage) or tracked for economic indicators, but the national picture of the extent of land reservation and mining is not generally avail- able. A snapshot of what is known is described in the two sidebars. Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.1 Land Use 3-7 ------- PROTECTED LANP£ - of protection. More than 4 percent of the nation ,s managed as ™™m«s'™ ™e \| s of acres Of lands are also protected in the wlrness, more than half are in Alaska (Wilde.ness^^^^^ ^! and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness National Park Service System, within he U.S. Fish and ™^^™£ * J ona, wild ancf Scenic Rivers, in National Recreation Study Areas, in National Forest Roadless Areas, ,„ &^^'il^--j^-^«^ systems, r :r=t ;—- providing restrictions from development in perpetuity. MINING AND EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES .^ are known to be 1 ,879 coal mines and associated fac .ties m ^ ^^^ntf «?ttS«^ accounts far* 37 percent of U.S. coal the U.S. coal, primarily from surface mines. The Appa achia are, ed by We ^^^S' 534,000 producing oi, wells (ranging production, mainly from underground m,nes(DOE, November 2002). Otter energy from one to millions of barrels of production per year) Top CaHfornia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Wyoming ( ties produce most of the mmerals and metals ,n the U.S removed in 2000. Overall, 97 percent was mined and q in which mining for non-fue. minerals occurs are Nevada, Pennsylvania (USGS, 2000b). In addition to act.ve > mines "65 other mines and processing facili- tons of non-fuel minera, materials were iand 3 nt was mined un'derground; The major states at the surface leve anc ' P ^ ohjo_ and ^s a p^ately 10,200 aban- of abandoned mines on public and w«>. Mm, o aanone mne ^^ 3.1.1 What is the extent of developed lands? Indicators Extent of developed lands Extent of urban and suburban lands Land development is a process of land conversion that changes lands from natural or agricultural uses to residential, industrial, transporta- tion, or commercial uses to meet human needs. Land development has created urban and suburban ecological systems, which are areas Where the majority of the land is devoted to or dominated by build- ings, houses, roads, lawns, or other elements of human use and construction (The Heinz Center, 2002). Urban and suburban ecological systems are highly built up and paved, resulting in effects such as more rapid changes in temperature, increased runoff, and increased chemical contaminants than in more natural ecosystems. Plant and animal life is more heavily influenced by species introduced ' in horticulture and as pets, and native:species may be more or less completely removed from large areas and replaced by lawns, gardens, and ornamentals (World Resources Institute, 2000). The majority of Americans live in areas that are considered "devel- oped larid." Between 1950 and 2000, the number of Americans living in U S. Census Bureau-defined urban areas increased from 64 percent to 79 percent of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Estimates vary widely on the amount of land considered developed in the U.S., depending on definitions of "developed" and different assessment techniques. For example, the Census Bureau definitio n is a measure of population density; not specifically a measure of actual land use or conversion of land. Census urban areas do not take into account low-density suburbs and other developed lands such as commercial or transportation infrastructure areas that do not include people. The Census definitions may underestimate , lands that would be categorized as low-level residential or lands having dispersed development. (See the following sidebar for definitions used in this discussion.) ; 3-8 3.1 Land Use Chapter 3 - Better Protected Landj. ------- The two indicators presented in this section provide an estimate of the extent of developed land, with an estimate of urban and suburban lands as a subset of developed lands. These estimates were developed using different definitions and methodologies. The extent of "developed land" indicator uses a national statistical sample that takes into account various development types. The "extent of urban and suburban lands" indicator identifies densely developed areas classified using remotely sensed satellite data. DEFINITIONS OF DEVELOPED AND URBAN/SUBURBAN LANDS U.S. Census Bureau Definitions Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters. The Census Bureau describes urban areas as Urbanized Areas (UAs) and Urban Clusters (UCs) These are donations for densely settled areas, which consist of core census block groups that have a population density of at least 1 ,000 people per square mile and other surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile UAs contain 50,000 or more people. UCs contain at least 2,500 people, but less than 50,000. Based on 2000 Census data there are 466 UAs and 3,172 UCs comprising nearly 60 million acres (or 2.6 percent of the U.S. land area). These definitions and delineations of urban areas are used by the Office of Management and Budget to delineate the Census Metropolitan Areas, including Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which are used for various federaland state budget allocation purposes (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). USDA; NRCS, National Resources Inventory (NRI) Definitions bUilt'UP ^ sma" built-uP areas' and ™al transportation land Urban and built-up areas. A land cover/use category consisting of residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional land; construc- tion s,tes; public administrative sites; railroad yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary landfills; sewage treatment plants- water control structures and spillways; other land used for such purposes; small parks (less than 10 acres) within urban and built-up areas- and highways, railroads, and other transportation facilities if they are surrounded by urban areas. Also included are tracts of less than 10 acres that do not meet the above definition but are completely surrounded by urban and'built-up land. Two size categories are recog- nized in the NRI: areas of 0.25 acre to 10 acres and areas of at least 10 acres. Large urban and built-up areas. A land cover/use category composed of developed tracts of at least 10 acres— meeting the definition of urban and built-up areas. Small built-up areas. A land cover/use category consisting of developed land units of 0.25 to 10 acres that meet the definition of urban and built-up areas. Rural transportation land. A land cover/use category that consists of all highways, roads, railroads, and associated rights-of-way outside of urban and built-up areas, including private roads to farmsteads or ranch headquarters, logging roads, and other private roads, except field lanes. The Heinz Report Definitions Urban and suburban lands. An area is considered to be urban/suburban if a majority of the lands within a 1 ,000 foot by 1 000 foot area (pixel) fall into one of the four "developed" land cover types classified in the NLCD (low-density residential, high-density residential commeraal-mdustnal-transportation, or urban and recreational grasses). In outlying areas, clusters of pixels fiad to total at least 270 acres to be considered urban/suburban. Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.1 Land Use 3-9 ------- Indicator Extent of developed lands - Category 1 Land development generally results in significant changes in other land uses or cover types. This indicator provides a measure of how much developed land exists, where it is, and how it has changed. The indicator relies on national statistical data samples conducted every five years by the USDA NRCS. What the Data Show The NRI reports approximately 98 million acres of developed land in the U.S., not including Alaska (USDA, NRCS, 2001). This figure represents about 4.3 percent of the total land area. Exhibit 3-4 shows the distribution of non-federal developed lands nationwide. Each dot on the map represents 15,000 acres. The map displays the Census Metropolitan Area boundaries, which are larger in western states due to the large size of many counties. States along the Northeast corridor have the highest percentages of • developed hand, exceeding more than one-third of a state's area in some casas. j Between 1982 and 1997, developed lands increased by 25 million acres, primarily through conversion of croplands and forest lands (USDA, NRCS, 2000a). This represents a 34.1 percent increase. Developed lands as a percentage of the nation rose from 3.2 percent in 1982 to 4.3 percent in 1997 (USDA, NRCS, 2000a). The pace of land development between [1992 and 1997 was more than 1.5 times the rate of the previous JO years. The distribution of changes in developed land varies nationwide, with extensive changes in the eastern part of the country from south to north. Exhibit 3-4: Extent of non-federal developed land, 1997 98,251,700 acres of developed land Metropolitan areas are defined as U.S. Census Bureau Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Each red dot represents 15,000 acres of developed land 95% or more federal area CJ Metropolitan area boundaries Metropolitan area central cities Hawaii Alaska Puerto Rico/U.S.-Virgin Island Source: USOA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised D.Lember 2000- Acres of Developed Land, 1997 2000 yawary2QQ5;Mtp://wmnrcsMsda.gov/techmcal/land/meta/m4974.html). [^ ' tit 3-10 3.1 Land Use Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- nvuiQnmen Extent of developed lands - Category I (continued) Exhibit 3-5 depicts the change in developed land (urban and suburban areas and rural transportation land) by watershed in the 1982 to 1997 time frame. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The NRI data are limited in not providing data on Alaska and not assessing development on federal lands, including recreational development and transportation infrastructure. Data Source Acreage estimates and map data presented for this indicator are from the National Resources Inventory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1997 (Revised December 2000). (See Appendix B, page B-18, for more information.) National Resources Inventory The NRI is a longitudinal survey designed to assess conditions and trends of soil, water, and related resources on non-federal lands in the U.S. The NRI statistical sample involves approximately 300,000 sample units and 800,000 sample points on non- federal lands. The sample is a stratified two-stage unequal probability design that can be modified to address specific national survey goals or special studies. Stratification was devel- oped county by county, based on the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) where possible, and on latitude/longitude, Universal Transverse Mercator Grid, or artificial superimposed lines when necessary. The national sampling varies across strata and ranges from 2 to 6 percent The NRI measures numerous variables, which are then extrapolated as national totals. Variables include the following: soil characteristics, earth cover, land cover and use, erosion, land treatment, vegetative conditions, conservation treat- ment needs, potential for cropland conversion, extent of urban land, habitat diversity, and Conservation Reserve Program cover. NRI sample data are generally reliable at the 95 percent confidence interval for state and certain broad sub-state area analyses (Goebel, 1998). Exnikit 3-5: Land d evelopment patterns, 1982-1997 25,005,900 New Developed Acres New Acres 50,000 or more 25,000 to 50,000 15,000 to 25,000 O Less than 15,000 95% or more Federal area Metropolitan areas Puerto Rico/US. Virgin Islands ? Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.1 Land Use 3-n ------- Indicator Extent of urban and suburban lands - Category 2 Urban and suburban lands are considered a subset of developed lands and one of the ecological systems described in Chapter 5, Ecological Condition. These are highly developed areas and surrounding suburbs, including developed outlying areas above a minimum size. Acreage estimates are based on an analysis of the remotely sensed NLCD data conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Areas of at least 270 acres that are substantially covered with roads, buildings, concrete, and other hard surfaces must be identified to be classified and counted as urban/subur- ban (The Heinz Center, 2002). This definition excludes smaller built-up areas. What the Data Show Urban and suburban ecological systems occupied 32 million acres in the conterminous U.S. in 1992, or about 1.7 percent of that land area (The Heinz Center, 2002). This estimate was derived from a re-analysis of the 1992 NLCD. The analysis includes information on the amount and character of undeveloped land Within urban/suburban areas. Most of the lands designated urban and suburban are in the South and Midwest, but they account for less than 2 percent of the land in those regions. In the Northeast, urban and suburban lands account for more than 5 percent of the landscape. Indicator Gaps and Limitations ! The NLCD database is derived from a one-time interpretation of satellite imagery of the nation from the early 1990s. Although limited by the ability to detect land use remotely based on spectral characteristics, NLCD data are available for all of the conterminous U.S. Original!estimates of the NLCD indicated a total of 36.7 million acres pf land in three different "developed" land cover classifications (low density residential, high density residential, and commercial/industrial/transporta- tion) (The Heinz Center, 2002). i Data Source Acreages presented for this indicator are derived from a re-analysis of the National Land Cover Data, a product of the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium,, which is a part- nership belween the U.S. Geological Survey; the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; and the EPA- (See Appendix B, page B-18 for more information). 3.1.2 Wpat is the extent of farmlandst Indicators Extent of agricultural land uses The farmland landscape Farmlands represent one of the nation's major ecological systems and are discussed in Chapter S, Ecological Conditions.(The Heinz Center, 2002). As noted in the sidebar, on the following page, crop- lands, which can include pasturelands and haylands, are at the heart of the farmland ecosystem. The broader "farmland landscape" also includes other lands that are not actively used for crop, pasture, or hay production. The composition of lands that surround croplands, such as forests, wetlands, or built-up areas, are discussed further in the "farmland landscape" indicator. The U.S. produces a wide range of food crops, grains, and other agricultural products over vast areas of the country that are part of the farmland landscape (see adjacent sidebar). Agricultural lands can be thought of as all those lands that contribute to this production. Other words such as farmland, cropland, pastureland, rangeland, grazing land, or grassland are also used to describe aspects of agricultural lands. Some of these words define cover types, while others define land use. The areas overlap but do not necessarily coincide with each other. This situation creates challenges in estab- lishing accurate estimates of extent. Under the discussion of the agricultural land use indicator, an effort is made to distinguish the various definitions and provide a measure of acreages. (Current definitions as used by the USDA NRC^ NRl are shown in the sidebar that follows.) I 3-12 3.1 Land Use Chapter \|3 - Better Protected Land ; ------- Aside from the challenges of defining types of agricultural land, assessing the amount of land used for crops is an imperfect science, given the seasonally of agricultural practices and changes in economics and technology. As with developed land, estimates vary depending on the classification criteria and mapping or sampling methodologies. Until the 1950s, the amount of agricultural land • needed to meet demands for food continued to grow, reaching a peak of more than a billion acres of cropland and rangeland in the mid 1960s. Since then, crop and farmland acreages have decreased and increased in cycles, as both economics and technology have changed demands and as production capabilities have increased. Two indicators are considered on the following pages. The first assesses the extent of land used to grow food crops and forage. The second considers the farmland landscape, which includes not only land used for agricultural production but also adjacent areas. NRI Land Cover Definitions for Agricultural Land Cropland. A land cover/use category that includes areas used for the production of adapted crops for harvest. Two subcategories of cropland are recognized: cultivated and noncultivated. Cultivated cropland comprises land in row crops or close-grown crops and also other cultivated cropland, such as hayland or pastureland in a rotation with row or close-grown crops. Non-cultivated cropland includes permanent hayland and horticultural cropland. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). A federal program established under the Food Security Act of 1985 to help private landowners convert highly erodible cropland to vegetative cover for 10 years. Pastureland. A land cover/use category of areas managed primarily for the production of introduced forage plants for livestock grazing. Pastureland cover may consist of a single species in a pure stand, a grass mixture, or a grass-legume mixture. Management usually consists of cultural treatments: fertilization, weed control, reseeding or renovation, and control of grazing. For the NRI, it includes land that has a vegetative cover of grasses, legumes, and/or forbs, regardless of whether it is being grazed by livestock. Rangeland. A land cover/use category on which the climax or potential plant cover is composed principally of native grasses, grasslike' plants, forbs or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing, and introduced forage species that are managed like rangeland. This would include areas where introduced hardy and persistent grasses, such as crested wheatgrass, are planted and such practices as deferred grazing, burning, chaining, and rotational grazing are used, with little or no chemicals or fertilizer being applied. Grasslands, savannas, many wet- lands, some deserts, and tundra are considered to be rangeland. Certain communities of low forbs and shrubs, such as mesquite, chaparral, mountain shrub, and pinyon-juniper, are also included as rangeland. (USDA, NRCS, 2000a) Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.1 Land Use 3-13 ------- Indicate Extent of agricultural land uses - Category I Land can be used for a variety of agricultural purposes. Two general categories are differentiated in this discussion. The first includes lands that are actively managed to cultivate food crops or forage. This category comprises croplands, or lands that grow perennial and annual crops such as fruits, nuts, grains, and vegeta- bles; and pasturelands, or lands that are actively cultivated to produce forage for livestock. The second category includes lands that may be used to produce livestock as an agricultural commodi- ty, but are not planted, fertilized, or otherwise intensively managed. These livestock production lands may be called grazing lands or rangelands and can include forest land, shrubland, and grassland, which are described in the following sections. Livestock production may also include concentrated animal feedlot operations, acreages of which are not included in this discussion. What the Data Show In 1997, the NRI identified nearly 377 million acres of cropland and more than 32 million acres of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land. CRP lands, as noted in the sidebar, are croplands that are set aside (farmers are provided incentives) for up to 10 years for conservation purposes, but that could be returned to crop production if the program ceased. This total equals nearly 410 million acres of land currently growing or specifically identified with the potential to grow crops in the U.S. (USDA, NRCS, 2000a) (Exhibit 3-6). The NRI reports about 120 million acres of pastureland. As defined in the sidebar, pastureland includes land that has a vegetative cover of grasses, legumes, and/or forbs, regardless of Exhibit 3-6: Extent of croplands, 1997 95% or more Federal area Each green dot represents 25,000 acres of cropland Total acres: 376,997,900 Hawaii Puertjj Rico/U.S.Virgrn Islands I ' Source: USDA. National Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised Deci mfaer 2000. Acres of Cropland. 2000 Oanuafy2003iwvw.nrcs4isda.gov/technical/land/meta/m4964.html).' -1 3-14 3.1 Land Use Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- Indicate txtent of agricultural lane! uses ": Category 1 (continued) ^^ whether it is being grazed by livestock. It is usually managed to produce feed for livestock grazing, using fertilization, weed control, and reseeding. Thus the total estimate from the NRI for cropland, CRP land, and pastureland is 530 million acres. The Heinz Center (2002), using four different sources of data, estimated that cropland, including pasture and haylands, covered between 430 and 500 million acres in 1997. For the most part, the report did not include CRP lands in its estimates. According to the 1992 NLCD, the U.S. had 510 million acres of agricultural land in the 1990s (EPA, ORD, 1992). Crazing to support livestock production can potentially occur on pastureland, rangeland, and, in some cases, forest land. . These lands can also be defined based on their cover type (e.g., grasslands, shrublands, or forested range). Not counting pasture- land, the NRI identified nearly 406 million acres of non-federal rangelands and another 62 million acres of non-federal forest land that can be used for grazing livestock (USDA, NRCS, 2000a). In addition, according to estimates generated by the Bureau of Land Management, more than half of theJederal land in the lower 48' states, or 244 million acres, is available for livestock grazing (DOI, 1994). The total of these estimates is 712 million acres of lands that may be used for grazing, but are not cultivated. Adding in the pastureland acreage results in 832 million acres of land that may be used for grazing livestock nationwide (excluding Alaska). exhibit 3-7: Change in cropland, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land and pastureland, I982-1Q97 600 1982 1987 1992 1997 Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Summary Report 1997 National Resources Inventory (revised December 2000). 2000. Agricultural lands constantly shift among crop, pasture, range, and forest land to meet production needs, implement rotations of land in and out of cultivation, and maintain and sustain soil resources. Within these shifts, however, trends indicate a gradual decrease in cropland acreage. Between 1982 and 1997, cropland decreased 10.4 percent, from about 421 million acres to nearly 377 million acres (Exhibit 3-7). Of this 44 million acre decrease, however, 30.4 million acres are now enrolled in the CRP, resulting an 13.6 million fewer acres of cropland as a result of conversion to other land uses (USDA, NRCS, 2000a). During this same time frame, pastureland area decreased 9.1 percent, or about 12 million acres (USDA, NRCS., 2000a). The total change in acreage, considering lands in the CRP was 23 million fewer agricultural land acres in .1997 than in 1982. Decreases in cropland have occurred particularly in the southern and southeastern part of the U.S. The distribution of change in cropland acreage is displayed in Exhibit 3-8. There are no comprehensive estimates of changes in acreages of grazing lands. Indicator Gaps and Limitations A specific objective of the NRI is to assess changes in cropland. Again, however, the ability to couple it with current remote sens- ing imagery would likely contribute to improved resolution and national mapping of cropland types (See the discussion about NRI data in the "Extent of Developed Land" indicator box). There is no single, definitive, accurate estimate of the extent of cropland. Estimates of the amount of land devoted to farming differ because different programs use different methods to acquire, define, and analyze their data. Cropland is also a flexible resource that is constantly being taken in and out of production. The Heinz report used four different data sources to describe the range of estimates. The four data sets are not fully consistent, and comparisons are difficult to make. For example, the USDA Economic Research Service" (ERS) and Census of Agriculture data include croplands in Alaska and Hawaii, while NRI does not. The ERS data used in the Heinz report estimate included CRP lands, while the Census of Agriculture and NRI estimates used by the Heinz report did not (The Heinz Center, 2002). Data Sources The data sources for this indicator are the National Resources Inventory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1997 (Revised in December 2000); Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS; and Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.1 Land Use 3-15 ------- Indicator .~~-~—»r Extent of agricultural land uses - Category I (continuedl -_ tiki— - Draft Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1994. The Heinz Center estimates of cropland acreages are derived from the National Land Cover Data, a product of the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, which is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey; the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; and the EPA. (See Appendix B, page B-19, for more information.) li^ Exhibit 3-8: Percent change in cropland trea, 1982-1997 There was a 10.4% decrease In cropland are* between 1982 and 1997. '* SN^-^X Percent Change Increase > 25 Increase of 5 to 25 Little change Decrease of 5 to 25 Decrease .25 Less than 5% cropland • 95% or more Federal area Piierto Rieo/U,S. Virgin Island; ; USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised Decemb^ ;2000: Percent Change in Cropland Area, 1982-1997.2000 (January 2Q03; www.nrc5lusda.gov/techmcal/!and/meta/m5874.html). 3-16 3.1 Land Use Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- ! ne farmland landscape- Category 2 Examining the broader context of agricultural lands can provide a better understanding of agricultural ecosystems. As previously noted, the Heinz report defined this term as not only the lands used to grow crops, but also the field borders, windbreaks, small woodlots, grassland and shrubland areas, wetlands, farm- steads, and small villages and other built-up areas within or adjacent to croplands. These covers/uses support not only agricultural production, but provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species as well. What the Data Show The farmland landscape indicator describes the degree to which croplands dominate the landscape and the extent to which other lands are intermingled (The Heinz Center, 2002). Croplands comprise about half of the farmlands in the East and Southeast, while in the Midwest, almost three-quarters of the farmland ecosystem is cropland (The Heinz Center, 2002). Forests make up the remainder of the farmland ecosystem in the East, wetlands the remainder in the Southeast, and both forests and wetlands in the Midwest. In the West, about 60 percent of farm- land ecosystem is cropland, with grasslands and shrublands dominating the remainder in the western and northern Plains areas. Forests and grasslands/shrublands are about equal in the farmland landscape for the non-cropland area of the South Central region. In many U.S. areas, other land cover types are almost as prevalent as croplands arid can provide habitat for non-agronomic species. Indicator Gaps and Limitations This indicator uses satellite data from the early 1990s to describe the farmland landscape. Remote sensing technology can underes- timate dispersed land development that is denser than scattered rural settlements, but not as dense as traditional "suburbs." Data Source The National Land Cover Database, with 21 land cover classes, was used to estimate the area coverage for the U.S. The NLCD is based on remotely sensed imagery from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Data are available from . (See Appendix B, page B-19, for more information.) 3.1.3. What is the extent of grasslands and shrublands? Indicator Extent of grasslands and shrublands Grasslands and shrublands can be viewed as one of the major ecological systems of the U.S. and are discussed in Chapter 5, Ecological Condition, (The Heinz Center, 2002). Grasslands and shrublands can be used for grazing and, in that sense, overlap in extent with agricultural land. As previously defined, pastureland and rangeland are covered by grass and shrub species. This ecosystem is one of the largest types in the U.S. and includes not only the . grasslands and shrublands of the American West, but also coastal meadows, grasslands and shrubs in Florida, mountain meadows, hot and cold deserts, tundra, and similar areas in all states. Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.1 Land Use 3-17 ------- Indicator Extent of grasslands and sriruolanas - Category 2 There was an estimated 900 million to 1 billion acres of grass- lands and shrublands in the lower 48 states before European settlement (Klopatek, et al., 1979). By 1992, between 40 million and 140 million acres had been converted to other uses. Many pastures are managed in such a way that little of their original grassland character remains, however. Thus, the area of relatively unmanaged grasslands and shrublands has probably declined more than the overall figures would indicate (The Heinz Center, 2002). One factor in the decline of grassland pasture and range acreages since the 1960s is that forage productivity has increased and the number of domestic animals has declined (Vesterby, 2003). What the Data Show Based on remote sensing satellite data, it is estimated that grass- lands and shrublands (including pasturelands and haylands) occu- py about 861 million acres in the lower 48 states and 205 million acres in Alaska, for a total of 1.066 billion acres or about 47 per- cent of the U.S. (not including Hawaii) (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 3-9). This estimate distinguishes 178 million acres of pas- turelands and haylands, which are also considered to be part of the farmland landscape, leaving 683 million acres of grasslands and shrublands in the lower 48 states (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations NLCD was used to estimate extent of grasslands and shrublands in the lower 48 states. Other data were estimated for Alaska. This is a complicated and changing ecosystem that is subject to conver- sion to other uses. It would be useful to have better means to characterize and track extent. ; Data Sources The National Land Cover Database with 21 land cover classes, was used to estimate the area coverage for the U.S. The NLCD is based on remotely sensed imagery from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Data are available from . Data for Alaska were estimated from a vegetation map of Alaska by Flemming (1996), based on Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer remote sensing images with an approximate resolution of 1 kilometer on a side (The Heinz Center, 2002). (See Appendix B, page B-19, for more information.) Exhibit 3-9: Extent of grassland's and snrublanjs, 1991 and 1992 Area of grasslands and sKrublands, lower U8 states 1992 1000 1000 800 600 S 400 200 ,rea of grasslands and scrublands, Alaska 1991'" Source: IPA, Office of Research and Development. Multi-Resolution Und Characteristics Consortium, National Land Cover Data. 1992. (February 19,2003; http://mw.epa.sov/mrlc/tilcd.html). Souree. Flerajning, M D A Statewide Vegetation Map of Alaska Using a al Classification ofAVHKR Data February 1996. 3-18 3.1 Land Use Chapter 3 -; Better Trotected Land ------- 3.1.4 What is the extent of forest lands? Indicator Extent of forest area, ownership, and management Forests provide a range of important benefits to society. In addition to providing wood products, such as paper and lumber, forest lands help to purify air and water, mitigate floods and droughts, regulate climate through storage of carbon dioxide, regenerate soils, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, and support recreational opportunities. Trends in the extent of forests are an important indicator of human management of the landscape, since forest lands cover about one- third of the total U.S. land area. This section provides information on the status and trends relating to the amount and management of forest land. Additional information on the condition of forest land is found in Chapter 5, Ecological Condition. Indicat txtent of forest area, ownership, and management - Category It is estimated that in 1630, 1.045 billion acres of forest land existed in what would become the U.S. land area. (USDA, FS, 2001). Nearly 25 percent of these lands were cleared by the early 1900s, leaving 759 million acres in 1907. Since that time the total amount of forest land nationwide, while changing regionally has remained relatively stable, with an increase of 2 million acres between 1997 and 2001. What the Data Show There were an estimated 749 million acres of forest land in the U.S. in 2001 (USDA, FS, 2002). In the period between 1987 and 2001, forest land acreage increased by about 11 million acres (USDA, FS, 2002). There have been regional changes in the amount of forest land due to changing patterns of agriculture, development, and rever- sion to forests. Since the 1950s, forest lands in the northeast and northcentral states have increased by almost 10 million acres, while the South has lost about 11 million acres (USDA, FS, 2001). Private forest lands are being converted to developed land uses faster than any other land type (USDA, NRCS^ 2001). Forest land management varies greatly depending on differences in ownership, management intent, and desired outcomes, ranging from lands managed intact to protect water supplies, to harvesting for timber production. About 55 percent of the nation's forest lands are in private ownership (USDA, FS, 2002). Most forest lands are managed for a mix of uses, such as recreation, timber harvest, grazing, and mining. In the southern and eastern U.S., most forest land is privately held in relatively small holdings, while in the Rocky Mountains and western U.S., most forest Ian d is in large blocks of public ownership in national forests (Exhibit 3-10). As previously noted, ownership affects how lands are managed and used. ~* exhibit 3-10: Forest land ownership by region, 2001 ^--250 . _t>iorth __ r_Squth Rocky Pacific fc ~ Mountains Coast {^Source USDA, U. S, Forest Service. Draft Resource Planning Act Assessment Tables. 1 May 3; 2002 (updatedAugust 12, 2002). ^(September 2003; http://www.nm.^.fed.us/480T/FIADB/rpaJabler/ ^ Draft_RPA_2002Jorest_Resource_Tables.pdf). About 76 million acres, or 10 percent of the nation's forests are "reserved" and managed as national parks or wilderness areas (USDA, FS, 2002). These estimates of reserves include state and federal parks and wilderness areas, but do not include conservation easements, areas protected by non-governmental organizations, or most urban and community parks and reserves. There are significant regional differences in the amount of forest reserves. In the West, reserves are common, comprising nearly 18 percent of the total forest area. Much of the protected forest in the West is in stands over 100 years old. Only 3 percent of eastern forests are in reserves such as parks and wilderness (USDA, FS, 2001), Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.1 Land Use 3-19 ------- Indicator Extent of forest area, ownership, and management - Ca ,, j ^continued; About 66 million acres, or 9 percent of forest lands, are man- aged by private forest industries to produce timber (USDA, FS, 2002). Much of the remaining forest land receives less intensive management activity, such as periodic harvest of mature timber. Approximately S03 million acres of public and private forest land are currently classified as timberlands by the USDA Forest Service, an increase of 17 million acres since 1987 (USDA, FS, 2002). Approximately 63 percent of all U.S. timber harvesting is conducted in the South, predominately from private lands. Total timber harvest increased substantially between 1976 and 2001 in the East. In the West, after increasing steadily from 1952 to 1986, timber harvesting on public lands has declined sharply. Public lands harvested nationwide dropped nearly 47 percent from 1976 to 2001, to less than 2 billion cubic feet per year. In the same time frame, private lands harvested increased by about 29 percent, from 11 to 14 billion cubic feet annually. (USDA, FS, 2002) (Exhibit 3-11). Exhibit 3-11: Timber removals in the United States •; by owner group, 1Q52-2001 1986 1996 2001 19S2 1962 1976 Source: USD. U, S. Forest Service. Draft Resource Planning Act Assessment Tables. May 3, 2002 (tifxfcted August 12, 2002). (September 2003; http://www.nm.fs.fed.us/ Between 1980 and 1990, approximately 10 million acres were harvested annually. Of the public and private forest lands harvested for timber approximately 62 percent are selectively cut, while 38 percent are clearcut. Most of the clearcutting occurs in the South (USDA, FS, 2001). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations for this indicator include the following: • The data for this indicator were collected by the USFS FIA program; Forest Industry and Analysis (FlA) currently provides updates of assessment data every five years. Field data are collected on a probability sample of 125,000 forested sites and extended to a remote sensing database on 450,000 sites by the FIA program (Smith, et al., 2001). The resulting data on extent have an uncertainty of 3 to 10 percent per million acres for data reported since 1953. Regional estimates have errors of less than two percent (The Heinz Center, 2002). BThe FIA delta on reserved lands do not include information on private lands that are legally reserved from harvest, such as lands held by private groups for conservation purposes. In addition, other forest lands are at times reserved from harvest because of administrative or other restrictions. Data Source The data for this indicator are from tine Draft Resource Planning and Assessment Tables, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-20, for more information.) USDA Forest Service Definitions v • ' ....... . . Forest lar. d. Land that is at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of af;y size, including land that formerly riad tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated. The mini- mum area,: for classification of forest land is 1 acre. ill.1"n ' ' ' : ... Timber l^nd. Forest land that is capable of producing crops of industrial wood (at least 20 cubic feet per acre per year in natural stands) and not withdrawn'from timber utilization by statute orfadministrative regulation. Reservec forest land. Forest land withdrawn from timber utilizatior through statute, administrative regulation, or designation. (USDA, FS, April 2001) 3-20 3.1 Land Use Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- 3.1.5 What human health effects are associated ^ith land use? Land development patterns have direct and indirect effects on air and water quality, which can then affect human health. For example, the increased concentration of air pollutants in developed areas can exacerbate human health problems like asthma. Increased storm water runoff from impervious surfaces threatens the waterbodies that urban and suburban residents rely on for drinking and recreation. Development patterns can affect quality of life by limiting recreation- al opportunities, decreasing open space, and increasing vehicle miles traveled and the amount of time spent on roads. Also, as discussed later, agricultural land uses may expose humans to dust and various chemicals. No specific indicators have been identified at this time. Land use also can have indirect effects on air quality. Low-density patterns of development can often increase commutes—more people drive more miles. "Heat islands," or domes of warmer air over urban and suburban areas, are caused by the loss of trees and shrubs and the absorption of more heat by pavement, buildings, and other sources. Heat islands can affect local, regional, and global climate, as well as air quality. Agricultural land uses also result in increased wind erosion. Degraded air quality can contribute to ' human health issues such as asthma. Additional discussion of the effects of land uses on air and water quality, human health, and the environment is included in other chapters. 3.1.6 What ecological effects are associated with land use? Indicator Sediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelands Land use and land management practices change the landscape in many ways that have both direct and indirect ecological effects. One direct effect is the loss or conversion of acres of certain cover or ecosystem types to other more human-oriented, land uses such as developed and agricultural uses. Indirect effects may include changes in runoff patterns or increased soil erosion. The 25 million acre increase in developed land that occurred between 1982 and 1997 came about through the conversion of about 10 million acres of forest land, 7 million acres of agricultural land, 4 million acres of pastureland, 4 million acres of rangeland, and 1 million acres of various other land cover types including wetlands . (USDA, NRCS, 1997). The causes of wetland loss are detailed in Chapter 2, Purer Water. Changing land use patterns have also affect- ed the extent and location of agricultural land. Between 1982 and 1997, approximately 13.6 million acres were converted from cropland to other uses, including 7.1 million acres converted to developed land. At the same time, approximately 4 million acres of rangeland were converted to more intensive crop uses (USDA, NRCS, 2000a): The conversions of land from agricultural, forest land, and rangeland cover types to developed land can affect different species in specific locations that depend on those cover types for habitat and food. Species effects in various ecosystems are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, Ecological Condition. Land development also creates impervious surfaces through construction of roads, parking lots, and other structures. Impervious surfaces contribute to non-point source water pollution by limiting the capacity of soils to filter runoff. Impervious surface areas also ' affect peak flow and water volume, which heighten erosion potential and affect habitat.and water quality (e.g., temperature increases). They also affect ground water aquifer recharge. With sufficient storm water infrastructure, higher population density in concentrated areas can reduce water quality impacts from impervious surfaces by accommodating more people and more housing units on less land and developing water runoff systems that address issues of pollutants and sediment. Impervious surfaces developed as the result of suburban or dispersed development patterns are more difficult to mitigate; given that the effects are more dispersed and development of runoff infrastructure is costly. Storm runoff from urban and suburban areas contains dirt, oils from road surfaces, nutrients from fertilizers, .and various toxic com- pounds. Point source discharges from industrial and municipal wastewater treatment facilities can contribute toxic compounds and heated water. Directing water through channels alters hydrologic flow patterns. Increases in siltation and temperature can make stream habitats unsuitable for native microinvertebrate and fish species. Changes in the nutrient and chemical composition of stream water can encourage growth of toxic algae and harmful organisms. The types of crops planted, tillage practices, and various irrigation practices can limit the amount of water available for other uses, such as municipal, industrial, and natural ecosystems. Livestock grazing in riparian zones also can change landscape conditions by reducing stream bank vegetation and increasing water temperatures, sedimentation, and nutrient levels. Runoff from pesticides, fertilizers, and nutrients from animal manure can also degrade water'quality. An indirect ecological effect of land use is the introduction of invasive species. Certain land use practices, such as overgrazing, land conversion, fertilization, and the use of agricultural chemicals can enhance the growth of invasive plants. Other human activities can result in unstable or disturbed environments and encourage the establishment of invasive plants. These activities include farming; creating highway and utility rights-of-way; clearing land for homes and recreation areas such as golf courses; and constructing ponds, reservoirs, and lakes (Westbrooks, 1998). Failure to manage invasive species can lead to a major threat to native ecosystems. Non-native species can alter fish and wildlife habitat, contribute to decreases in Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.1 Land Use 3-21 ------- biodiversity, and create health risks to livestock and humans. Introduction of invasive species on agricultural lands also can reduce water quality and water availability for native fish and wildlife species; clog lakes, waterways, and wetlands; weaken the ecosystem; and adversely affect water treatment facilities and public water supplies. Agricultural uses also can encourage the growth of invasive species (USFWS, 2002). Land practices related to development, timber harvest, and agriculture can affect soil quality both positively and negatively. Some agricultural practices encourage soil conservation, minimizing effects on soil resources. These practices include organic farming; creating buffer strips in riparian zones; tree planting for windbreaks or to decrease water temperature to improve fish habitat; soil erosion control; integrated pest management; and precision pesticide and fertilizer application technology. In contrast, other agricultural activities promote soil compaction or result in loss of topsoil through soil erosion. The indicator identified for this question addresses the potential for sediment to run off from croplands and pasturelands,, Indicator Sediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelar 35 - Category 2 Soil erosion and transport can occur both by wind and by water and have several major effects on ecosystems. Sediment is the greatest pollutant in aquatic ecosystems—both by mass and volume—and soil erosion and transport are the source (EPA, OW, August 2002). Soil particles also can transport nutrients and pesticides into aquatic systems where they may degrade water quality. Although rates of erosion declined between 1982 and 1997 by about 1.4 tons/acre, more than one-quarter of all croplands still suffer excessive wind and water erosion (USDA, NRCS, 2000f). Excessive is defined as exceeding tolerable rates as defined by USDA NRCS models (USDA, NRCS, 2000g). Agricultural soil erosion decreases soil quality and can reduce soil fertility, and soil movement can make normal cropping practices difficult (The Heinz Center, 2002). The loss of productive top soil and organic matter affects the productivity of agricultural lands. Further discussion on the extent and effects of soil erosion can be found in Chapter 2, Purer Water, and in Chapter 5, Ecological Condition. What the Data Show The potential for soil erosion and sediment runoff varies depend- ing on specific land use, rainfall amounts and intensity, soil characteristics, landscape characteristics, cropping patterns, and farm management practices. This indicator is the result of analyses conducted by combining land cover, weather patterns, and soil information in a process model that incorporates hydrologic cycling, weather, sedimentation, crop growth, pesticide and nutri- ent loading, and agricultural management to estimate the amount of sediment that could potentially be delivered to rivers and streams in each watershed. The simulation estimated sheet and rill erosion using a process model known as the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). SWAT is a model that is supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service. The sediment runoff data have been categorized and are presented as low, medium, and high potential for runoff. Exhibit 3-12 displays the distribution of watersheds (based on 8- digit hydrologic unit codes [HUCs]) nationwide and the potential for sediment runoff (or delivery to rivers and streams) from crop- lands and pasturelands. The highest potential for sediment runoff is concentrated in the central U.S., predominately associated with the upper Mississippi River Valley and the Ohio River Valley. Most of the western U.S. is characterized by low runoff potential (lower percentage of cropland and pastureland). Indicator Gaps and Limitations This indicator has several limitations for: • Sediment loads from non-agricultural land uses are not included in these estimates. • Estimate:; represent potential loadings to rivers and streams, and do not represent in-stream loads. • Gully ercision and channel erosion are not included. Data Source The Soil and Water Assessment Tool is a public domain model actively supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service at the Grassland, Soil and Water Research Liaboratory in Temple, Texas (see http://www.brc.tamus.edu/swat/). (See also Appendix B, page B-22, for more information.) 3-22 3.1 Land Use Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- Indicator jeqiment runoff potential from croplands ana pasturelands - Category 2 (continued) txniDit 3-12: jediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelands, 1990-1995 Watershed Classification (number of watersheds) JPTI Low Potential for Delivery (528) \| " j Moderate Potential for Delivery (1,048) \|—;: j High Potential for Delivery (530) ggg] Insufficient data (156) Hawaii Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands \|: •kSource: Walker, C. Sediment Runoff Potential, 1990-1995. August 24,1999. \|f '(September, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/iwi/l999sept/iv12c_usmap.htmr). Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.1 Land Use 3-23 ------- 3.. I .ssiGiJaii s5BEHBiii$?frR''^"V7? 3.2 Gi Land emicais in scape This section focuses on the extent, potential disposition, and effects of chemicals used or managed on land. The production and use of chemicals in the U.S. has increased over the last 50 years. The use and release of chemicals can have various effects on human health and ecological condition. Commercial and industrial processes such as mining, manufacturing, and the generation of electricity all use and release chemicals. Chemicals that control weeds, insects, rodents, fungi, bacteria, and other organisms are called pesticides and are commonly used on agricultural lands, as well as in urban, industrial, and residential settings. Fertilizers—supplements to improve plant growth—are also used extensively in a variety of settings. Pesticides and fertilizers have contributed to high agricultural productivity levels in the U.S. EPA began monitoring the production and importation of industrial chemicals in 1977 through the Toxics Substances Control Act Chemical Inventory, which presently identifies more than 76,000 chemicals used in U.S. commerce. Nearly 10,000 of these chemicals are produced or imported in quantities greater than 10,000 pounds per year (excluding inorganics, polymers, microorganisms, naturally occurring substances, and non-isolated intermediaries). About 3,100 of these chemicals are produced or imported in quantities exceeding 1 million pounds per year. Associated annual production/import volumes increased by 570 billion pounds (9.3 percent) to 6.7 trillion pounds between 1990 and 1998 (EPA, OPPTS, 2002). The questions posed in this section consider the amounts and types of chemicals released to the landscape, addressing toxic substances, pesticides, and fertilizers. The discussion also looks at the potential for chemicals to move from their use on land to places where humans and other organisms can be exposed to them. In this context, questions also address what is currently known about health and ecological effects from exposure to chemicals used on land. The six questions considered in this section are: H How much and what types of toxic substances are released into the environment? \| What is th(5 volume, distribution, and extent of pesticide use? \| What is the volume, distribution, and extent of fertilizer use? H What is the potential disposition of chemicals from land? • What human health effects are associated with pesticides, fertilizers, iind toxic substances? ; • What ecological effects are associated with pesticides, fertilizers, and toxic substances? \| The primary sources of data for this section are the EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), describing quantities of toxic chemical releases; pesticide use estimates (based on sales) from both EPA and the non-profit National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP); data from the USDA's Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators report published in 2000 on the volume, distribution, land extent of fertilizer use (see Appendix B); and data from the USDA Pesticide Data Program on pesticide residues found on food samples. •» • » • "•» ii >-'!' "l:' ' > i ••"• ••'• ------- Indicator Quantity ana type of toxic chemicals released and managed - Category 2 The data collected in TRI represent only part of a broader universe of chemicals used and released into the environment. TRI includes a large amount of information on a range of categories of toxic chemicals, including many arsenic, cyanide, dioxin, lead, mercury, and nitrate compounds and provides information on the amount and trends in releases and management of chemicals, including recycling, recovery, and treatment. TRI data cover releases from reporting facilities in all parts of the country and can be searched for releases within individual zip codes. All data presented below can be found in the EPA 2000 Toxics Release Inventory Public Data Release Report (EPA, OEI, May 2002). What the Data Show Releases to the environment for all EPA-tracked TRI chemicals from nearly 23,500 facilities totaled 7 billion pounds in 2000. Of these releases, 58 percent were to land, 27 percent were to air, 4 percent each were to water and underground injection at the generating facility, and 7 percent were chemicals disposed of off-site to land or underground injection. Three industries accounted for most of the releases: metal mining (27 facilities) ...'. txnibit 3-15: lotal toxic release inventory (TIM) releases by industry, 200O -'- - : (Total = 7 billion pounds) Metal Mining: 47% Chemical Wholesale Distributors: <1 % Petroleum Terminals/ Bulk Storage: <1 % Coal Mining: <1 % Manufacturing Industries: 32% Electric Utilities: 16% Hazardous Waste/ Solvent Recovery: 4% txnibit 3-W-: loxics release inventory (I T\l) total releases and change by industry, 1998-2000 learly Totals Across Industry Source: EPA, Office of Environmental Information. 2000 Toxics Release Inventory (T)U) Public Data Release Report. May 2002. feSSciuree: .EPA, Office of Environmental Information. 2000 Toxics Release Inventory 6 (TR/I Public Data Release Report. May 2002. accounted for 47 percent, manufacturing industries (21,352 facilities) for 32 percent, and electric utilities (706 facilities) for 16 percent. The remaining 5 percent was split among hazardous waste/solvent recovery, coal , mining, petroleum terminals/bulk storage, and chemical wholesale distributors (Exhibit 3- 13). Between 1998 and 2000, the total amount of toxic releases as , estimated by the TRI decreased by approximately 409 million • pounds, or 5.5 percent. Of that total, releases to land decreased approximately 276 million , pounds. Decreases in the releases by certain industries (e.g., manufacturing and metal mining) account for most of the overall decrease between 1998 and 2000. A few industries (e.g., hazardous waste/solvent recovery, coal mining, and chemi- cal wholesale distributors) increased their releases during this time period. Off-site releases from production increased by 75 million pounds in the 1998 to 2000 time frame (Exhibit 3-14). Change ty Industry, I998-2OOO Chapter 3 - Better Trotected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape 3-25 ------- Indicator Quantity and type of toxic chemicals released and managed - Category 2 (continued) The seven billion pounds of chemicals actually released into the environment (air, water, and land) are a subset of toxic chemicals managed and tracked In TRI. Another 31 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were managed as waste in 2000. Nearly all (>99 per- cent) of these toxic chemicals were production related, Of the 31 billion pounds, SO percent was treated, 39 percent was recycled, and 11 percent was burned for energy recovery. The total amount of toxic chemicals managed as waste during the three-year period of 1998 to 2000 increased by almost 29 percent, a net increase of 8.4 billion pounds (Exhibit 3-15). Two industries in the southeastern U.S., printing/publishing and chemi- cals and allied products, accounted for most of this increase. Between 1998 and 2000, the chemicals recycled increased by more than 12 percent (1.3 billion pounds). In contrast, the Exhibit 3-15: Trends in toxic chemicals 1998-2000 • Energy Recovery • Quantify Released B Quantify Treated • Recycled 1998 1999 2000 Note: The dJtJ shown ss "Quantify Released" vary from the data in Exhibit 3-14 tx£4Ulc some facilities include off-site transfers for disposal to other TRI facilities Hut then report the arrount as on-site release. Source: EPA, Office of Environmental Information. 2000 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Public Data Rekasn Report. May 2002. quantities of chemicals combusted for energy recovery decreased 4.1 percent. The TRI data are also used to support EPA's National Waste Minimization Partnership Program, which focuses on reducing or eliminating the generation of hazardous waste containing any of 30 Waste Minimization Priority Chemicals (WMPC). These chemi- cals are found in hazardous waste and are documented contami- nants of air, land, water, plants and animals. EPA has tracked 17 of these chemicals since 1991 and reports that WMPC generation quantities have been steadily declining since 1993 (Exhibit 3-16). Overall, between 1991 and 1998, the generation of WMPC in industrial hazardous and solid waste decreased by 44 percent. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The TRI data do not reflect a comprehensive total of toxic releases nationwide. Although EPA has added to the number of industries (SIC codes) that must report, the TRI program does not cover all releases of chemicals from all industries. Second, industries are: not required to report the release of several types of toxic chemicals, because these chemicals are not included in the TRI list, "Hiird, facilities that do not meet the TRI reporting requirements (those with fewer than 10 full-time employees or the Waste Minimization Priority Chemicals Organic chemicals and chemical compounds: 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4,5-Tejrachlorpbenzene 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 4-BromopqenyI phenyl ether Acenaphtherie Acenaphthjflene Anthracerie Benzo (g,h,tt perylene Dibenzofiiran Dioxins/FuBris (considered one chemical on this list) Endosulfarfij alpha & Endosulfan, beta (considered one chemi- cal on this list) Fluorene "! " .-•...'. ', Heptachlor & Heptachlor epoxide (considered one chemical on this list); 1"" 'v";' " " ' ' "'' " ' "' 'i'" '" " "Hexachlorpbenzene "Hexachlorpbutadiene Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma- Hexachlorpethane Methoxyc\|jlor Naphthalene PAH Group: (as defined in TRI) Pendimetha'lin Pentachlorcibenzene Pentachlorpnitrobenzene Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrepe Pyrene Trifluralin Metal and Metal Compounds: Cadmium j Lead Mercury (17 chemicals tracked since 1991) 3-26 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Detter Trotected Land ------- ^^^ ••• --. •• >•« •- •.,. • ..'- -• -..,^..^..,^,,..,..:> . Indicator Quantity ana type of toxic chemicals released and managed - Category 2 (continued) Exhibit 3-16: Trends in toxics release inventory (TRI) Waste Minimization Priority Qemicals (WMPO, 1991-1998 200 ISO 100 SO +1% -44% 1991 1993 199S 1997 1998 Source: EPA, Office of Solfd Waste and Emergency Response. Waste Minimization Trends Report (1991-1998). September 2002. employee equivalent, or those not meeting TRI chemical-specific reporting threshold amounts) are not required to report their releases and therefore are not included as part of the total. Finally, facilities report their release and other waste management data to TRI using monitoring data, emission factors, mass balance approaches and engineering calculations. EPA does not mandate monitoring of releases, although many industries do conduct monitoring. Various estimation techniques are used when monitor- ing data are not available. EPA has published estimation guidance for the regulated community, but not all industrial facilities use consistent estimation methodologies, and variations in reporting may result. With approximately 76,000 different types of chemi- cals in existence, and new ones constantly being developed, the challenge is to ensure that those that are likely to pose the greatest hazards are tracked and managed. Data Source The data source for this indicator is EPA, Toxics Release Inventory, 2000. (See Appendix B, page B-20, for more information.) 3.2.2 What is the volume, distribution, and extent of pesticide use? Indicator Agricultural pesticide Use Pesticides are substances or mixtures of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating plant or animal pests. Conventional pesticides include herbicides, plant growth regulators, insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, fumigants, rodenticides, mollus- cicides, aquatic pesticides, and fish/bird pesticides. Most pesticides create some risk of harm to humans, animals, or the environment because they are designed to kill or otherwise adversely affect living organisms. At the same time, pesticides are useful to society because of their ability to kill potential disease-causing organisms and control insects, weeds, and other pests. Currently, no reporting system provides information on the volume, distribution, and extent of pesticide use nationwide across all sectors. Estimates, however, of total pesticide use have been devel- oped based on available information such as crop profiles, pesticide sales, and expert surveys. Several of these data sets are collected by the private or non-profit sectors rather than federal agencies. EPA's recent Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage Report estimates show that conventional annual pesticide use declined by about IS percent between 1980 and 1999. This change has not been steady; in 1999, pesticide use was higher than it was in the early 1990s. Of the three sectors of pesticide use assessed in EPA estimates (agricultural, industry-commercial-government, and home-garden), the industrial- commercial-government use of pesticides has seen the most steady decline over this 20-year period. EPA estimates show that in 1999, agricultural pesticide use accounted for nearly 77 percent (956 million pounds) of all pesticide use; home and garden use was 11 percent (140 million pounds); and industrial, commercial, and government use was nearly 12 percent (148 million pounds) of total conventional pesticide use (1244 million pounds). These estimates do not include wood preservatives, biocides, and chlorine/hypochlorites (EPA, OPPTS, 2002). An important class of pesticides—insecticides—has undergone significant use reduction in the last 5 years. Insecticides, as a class, tend to be the most acutely toxic pesticides to humans and wildlife. The number of individual chemical treatments per acre, referred to as "acre-treatments," for insecticides labeled "danger for humans" has undergone a 43 percent reduction in use from 1997 to 2001. Over the same period, acre-treatments for insecticides labeled "extremely or highly toxic to birds" have been reduced by SO percent, and insecticides labeled "extremely or highly toxic to aquatic organisms" have been reduced by 23 percent (EPA, OPP, 2001). The indicator identified for this question specifically addresses agricultural pesticide use. Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape 3-27 ------- Indicator Agricultural pesticide use - Category 2 Building on EPA and USDA estimates, as well as on pesticide use surveys, the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP), a private, non-profit, research organization, has established a pesticide use database that provides estimates of agricultural pesticide use by chemical, crop, and state. What the Data Show According to NCFAP, and as shown in Exhibit 3-17, total agricultural pesticide use increased from 892 to 985 million pounds between 1992 and 1997. (EPA reports a similar increase in use of all pesticides in this same time frame, and a leveling of use between 1997 and 1999.) (EPA, OPPTS, 2002). Approximately half of these agricultural pesticides are herbicides used to control weeds that limit or inhibit the growth of the desired crop. While many pesticides are synthetic chemicals, some biopesticides, such as Bacillus thuringiensis, are also broadly used and are key components of organic farming programs. The 1997 NCFAP summary report shows that more pesticides are used on corn than on any other crop. At the same time, corn is planted on more acres than any other single crop. It is also most effectively treated with a combination of chemicals that are applied in high quantities per acre. Oil, most often applied as a spray, is used in greater quantities than any other pesticide across all crops. In the context of the NCFAP report, "oil" includes plant oil extracts with insecticidal properties, vegetable oils that work by smothering pests, and petroleum derivatives used as solvents and insecticides. Sulfur— through its broad applicability as an insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide—and atrazine, largely due to its use with corn, are the next two most commonly used chemicals. Indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations for this indicator include the following: • The data quality of the NCFAP national pesticide use database is unknown. The database is not a direct record based on reports of actual usage and application. Some of the database estimates are derived from surveys of farmers, and others are expert opinions from knowledgeable extension service special- ists. Also, because of the absence of data for many states and crops, many records have been assigned based on the data from a nearby state. It is unclear how accurate these sources and procedures are. The 1997 summary report for the database carefully makes no claims to statistical accuracy because of the variety of «,ources and techniques for estimation of chemical usage. Several federal agencies, however, use the information, and NCFAP has received funding from USDA to update the pesticide use database for 2002 (Gianessi and Marcelli, 2000). • NCFAP data only report on the agricultural use of pesticides, which leaves out other commercial non-agricultural and residen- tial applications. Additional data would be advantageous for tracking these uses of pesticides. Data Source The data source for this indicator is the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy's Pesticide Use Database, 2000. (See Appendix B, page B-21, for more information.) 1200 'rtxjiibit 3-17: fesjiicide use in crop \|\|» production, 1992 and 1997 lurce: Gianessi. jSj'anHlvlB Marcelli Pesticide Use in U S Qog "Production:"19J7, itiofial S.umma'iy Re/sort. November 2CJOC) 3-28 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape C-napter 3 - Detter Trotected Land ------- 3.2.3 What is the volume, distribution, and extent of fertilizer use? Indicator Fertilizer use Fertilizers have contributed to an increase in commercial agricultural productivity in the U.S. throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Using fertilizers and soil amendments, farmers have success- fully enhanced the productivity of marginal soils and shortened recovery times for damaged areas. Similar to pesticide use, however, the increasing use of commercial fertilizers in agriculture has consequences for human health and ecological condition. Between World War II and the early 1980s, commercial fertilizer use increased consistently and significantly (Battaglin and Goolsby, 1994). Fertilizer use patterns today are greatly influenced by crop patterns, economic and climatic factors, and crop reduction programs imple- mented by local and federal government agencies (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993). The indicator identified for this question specifically addresses the volume, distribution, and extent of fertilizer use. ^ffi^^™ fertilizer use - Category 2 Most data on the volume and distribution of fertilizer use are based on sales data collected by USDA. Usage is concentrated heavily in the midwestern states where agricultural production — particularly that of corn — is greatest. What the Data Show According to the 2000 USDA Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators Report, the use of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash — the most prevalent supplements used in fertilizers for commercial farm- ing — rose from 7.5 million nutrient tons in 1961 to 23.7 million tons in 1981 . Although aggregate use dipped in 1983, it increased most recently between 1996 and 1998 to more than 22 million nutrient tons (Daberkow, et al, 2003) (Exhibit 3-18). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Several limitations are associated with this indicator: • The data that do exist are based primarily on sales information and use estimates. Gross sales data are not necessarily a reflec- tion of fertilizer usage, nor do they convey any information about the efficiency of application of various nutrients. • A variety of factors such as weather and crop type influence the amount of fertilizer used by farmers from year to year. A decrease in usage over time may be due to a reduced reliance on these chemicals or a change in crop rotation, weather, or other factors, and may not be permanent. • These data do not necessarily reflect residential fertilizer use. f: Exhibit 3-18: Use of fertilizer, 1960-1998 i-.- . . . . . . 1 — Total f - — Nitrogen - ^S\ " — Phosphorus . . f^ \ -Potash /\/ \ 1- '" I \ / yv V i. / -/^ \ _- /^~ /^_^ X^_^- — -'' " "-""" ^^=^\ ^ 0 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — l — i i i < i i i i r i i i \ f r i i i i i i i i t j\|._ 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970.1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 1 Source: Daberkow, et al. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators: Nutrient Use and Management. February 2003. Data Source , The data source for this indicator is the Agricultural Resources and Environmental - Indicators Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, . 2000. (See Appendix B, page B-21 , for more information.) • S ' g Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemjcals in the Landscape 3-29 ------- 3.2.4 What is the potential disposition of chemicals from land? indicators Pesticide residues in food Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields Risk of nitrogen export Risk of phosphorus export Disposition describes the potential for chemicals and nutrients to move from their location of use or origin to a place in the environ- ment where humans and other organisms can be exposed to them. People can be affected by these chemicals and nutrients when exposed to them through foods, drinking water supplies, or in the air they breathe. The environment can be affected when these chem- kals accumulate on land or enter the water. A significant challenge lies in tracking the movement of pesticides and fertilizers in the environment and then correlating their existence in water or air to health or environmental effects. These chemicals often move through the environment and react in ways that are difficult to track and understand. Pesticide contamination of ground water is a potential problem when teachable pesticides are applied to soils. Soil leaching potential can be determined by assigning rankings to organic matter, clay content, and acidify, which are the three main factors controlling pesticide leaching through soils (Hellkamp, et al., 1998). Pesticide-leaching potential is a measure of how tightly and quickly a pesticide binds to organic particles and is determined by the leaching potential of the pesticide itself, the pesticide's persistence, and the rate and method of application. Some analysis of the pesticide leaching risk based on these variables has been conducted in .the mid-Atlantic region, showing that relatively little acreage has a high potential for leach- ing. Other variables should also be considered in assessing the risk of pesticide leaching including precipitation, antecedent soil moisture conditions, soil hydraulic conductivities and pe'rmeability, and water table depths. Under ideal circumstances, crops would iake up the vast majority of nutrients that are applied as fertilizers to soil, but many factors, including weather, overall plant health, and pests, affect the uptake ability of crops. When crops do not use all applied nutrients, resid- ual concentrations of nutrients and other components of chemical fertilizers remain in the soil and can become concentrated in ground water and surface water. The USGS National Water Quality Assessment provides one measure of these chemical concentrations in waterbodies based on samples from 36 major river basins and aquifers (see Chapter 2, Purer Water). Calculating residual concen- trations (known as the "residual balance") for agricultural areas provides an understanding of the potential risks fertilizer use poses to local environmental conditions. If the residual balance is positive, then excessive nutrients may exist and present an ecological risk. If it is negative, then plants are taking up not only the amount of nutrient added by the fertilizer but others already present in the soil and atmosphere. In this case, the soil might be depleted over time (Vesterby, 2003). Four indicators are considered on the following pages, one that measures the actual presence of chemicals in food, and three that assess the potential for pesticides and nutrients to runoff the land. Indicator Pesticide residues in food - Category I An indication of the amount of pesticides that are detectable in the U.S. food supply provides information about the disposition of some chemicals. Food is one of the pathways through which people can be exposed to the effects of pesticides. USDA has maintained a Pesticide Data Program (POP) since 1992 that collects data on pesticide residues on fruits, vegetables, grains, and in dairy products at terminal markets and warehouses. Thousands of samples have been analyzed for more than 100 pesticides and their metabolites on dozens of commodities. Samples are collected by USDA immediately prior to these commodities being shipped to grocery stores and supermarkets. They are then prepared in the laboratory as if for consumption (e.g., washed, peeled, cored, but not cooked) so that samples are more likely to reflect actual exposures. Pesticide residue levels are then measured. What the Data Show I The Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program (POP) measures pesticide residue levels in fruits, vegetables, grains, and dairy products from across the country, sampling different commodities each year. In 2000, POP collected and analyzed a total of 10,907 samples: 8,912 fruits and vegetables, 178 rice, 716 peanut butter, and 1,101 poultry tissue samples which origi- nated from 38 States and 21 foreign countries. Approximately 80 percent of all samples were domestic, 19 percent were imported, 3-30 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- Indicator Pesticide residues in food - C-ategory 1 (continued) and less than 1 percent were of unknown origin. Overall, approximately 42 percent of all samples contained no detectable residues, 22 percent contained 1 residue, and 35 percent con- tained more than 1 residue. Detectable residues are not inherently violations of regulatory tolerances. Residues exceeding the pesticide tolerance were detected in 0.2 percent of all composite samples. Residues with no tolerance level were found in 1.2 percent of all samples. These residues were detected at low concentrations and may be due to spray drift, crop rotations, or cross contamination at packing facilities. PDF reports these findings to the Food and Drug Administration. Indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations for this indicator include the following: • The POP does not sample all commodities over all years, so some gaps in coverage exist. For example, a specific commodity might be sampled each year for a two or three year period and then not be sampled for two or more years before being re-sampled during a subsequent period. Differences in the per- cent of detections for any given class of pesticides might not be due to an increase (or decrease) in the predominance of detectable residues, but might simply reflect the changing nature and identity of the commodities selected for inclusion in any given time frame (given that each POP "market basket" of goods differs to some extent over time). • The PDF has the ability to detect pesticide residues at concentrations that are orders of magnitude lower than those determined to have human health effects. The simple presence of detectable pesticide residues in foods should not be considered indicative of a potential health concern (USDA, AMS, 2002). Data Source The data source for this indicator is the Pesticide Data Program: Annual Summary Calendar Year 2000, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. (See Appendix B, page B-21, for more information.) Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape 3-31 ------- MESS? Indicator Toteritial pesticide runoff from Farm fields - Category 2 This indicator identifies the potential for movement of agricultural pesticides by surface water runoff in watersheds nationwide. The indicator represents potential loss at the edge of a field based on factors that are known to be important determinants of pesticide loss, including: 1) soil characteristics, 2) historical pesticide use, 3) chemical properties of the pesticides used, 4) annual rainfall and its relationship to runoff, and 5) major field crops grown using 1992 as a baseline. Watersheds with high scores (i.e., the "high potential for delivery" class) have a greater risk of pesticide contamination of surface water than do those with low scores (i.e., the "low potential for delivery" class). (See Section 3.1.6 for more on runoff categories.) Calculations for watershed pesticide runoff potential are based on a National Pesticide Loss Database, that uses the chemical fate and transport: model GLEAMS (Croundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management). GLEAMS is a model that estimates pesticide leaching and runoff losses using the following as inputs: soil properties, field characteristics (e.g., slope and slope length), management practices, pesticide properties, and climate. GLEAMS estimates were generated for 243 pesticides applied to 120 specific soils; the estimates are for 20 years of daily weather for each of 55 climate stations distributed throughout the U.S. (Knisel, 1993). if . . , . Exhibit 3-19: Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields, 1990-1995 Watershed Classification (number of watersheds) Blow Potential for Delivery (394) Moderate Potential for Delivery (788) High Potential for Delivery (395) Insufficient data (685) Hawaii Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands Note: Alaska is not covered by the National Resources Inventory. Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory. 1992; Granessi, L.P., and J E. Anderson. Pesticide Use in US Crop Pmdudhn: National Data Report. February 1995; Goss, Don W. Pesticide Runoff Potential, 199( -1995 August 24, 1999. (September 2002; 3-32 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- ^ idicator Totential pesticide runoff from farm fields - Category 2 (continued) Chemical use for 13 different crops taken from the National Pesticide Use Database was estimated for 1990-1993 (Gianessi and Anderson, 199S). A total of 145 pesticides were included in the derivation of the pesticide runoff indicator (using the joint set of pesticides from the National Pesticide Use Database and the National Pesticide Loss Database for the 13 crops). Estimates of percent of acres treated and average application rates were imput- ed to the NRI sample points by crop and state. Each NRI sample point where corn was grown in Iowa, for example, included chemi- cal use for 22 of the pesticides Gianessi and Anderson reported were used on corn in Iowa. The simulation assumed that each pesticide was applied at the average rate for the state. In reality, pesticide use varies widely from field to field. The simulation thus reflects general pesticide use patterns to provide an indication of where the potential for loss from farm fields is the greatest. The total loss of pesticides from each representative field was estimated by 1) multiplying the estimate of percent loss per acre by the application rate to obtain the mass loss per acre for each pesticide, 2) calculating the number of acres treated for each pesticide by multiplying the estimate of percent acres treated by the number of acres associated with the sample point, 3) multiplying the number of acres treated by the mass loss per acre to obtain the mass loss for the representative field for each pesticide, and 4) summing the mass loss esti- mates for all the pesticides. Watershed scores were determined by averaging the scores for the NRI sample points within each watershed. The average watershed score was determined by dividing the aggregate pesticide loss for the watershed by the number of acres of non-federal rural land in the watershed. Dividing by the acres of non-federal rural land provides a watershed level perspective of the significance of pesticide loss. What the Data Show Exhibit 3-19 shows the distribution of watersheds and the potential for pesticide runoff nationwide. The highest potential for agricultural pesticide runoff is concentrated in the central U.S., predominately associated with the upper and lower Mississippi River Valley and the Ohio River Valley. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The following limitations are associated with this indicator: • The indicator estimates only the potential for pesticides to run off farm fields. It does not estimate actual pesticide loss. Research has shown that pesticide loss from farmlands can be substantially reduced by management practices that enhance the water-holding capacity and organic content of the soil, reducing water runoff. Where these practices are being used, the potential loss measured by this indicator will be over- estimated because the practices are not considered in the analysis. • The indicator does not include croplands used for growing fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Thus, watersheds with large acreage of these crops will have a greater risk of water quality contamination than shown by this indicator. • For each field, pesticide usage was assumed as an average for the state, when actual use varies widely. • This indicator does not address pesticide usage in non-agricultural areas. Data Sources The data sources for this indicator are the Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the National Pesticide Use Database, National Center1 for Food and Agricultural Policy, 1995. (See Appendix B, page B-21, for more information.) Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape 3-33 ------- Indicator Risk of nitrogen export - C-ategory 2 1 F" Predictive risk models show higher nutrient concentrations in watersheds dominated by agricultural and urban and suburban land uses. Watersheds with mixed uses tend to have forested lands that reduce concentrations of nutrients. Various field-based studies show a strong relationship between land cover and the amount of nutrients exported from a watershed (e.g., measured in the stream at the watershed outlet) (Beaulac and Reckhow, 1982). Exports are typically measured as mass per unit area per unit time (e.g., Ibs/acre/year). Nitrogen exports tend to increase as agricul- ture and urban and suburban uses replace forest land. Several additional factors affect the actual amount exported, however, such as cropping management practices, the timing of rainfall ver- sus cropping stage, density of impervious surfaces, and soil types. The risk classes described by this indicator are based solely on proportions of agriculture, forest, and urban and suburban land within a watershed derived from the NLCD. Nutrient export data compiled from watersheds with homogenous land cover were used in a Monte Carlo approach to simulate loads of nitrogen for watersheds with mixed land cover. The model can be used to estimate annual load for any point in the distribution or for risk of exceeding user-defined thresholds. When used to estimate risk, the model conceptually incorporates factors other than land cover as mentioned above. What the Data Show Exhibit 3-20 shows the risk of nitrogen export. Risk is expressed as the number of times per 10,000 trials the nitrogen export exceeded a threshold of 6.5 Ibs/acre/year. The 6.5 threshold was chosen because it represents the maximum value observed for watersheds that were entirely forest. A risk value of 0.5 indicates a 1 out of 2 chance that a particular watershed would exceed the risk threshold because of its mix of land cover (e.g., forest, agricul- ture, urban/suburban). The watersheds in Exhibit 3-20 are categorized into five classes based on risk. About 46 percent of the watersheds are in the lowest risk class and 15 percent in the highest. The lowest risk watersheds make up most of the western U.S., northern New England, northern Great Lakes, and southern Appalachians. The highest risk classes are concentrated in the - midwestern grain belt. The eastern U.S. shpws a mottling of high and low risk classes among adjacent watersheds. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The potential risk of nitrogen runoff calculated from the NLCD data relies on various classifications and models that have inaccu- racies that might affect results. To nationally monitor all watershed variables that affect nutrient export is impossible. Therefore, the data for this indicator are based on statistical simulation and the well-documented relationship between land cover and nutrient export to estimate the risk (or likelihood) of export exceeding a certain threshold. The accuracy of the model is affected by the accuracy of the classification of the cover types—forest, agricul- ture, and urban/suburban—which range from 80 percent to 90 percent in most cases. The accuracy also is affected by lack of model input for other land cover classes that can occur within watersheds, particularly in the western U.S. Model performance has been evaluated in the mid-Atlantic region, and modeled results generally agree with observed values. In the western U.S., shrubland and grassland cover share dominance with forest and agriculture. For national application of the model, shrubland and grassland classes were treated as forest because these land-cover classes, like forest, lack strong anthropogenic inputs of nitrogen. Further research to refine the empirical models for shrubland and grassland cover classes would be useful. Data Sources The data source for this indicator is the National Land Cover Data, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 1992. (See Appendix B, page B-22, for more information.) 3-34 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- Indicator' Risk of nitrogen export - Category 2 (continued) 1 txhibit 3-20: Estimates of risk of nitrogen export by watershed, 1992 Risk Classes • 0.000 - 0.149 13 0.150- 0.299 El 0.300-0.449 • 0.450 - 0.599 B 0.600-0.749 (max. = 0.696) Source: Wickham, j.D. et al., Land Cover as a Framework for Assessing Risk of Water Pollution, 2000. idicator of phosphorus export - Category 2 Like nitrogen export, the same strong relationship exists between land cover and phosphorus export. Risk is expressed as the number of times out of 10,000 trials that the phospho- rus export threshold of 0.74 Ibs/acre/year was exceeded. The 0.74 threshold was chosen because it represents the maximum value observed for watersheds that were entirely forest. The model uses an identical approach to that just described in the "risk of nitrogen export" indicator. What the Data Show Exhibit 3-21 shows potential for phosphorus export at greater than 0.74 pounds per acre per year. About 74 percent of the watersheds are in the two lowest risk classes. These make up most of the western U.S., as well as the eastern seaboard and the Appalachians. Only 1 percent of the watersheds are in the highest risk classes, and these are scattered throughout the midwestern grain belt, but also in many of the nation's major urban/suburban Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape 3-35 ------- Indicator Risk of phosphorus export - Category 2 (continued) areas. Many major urban/suburban areas exist at the intersection of two watersheds, and the "urban" influence, which would make the phosphorus risk higher, is spread over multiple watersheds. This partially explains why some urban/suburban areas show lower risk than others. Identification of higher phosphorus export risk in urban/suburban areas differs somewhat from the spatial pattern for nitrogen export risk, because the empirical data suggest that urban/suburban areas present higher risk of phosphorus export than nitrogen export. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The potential risk of phosphorus export is based on the aggregate classes of forest, urban/suburban, and agriculture from the NLCD. Accuracy of these classes ranges from 80 to 90 percent in most cases. Model performance has been evaluated in the mid-Atlantic region, and modeled results generally agree with observed values. In the western U.S., shrubland and grassland cover share domi- nance with forest and agriculture. For national application of the model, shrubland and grassland classes were treated as forest, because these land-cover classes, like forest, lack strong anthro- pogenic inputs of phosphorus. Further research to refine the empirical models for shrubland and grassland land-cover classes would be useful. Data Source The data source for this indicator is the National Land Cover Data, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 1992. (See Appendix B, page B-22, for more information.) r Exhibit 3-21: Estimates of risk of phosphorus Export hy watershed, 1992 Risk Classes • 0.000-0.123 B 0.124-0.247 H 0,248-0.371 • 0.372-0.495 • 0.496-0.619 (max. - 0.619) Source: Wickham, ).D. et al.. Land Comas a Framework for Assessing Risk of Water Pollution. 20pO 3-36 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- 3.2.5 What human health effects are associated with pesticides, fertilizer?, and toxic substances? Many pesticides pose some risk to humans and the environment because they are designed to kill or otherwise adversely affect living organisms. The degree to which individuals and populations are exposed to pesticides varies greatly by geographic location and demographics. Children may be more susceptible than adults to the effects of chemicals, including pesticides. Certain populations may be more at risk than others, depending, for example, on sources of drinking water or direct exposure to pesticide application. Various pesticide,surveillance systems exist that collect information on pesticide-related injury and illness, but data are limited. One example, the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS), contains information from poison control centers around the country that report occurrences of pesticide-related injury and illness. Other data collected from poison control centers showed that in 2000, more than 100,000 people were sufficiently concerned about exposure to various types of pesticides to call their local Poison Control Center. The TRI database tracks toxic chemicals because of the risks that these chemicals pose to human health and ecological condition. Studies have made accurate associations between isolated chemicals and their specific health effects. For example, the pesticide atrazine has been shown to have developmental and reproductive effects in animals and fish, depending on the level of exposure (EPA, OPP, 2002). PBT chemicals such as mercury and lead can cause acute or chronic health problems, even when people are exposed to small quantities of the chemicals (See box "Persistant Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals") (EPA, October 1999). Though these single chemical assessments are useful, a greater challenge lies in correlat- ing the existence of chemicals that interact in the environment to the health effects observed in a given population. Fertilizers are often applied in greater quantities than crops can absorb and end up in surface or ground water. Although fertilizers may not be inherently harmful, they can be linked to human health problems when excess nutrients cause algal blooms and eutrophication in waterbodies. Drinking ground water contaminated with runoff from some fertilizers can have severe or even fatal health effects, especially in infants and children (e.g., blue baby syndrome) (Amdur, etal, 1996). Another emerging issue is the use of recycled industrial waste in fertilizer. Depending on the material and how it is processed, the presence of heavy metals such as lead or cadmium in fertilizers produced with recycled waste can introduce contaminants to the soil and increase the health risks associated with fertilizer use. Many states have begun to test and require labeling for fertilizers containing metals and hazardous waste. No specific indicators have been identified at this time. There is additional discussion of human health effects of chemical use in Chapter 4, Human Health. Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals Human exposure to PBT chemicals increases over time because these chemicals persist and bioaccumulate in the environment. Therefore, even small quantities of these chemicals are of concern. In 1999, EPA lowered the TRI reporting threshold for 13 chemicals called persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals (PBTs), including dioxins, mercury, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Of the total 38 billion pounds of managed toxic chemicals in 2000, PBTs comprised approximately 72 million pounds. Of the total 7.10 billion pounds of toxic chemicals released to the environment, PBTs accounted for 12.1 million (less than 1 percent). The specific types of PBTs that comprised the 12.1 million pounds were polycyclic aromatic compounds (45 percent), mercury and mercury compounds (36 percent), PCBs (12 percent), pesticides (0.7 percent), and other PBTs (7 percent) (EPA, OEI, 2002). Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape 3-37 ------- 3.2.6 Whajt ecological effect? are associated I With pesticides, ! fertilizers* aftd toxic substances? Nitrogen runoff from farmlands and animal feeding operations can contribute to eutrophication of downstream waterbodies and some- times impair the use of water for drinking water purposes. Nutrient enrichment (nitrogen and phosphorus) is one of the leading causes of water quality impairment in the nation's rivers, lakes, and estuaries. EPA reported to Congress in 1996 that 40 percent of rivers in the U.S. were impaired due to nutrient enrichment; 51 percent of the surveyed lakes and 57 percent of the surveyed estuaries were simi- larly adversely affected (EPA, OW, December 1997). Nutrients have also been implicated in identification of the large hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, hypoxia observed in several East Coast states, and harmful algal bloom-induced fish kills and human health problems in the coastal waters of several East Coast and Gulf states . Just as the sources of nitrogen in watersheds vary, so do the effects of exported nitrogen. While high levels of nitrogen might not affect the watersheds from which the nutrient is exported, exports can influence the condition of coastal estuaries arid lakes. The effects vary with such factors as water-column mixing, sunlight, temperature, and the availability of other nutrients. No specific indicators have been identified at this time. Effects of chemical use on ecological condition are discussed more extensively in Chapter 2, Purer Water; and Chapter 5, Ecological Condition. 3-38 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- 3.3 Waste and (Contaminated Land: Waste and contaminated lands are discussed in this section. Waste is broadly defined as unwanted materials left over from manufacturing processes or refuse from places of human or animal habitation. Several waste categories and types are included within this broad definition. In general, waste can be categorized as either hazardous or non-hazardous. Hazardous wastes are the by-products of society that can pose substantial or potential hazards to human health or the environment when improperly managed. These wastes may appear on special EPA lists and they possess at least one of the four following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Hazardous waste includes specific types of waste, such as toxic waste and radioactive waste. All other waste is considered to be non-hazardous (EPA, OEI, May 2002). Several specific kinds of waste consist of mixed hazardous and non-hazardous content. For instance, municipal solid waste (e.g., garbage) is largely non-hazardous but does typically contain some household hazardous waste items such as solvents or batteries. Other materials and waste types that can have mixed hazardous/non-hazardous content include animal waste, by-products of oil and gas production, materials from leaking underground storage tanks, and waste from coal combustion. Contaminated lands are lands that have been contaminated with hazardous materials and require remediation. Contaminated lands are not the same as lands used for waste management. In many instances, lands used for waste management are not contaminated. Similarly, often no waste is present on contaminated lands. Contaminated lands can pose a direct risk if they expose people, animals, or plants to harmful materials or cause the contamination of air, soil, sediment, surface water, or ground water. Despite numerous waste-related data collection efforts at the state and national levels, nationally consistent and comprehensive data on the status, pressures, and effects of waste and contaminated lands are limited. Various parties are responsible for tracking types and amounts of waste and contaminated sites. National-level data on waste and contaminated land tend to be collected to satisfy the requirements of specific federal regulations. For example, EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo) contains data on RCRA hazardous waste and EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) contains some data on contaminated sites, including Superfund sites. Few national data sets exist for the waste types that are not federally regulated, such as non-hazardous industrial waste. Although a signifi- cant amount of waste information and some site contamination information is collected and tracked at the local or state government levels, these data are seldom aggregated nationally. Also, most of the available data describe waste in terms of weight, rather than volume. The weight data alone do not address the extent of the waste situa- tion in the U.S. Similarly, national information about contaminated lands tends to fociis on number of sites and types of contamination, rather than the extent of land contaminated. Finally, there is a lack of national data that track the effects of waste and contaminated land on human health and. ecological condition. While major improvements have been made in managing the nation's waste and cleaning up contaminated sites, more work remains. National, state, tribal, and local waste programs and policies aim to prevent pollution by reducing the generation of wastes at their source and by emphasizing prevention over management and dispos- al. Preventing pollution before it is generated and poses harm is often less costly than cleanup and remediation. Source reduction and recycling programs often can increase resource and energy effi- ciencies, reduce pressures on the environment, and extend the life span of disposal facilities. The following questions and discussion of indicators provide an overview of what is known about waste generation and management and about contaminated lands in the U.S. Trends and conditions on a national basis are described to the extent that data are available. The five questions considered in this section are: • How much and what types of waste are generated and managed? • What is the extent of land used for waste management? • What is the extent of contaminated land? • What human health effects are associated with waste management and contaminated lands? • What ecological effects are associated with waste management and contaminated lands? EPA is the primary source of data for this section, providing municipal solid waste data on generation, management, recovery, and disposal; data on RCRA hazardous waste and corrective action sites from the RCRAInfo database; and data on the number and location of contaminated sites that are on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) from CERCLIS. The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Central Internet Database provides information on the types and quantities of radioactive waste generated and in storage. Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands 3-39 ------- 3.3.1 How much and what types of waste are generated and managed? Indicators Quantify of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated and managed Quantity of RCRA hazardous waste generated and managed Quantity of radioactive waste generated and in inventory There are numerous types of waste, but only three types are tracked with any consistency on a national basis. The three that are described as indicators on the following pages include municipal solid waste (MSW), hazardous waste (as defined by RCRA), and radioactive waste. The other types of waste range from materials generated during mining and agricultural activities to wastes from manufacturing and construction. Current national data are not available on these other types of waste. Exhibit 3-22 summarizes the types of waste. •ii'i'iT^iBijiagr iB^u-SP\|"T. Municipal Solid Waste (Indicator) RCRA Hazardous Waste (Indicator) Radioactive Waste (Indicator) Extraction Wastes Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste Household Hazardous Waste Agricultural Waste Construction and Demolition Debris Medical Waste Oil and Gas Waste Sludge Exkirjit 3-22: Types of Waste Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the waste discarded by households, hotels/motels, and commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. MSW typically consists of everyday items such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, paint, and batteries. It does not include wastewater. In 2000, 232 million tons of MSW were generated. (EPA, OSWER, June 2002) The term "RCRA hazardous waste" applies to certain types of hazardous wastes that appear on EPA's regulatory listing (RCRA) or that exhibit the specific characteristics of ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity, or toxicity. More than 40 million tons of RCRA hazardous waste were generated in 1 999. (EPA, OSWER, June 2001 ) Radioactive waste is the garbage, refuse, sludge, and other discarded material, iricluding solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material that must be managed for its radioactive content (DOE Order 43 5.1 Issued July 1999). The technical names for the types of waste that are considered "radioactive waste" for this report are high-level waste, spent nuclea r fuel, transuranic waste, low-level waste, mixed low-level waste, and contaminated media. Data on the amounts of these waste types are provided in the radioactive waste discussion. (See Appendix D for definitions of these terms). Extraction activities such as mining and mineral processing are large contributors to the total amount of waste generated and land contaminated in the U.S. EPA estimates that S billion tons of mining wastes were generated in 1988 (EPA, OSWER, October 1 988). Industrial non-hazardous waste is process waste associated with electric power generation and manufacturing of materials such as pulp and paper, iron and steel, glass, and concrete. This waste usually is not classified as either municipal solid waste or RCRA hazardous waste by federal or state laws. State, tribal, and some local governments have regulatory programs to manage industrial waste. EPA estimated that 7.6 billion tons of industrial non-hazardous wastes were generated in 1 988. (EPA, OSWER, October 1988) Most household products that contain corrosive, toxic, ighitable, or reactive ingredients are considered household hazardous waste. Examples include most paints, stains, varnishes, solvents, and household pesticides. Special disposal of these materials is necessary to protect human health and the environment, but some amount of this type of waste is improperly disposed of by pouring the waste down the drain, on the ground, in storm sewers, or by discarding the waste with other household waste as part of municipal solid waste. EPA estimates that Americans generate 1 .6 million tons of household hazardous waste per year, with the average home accumulating up to 1 00 pounds annually. (EPA, OSWER, October 2002) Agricultural solid waste is waste generated by rearing animals and producing and harvesting crops or trees. Animal waste, a large component of agricultural waste, includes waste from livestock, dairy, milk, and other animal-related agricultural and farming practices. Some of this waste is generated at sites called Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The waste associated with CAFOs results from congregating animals, feed, manure, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area. Animal waste and wastewater can enter water bodies from spills or breaks of waste storage structures (due to accidents or excessive rain) and non-agricultural application of manure to crop land (EPA, OW, November 2001 ; EPA, OW, June 2002). National estimates are not available. Construction and demolition debris is waste generated during construction, renovation, and demolition projects. This type of waste generally consists of materials such as wood, concrete, steel, brick, and gypsum. (The MSW data in this report do not include construction and demolition debris, even though sometimes construction and demolition debris are considered MSW.) National estimates are not available. Medical waste is any solid waste generated during the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings or animals, in research, production, or testing. National estimates are not available. Oil and gas production wastes are the drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, and production of crude oil or natural gas that are conditionally exempted from regulation as hazardous wastes. National estimates are not available. Sludge is the solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated from municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater. National estimates are not available. ------- Indicator Ouantity of rpunicipai solid waste \/V\jVV} generated and managed - \_ategory 2 As noted in Exhibit 3-22, municipal solid waste (MSW) is the waste discarded by households and by commercial, institution- al, and industrial operations. This type of waste is familiar to most Americans because they are specifically responsible for its generation. MSW typically consists of everyday items such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, paint, and batteries. It does not include wastewater. What the Data Show In 2000, Americans generated 232 million tons of MSW (Exhibit 3-23). This total amount, which does not take into account MSW that was ultimately recycled or composted, equated to approxi- mately 4.5 pounds of waste per person per day. Paper and paperboard products accounted for the largest component of MSW generated (37 percent), and yard trimmings constituted the second-largest material component (12 percent). Glass, metals, plastics, wood, and food scraps each constituted 5 to 11 percent of the total. Rubber, leather, and textiles combined made up about seven percent of MSW, while other miscellaneous wastes made up approximately 3 percent (EPA, OSWER, June 2002). txnibit 3-23: lota! municipal solid waste generated, 2000 Total (before recycling and composting) - 232 million tons Wood: 5.5% —y \~ Glass: 5.5% ^"" Other: 3.2% Rubber, Leather & Textiles: 6.7% Metals: 7.8% Plastics: 10.7% Paper: 37.4% Food Waste: 11.2% Yard Waste: 12% Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 facts and figures. June 2002. The total amount of MSW generated increased nearly 160 percent between 1960 and 2000 (Exhibit 3-24). For comparison purpos- es, during that same time frame, the U.S. population increased by 56 percent, gross national product increased nearly 300 percent, and per capita generation of waste rose more than 70 percent (DOC, BEA, 2002; EPA, OSWER, June 2002). The amount of MSW generated per capita generally stabilized between 1990 and 2000, increasing less than one percent. The data on the total amount of MSW generated do not factor in source reduction and waste prevention or materials recovery (recycling and composting), which are also important contributors to the overall municipal waste picture. Source reduction and waste prevention include the design, manufacture, purchase, or reuse of materials to reduce their amount or toxicity or lengthen their life before they enter the MSW system. Between 1992 and 2000, source reduction in the U.S. prevented more than 55 million tons of MSW from entering the waste stream (EPA, OSWER, June 2002) (Exhibit 3-25). txnibit 3-24: AAunicipal solid waste generation rates, 1960-2000 (before recycling and composting) H Tons of Waste Generated (millions) m Population (millions) -0-Per-capita Generation (pounds/day) . .-. jurce: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Municipal Solid Waste thf United States: 2000 Facts and[Figures. June 2002. _ C-napter 3 - Better Trotected Land 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands 3-41 ------- Indicator Quantity of municipal solid waste (AAWV) generated j jnd managed - Category 2 (continued) Exhibit 3-25: Source reduction of municipal solid waste, 1992-2000 Materials Categories: • Other MSW 3 Containers & Packaging • Nondurable Goods • Durable Goods • Total Amount 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Source: ERA. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Municipal Solid Waste m trw United State; 2000 Facts and figures. June 2002. Materials recovery (recycling and composting) has also reduced the total amount of MSW being discarded. In 2000, approximate- ly 30 percent (70 million tons) of the MSW generated was recov- ered and thereby diverted from landfills and incinerators. Between 1960 and 2000, the total amount of MSW recovered has signifi- cantly increased from 5.6 million tons to 69.9 million tons, more than a 1,100 percent increase. During this time period, the amount recovered on a per capita basis increased from 0.17 pounds per person per day to 1.35 pounds per person per day— an 8-fold increase (EPA, OSWER, June 2002). The percentage of MSW disposed of in landfills has dropped from 83.2 percent of the amount generated in 1986 to 55.3 percent of the amount generated in 2000 (Exhibit 3-26). Combustion (incineration) is also used to reduce waste volume prior to disposal in a land- based waste management facility. Approximately 33.7 million tons (14.5 percent) of MSW were combusted in 2000. Of this amount, approximately 2.3 million tons were combusted with energy recovery—also known as waste-to-energy combustion (EPA, OSWER, June 2002). Exhibi ^0-26: / 250 I 200 AAunicipal solid waste management, " r, 19^6-2600' '•"" * (2000 totaf = 232 million, tons) I Recovery for Composting* I Recovery for Recycling I Combustion I Landfill 1960 65 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 _ * Composting of yard trimmings and food wastes Does not include mixed MSW composting oTthackyard composting Source EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Municipal Solid Waste in the United Slates 2000 Facts and figures June 2002 v- ___ »f _ _ __ ____ J " Indicator Caps and Limitations Limitations for this indicator include the following: • The MSW data do not include construction and demolition debris, municipal waste water treatment sludge, automobile bodies, combustion ash, and non-hazardous industrial wastes that may g;o to a municipal waste landfill. The data (including the generation, recycling, and recovery data) are generated using the materials flow method, which does not include these materials, even though some of these materials (namely construction and demolition debris) are typically counted a<; MSW. • Residues associated with other items in MSW (usually containers) are not accounted for in the data. • The percentage of total waste that MSW represents is unknown. • The indicator does not necessarily measure the effects of changes in consumer or disposal trends. Data Source The data source for this indicator is Municipal Solid Waste Data, EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1990-2000. (See Appendix B, page B-22, for more information.) 3-42 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands Chapter 3 - "Better Trotected Land ------- Indicator Quantity of RGlxA hazardous waste generated and managed - Category 2 Businesses that generate a substantial amount of RCRA hazardous waste as part of their regular activities are called "large quantity generators" or LQGs. ("Substantial" is defined as more than 2,200 pounds per month.) National data on "small quantity generators" (SQGs) and "conditionally-exempt small quantity generators" (CESQGs) are not available. Estimates indicate, how- ever, that the amount of RCRA hazardous waste that SQGs and CESQGs generate is relatively small (EPA, OSWER, June 2000). What the Data Show In 1999, EPA estimated that more than 20,000 LQGs collectively generated 40 million tons of RCRA hazardous waste (EPA, OSWER, June 2001). The number reflects between 95 and 99 percent of the total amount of RCRA hazardous waste generated. The exact total amount of RCRA hazardous waste generated by LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs combined is not known, but the con- tributions of SQGs and CESQGs are estimated to be between 0.4 million tons and 2.1 million tons (or 1 to 5 percent) of the total amount of RCRA hazardous waste (EPA, OSWER, June 2000). LQGs within EPA Region 6 (see Exhibit 1 -12 for Regional delin- eation) generated more than half of all RCRA hazardous waste in 1999 (Exhibit 3-27). Less than 9 percent of the LQCs nation- wide are located in Region 6, but 15 of the 22 largest national generators (by quantity generated) are there. Of the large Region 6 generators, 13 manufacture chemicals, petrochemicals, Exhibit 3-27: Amount of Resource Conservation ana Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste generated in EPA regions, 1999 (Tons) Region 10: 3% (1,025,614) -, Region 9:1 % (480,858) Region 8: <1% (162,099) Region 7: 5% (1,842,853) Region 6: 52% (20,901,778) CBIData: ------- ••iMiiiiiBiiiiiiiiyriiiiinnliiii iilii iiii iliiiiii ilflil IWr 111 1 II I I Indicator Quantity of RCRA hazardous waste generated and m\|\|iaged - Category 2 (continued) Indicator Gaps and Limitations While RCRAInfo is a reliable source of data about much of the hazardous waste generated throughout the U.S., it does not pro- vide information about all hazardous waste generated nationally. RCRAInfo includes data on amounts and types of hazardous waste generated nationally by large quantity generators only. Data about amounts and types of hazardous waste generated by RCRA SQGs and CESQGs are not collected. Similarly, data on waste that does not fit the RCRA definition of "hazardous" are not available. Some states regulate and collect data on wastes they designate as "hazardous" that are not tracked by EPA, but these data are not aggregated nationally. Data Source The data source for this indicator is 1999 RCRAInfo data, from EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (See Appendix B, page B-22, for more information.) Indicate Quantity of radioactive waste generated and in inventc- ategory 2 The manufacture and production of nuclear materials and weapons requires activities that can generate large amounts of radioactive waste. Over the past few decades, the production of nuclear weapons has largely been suspended. The largest quanti- ties of radioactive waste generated today (when measured by volume) result from the cleanup of contaminated sites. What the Data Show A significant amount of the radioactive waste in existence today will remain radioactive for many years—in some cases thousands of years. When measured by volume, the radioactive waste that is still being generated reflects only a small percent- age (<10 percent) of the total amount of waste that is either in storage (inventory) or disposed of already. When measured by radioactivity, the amount of radioactive waste in inventory far exceeds the radioactivity of newly-generated radioactive waste (U.S. DOE, April 2001). Exhibit 3-28 provides summary data on the total amount of radioactive waste generated and in inventory (storage) at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2000. Over time, the amount of radioactive waste generated has fluc- tuated primarily due to the progress of site cleanup operations. Trend data on generation rates over the past several years are not available. According to the DOE, however, the amount of waste generated between late 1997 and late 2000 remained fairly constant, while the amount in inventory increased in pro- portion to the amount generated (DOE, 2002). Although some radioactive waste Is still being disposed of (e.g., small amounts of transuranic waste are being disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilqt Plant in New Mexico), most of the highly radioac- tive waste types remain in storage until they can be placed in safe long-term disiposal facilities. The amount of radioactive waste being generated and stored is expected to drop over the next few decades as cleanup operations are completed and waste currently in storage is disposed of. Depending on the radioactive decay rate, the disposed-of waste will remain raidioactive for time periods ranging from days to thousands of years. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The radioactive waste data in this report do not account for all radioactive materials in the U.S. The term "radioactive waste" applies to any garbage, refuse, sludge, and other discarded material that must be managed for its radioactive content (DOE Order 435.1, issued July 1999). Other radioactive materials are used for defense, energy production, and other purposes, but these materials are not considered "waste." Further, DOE is not responsible for some additional radioactive waste (quantity unknown). Data on these wastes are not included in this report. Data Source The data source for this indicator is radioactive waste data, from U.S. Department of Energy's Central Internet Database, 2000. (See Appendix B, page B-23, for more information.) 3-44 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- idicator: Quantity of radioactive waste generated! aniin Inventory - Category 2 (continued1) F~ . 1, f I-' i i 1 It" 1 tS-O— Exhibit 3-28: Total amount of radioacti HBHRSSHSilBBBMflBHflSHnNlfflBfifiilMi^H^HnnwiRMim^ra^ramflBHBF1: ^ Vitrified High-Level Waste . High-level Waste Low-Level Waste Mixed Low-Level Waste Ex-Situ Contaminated Media Transuranic Waste Spent Nuclear Fuel /e waste generated in fisca Generated n/a 14,166 38,911 10,834 559,249 1,621 0.85 year 20OO as reported by Department of Energy Inventory (Storage) 1,201 353,501 101,256 44,588 63,570 111 ,226 2,467 Units ; Canisters Volume (cubic meters) Mass (metric tons of heavy metal) Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Central Internet Database. 2002. (January 2003; http://cid.em.doe.gov). For the purposes of this report, all of the materials in this table are considered radioactive waste. 1 A 3.3.2 What is the extent of land used for waste management? Indicators Number and location of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills Number and location of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities Most types of waste are disposed of in land-based waste manage- ment units such as MSW landfills and surface impoundments. Prior to the 1970s, waste disposed of on the land was typically dumped in open pits, and waste was seldom treated to reduce its toxicity prior to disposal (EPA, OSWER, June 2002). Early land disposal units that still pose threats to human health and the environment are considered to be contaminated lands subject to federal or state cleanup efforts and are discussed in the next section. Today, most of the hazardous and MSW land disposal units are subject to federal or state requirements for landfill, surface impoundment, or pile design and management. National data.for these disposal units is described in the indicators following. Many other sites are used for waste management in addition to the MSW landfills and RCRA hazardous waste facilities just mentioned. Although comprehensive data sets are not available to assess the number of additional sites used for waste management, various EPA estimates show that there were approximately 18,000 non-hazardous industrial waste surface impoundments in 2000, more than 2,700 non-hazardous industrial waste landfills in 1985, and more than 5,300 non-hazardous industrial waste piles in 1985 (EPA, OSWER, March 2001). These numbers do not include other v/aste management sites, such as those used to collect and manage (but not dispose of) waste (e.g., recycling centers, household hazardous waste collection centers), waste transfer stations, sites that store discarded automobile and industrial equipment, and non-regulated landfills. The two indicators identified for this question address the number and location of MSW landfills and RCRA facilities. Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands 3-45 ------- Indicator NunLer and location of municipal solid w4ste (MSWlJapdfills - Category 2 Municipal solid waste landfills are the most commonly known places of waste disposal. Yet this does not mean that there are good data to track them. The data presented in support of this indicator are estimates compiled by a national journal. No federal agency specifi- cally compiles information nationally on these landfills. What the Data Show In 2000, approximately 128 million tons (55 percent) of the nation's 232 million tons of MSW were disposed of in the nation's 2,216 municipal waste landfills (EPA, OSWER, June 2002). Between 1989 and 2000, the number of municipal landfills in the U.S. decreased substantially (down from 8,000). Over the same period, the capacity of all landfills remained fairly constant because newer landfills typically have larger capacities. In 2000, these landfills were geographically distributed as follows: 154 (8 percent) in the Northeast, 699 (35 percent) in the Southeast, 459 (23 percent) in the Midwest, and 655 (33 percent) in the West (Goldstein, 2000). indicator Caps and Limitations i i ], MSW data are voluntarily submitted to BioCycle Journal and are not reviewed for quality or consistency. The data exclude land- fills in Alaska and Hawaii and-do not indicate the capacity or volume of landfills, or in general, a means to estimate extent of lands used for MSW management. For example, the fact that there are fewer landfills does not mean that less land is used for managing wastes because newer landfills are typically larger than their predecessors. The information is also limited by the fact that other lands are also used for waste management, such as for recycling facilities and waste transfer stations, but are not included in the indicator data. The data also do not reflect upon the status or effectiveness of landfill management or the extent to which contamination of nearby lands does or does not occur. Data Source The data source for this indicator is BioCycle journal municipal landfill data 1990-2000. (See Appendix B, page B-23, for more information.) Indicator Number and location of RGRA hazardous waste marflgernent facilities - Category 2 The RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities used to manage the more than 26 million tons of annually generated haz- ardous waste are tracked closely by EPA. The data, however, are tracked and reported in terms of number of facilities and volumes of waste managed, not the acres of land used for management. What the Data Show Nearly 70 percent of the RCRA hazardous waste (not including wastewater) generated in 1999 was disposed of at one of the nation's 1,575 RCRATSDs. Of the 1,575 facilities, 1,049 were storage-only facilities. The remaining facilities perform one or more of the following management methods, which include recov- ery operations (the percentages reflect the percentage of total facilities that conduct each management method): metals recovery (16.8 percent), solvents recovery (21.1 percent), other recovery (8.8 percent), incineration (28.4 percent), energy recovery (18.9 percent), fuel blending (19.8 percent), sludge treatment (3.0 percent), stabilization (16.0 percent), land treatment/appli- cation/farming (1.3 percent), landfill (11.4 percent), surface impoundment (0.4 percent), deepwell/underground injection (8.8 percent), or other disposal methods (7.4 percent). TSD facilities in five states accounted for approximately 65 per- cent of the national management total, From another perspective, over 80 percent of the TSD facilities are located in EPA Regions 4 (19.6. percent), Region 5 (16.9 percent), and Region 6 (43.7 percent) (EPA, OSWER, June 2001). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Some hazardous waste management information that is collected by states is not included in the provided totals because it is not compiled nationally. Further, data on actual extent of land used for waste management are not collected, reported, or aggregated. Basic data on the number of sites or facilities used for waste management do not answer the extent question. Data Source The data source for this indicator is 1999 RCRAInfo data from EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (See Appendix B, page B-23, for more information.) 3-46 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- 3.3.3 Wfiat is the extent of contaminated lands? Indicators Number and location of superfund national priorities list (NPL) sites Number and location of RCRA corrective action sites Contaminated lands range from sites where underground storage tanks have failed to areas where accidental spills have occurred to legacy sites where poor site management resulted in the contami- nation of soil, sediment, and ground water. Sites are still being discovered and national data do not currently exist to describe the full extent of contaminated lands. Additionally, sites are continually being cleaned up by a variety of programs, although these sites are not always immediately removed from the tracking lists maintained by the cleanup programs (e.g., Superfund NPL). Two indicators are described. One addresses Superfund (NPL) sites and the other RCRA Corrective Action sites. They represent the limited data available for a national view of contaminated lands. Both indicators are based on data collected to track cleanup efforts and list numbers of sites, but neither specifically delineate the extent or total area of land contamination. Besides these two indicators that track specific programs, there are several other types of contaminated lands for which national data are limited or are not available. In some cases, states collect and maintain accurate data inventories, but these state-specific data sets are not compiled nationally. Exhibit 3-29 summarizes the types of lands that are or might be considered contaminated. ifc- txhibit 3-29: Types of contaminated lands \|\| Superfund National Priorities List Sites (Indicator) Congress established the Superfund Program in 1980 to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites throughout the U.S. The most seriously contaminated sites are on the NPL. As of October 2002, there were 1,498 sites on the NPL ^EPA SERP October 2002). ' RCRA Corrective Action Sites (Indicator) EPA and authorized states have identified 1,714 hazardous waste management facilities that are the most seriously contaminated and may pose significant threats to humans or the environment (EPA, OSWER, October, 2002). Some RCRA Corrective Action sites are also identified by the Superfund Program as NPL sites. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks EPA regulates many categories of underground storage tanks (USTs), often containing petroleum or hazardous substances. These exist at many sites, such as gas stations, convenience stores, and bus depots. USTs that have failed due to faulty materials, installation, operating procedures, or maintenance systems are categorized as leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). LUSTs can contaminate soil, ground water, and sometimes drinking water. Vapors from UST releases can lead to ; explosions and other hazardous situations if those vapors migrate to a confined area such as a basement. LUSTs are the most common source of ground water contamination (EPA, OW, 2000), and petroleum is the most common ground water contaminant (EPA, OW, 1996). According to EPA's corrective action reports, in 1996 there were 1,064,478 active tanks located at approximately 400,000 facilities. In 2002, there were 697,966 active tanks (a 34 percent decrease) and 1,525,402 closed tanks (a 42 percent increase). As of the fall of 2002, 427, 307 UST releases (LUSTs) were confirmed (EPA, OSWER, December 2002). Accidental Spill Sites Each year, thousands of oil and chemical spills occur on land and in water. Oil and gas materials that have spilled include drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, and production of crude oil or natural gas. Accurate national spill data are not available. • Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands 3-47 ------- Exhibit 3-2Q: Types of contaminated lands (continued) ^ Land Contaminated with Radioactive and Other Hazardous Materials Brownfields Some Military Bases Poorly Designed or Poorly Managed Waste Management Sites Illegal Dumping Sites Abandoned Mine Lands Approximately 0.54 million acres of land spanning 129 sites in over 30 states are contaminated with radioactive and other hazardous materials as a result of activities associated with nuclear weapons production and research. Although DOE is the landlord at most of these sites, other parties, including other federal agencies, private parties, and one public university, also have legal responsibilities over these lands (DOE, January 2001). Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant (Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, 2002). Brownfields are often found in and around economically depressed neighborhoods. As brownfields are cleaned and redeveloped, surrounding communities benefit from a reduction of health and environmental risks, more functional space, and improved economic conditions. A complete inventory of brownfields does not exist. According to the General Accounting Office (1987), there are approximately 450,000 brownfields nationwide (General Accounting Office, 1987). The EPA's national brownfield tracking system includes a large volume of data on brownfields across the nation, but does not track all of them. EPA's Brownfield Assessment Pilot Program includes data collected from over 400 pilot communities (EPA, OSWER, May 2002). Some (exact number or percentage unknown) military bases are contaminated as a result of military activities. A national assessment of land contaminated at military bases has not been conducted; however, under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAQ laws, closed military bases undergo site investigation processes to determine extent of possible contamination and the need for site cleanup. Currently, 204 military installations that have been closed or realigned are undergoing environmental cleanup. These installations collectively occupy over 400,000 acres, though not all of this land is contaminated. Thirty-six of these installations are on the Superfund NPL list, and, of these, 32 are being cleaned up under the Fast Track program to make them available for other uses as quickly as possible (DOD, 2001). Prior to the 1970s, untreated waste was typically placed in open pits or directly onto the land. Some of these early waste management sites are still contaminated. In other cases, improper management of facilities (that were typically used for other purposes such as manufacturing) resulted in site contamination. Federal and state cleanup efforts are now addressing those early land disposal units and poorly-managed sites that are still contaminated. Also known as "open dumping" or "midnight dumping," illegal dumping of such materials as construction Waste, abandoned automobiles, appliances, household waste, and medical waste raises concerns for safety, property values, and quality of life. While a majority of illegally dumped waste is not hazardous, some of it is, creating contaminated lands. Abandoned mine lands are sites that have historically been mined! and have not been properly cleaned up. These abandoned or inactive mine sites may include disturbances or features ranging from exploration holes and trenches to full-blown, large- scale mine openings, pits, waste dumps, and processing facilities. The Department of the Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is presently aware of approximately 10,200 abandoned hardrock mines located within the roughly 264 million acres under its jurisdiction. Various government and private organizations have made estimates over the years about the total number of abandoned and inactive mines in the U.S., including estimates for the percent land management agencies, and state and privately-owned lands. Those estimates range from about 80,000 to hundreds of thousands of small to medium-sized sites. The BLM is attempting to identify, prioritize, and take appropriate actions on those historic mine sites that pose safety risks to the public or present serious threats to the environment (DOI, BLM, 2003). IE: 3-48 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- Number and location of Superfund National Priorities List (NFL) sites - Category 2 Congress established the Superfund Program in 1980 to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites throughout the U.S. The Superfund Program tracks and investigates thousands of poten- tially contaminated sites to determine whether they are indeed contaminated and require cleanup. Some sites are not contaminat- ed, whereas others are seriously contaminated and require either extensive, long-term cleanup action and/or immediate action to protect human health and the environment. The most seriously contaminated sites are proposed for placement on the NPL. "Proposed" NPL sites that meet the qualifications for cleanup under the Superfund Program become "final" NPL sites. Sites are considered for deletion from the NPL when all cleanup goals are met and there is no longer reason for federal action. What the Data Show As of October 1, 2002, there were 1,498 sites that were either final (1,233) or deleted (265). Of the 1,498 sites, 846 have completed all necessary cleanup construction. A construction complete site is a former toxic waste site where physical construc- tion of all cleanup actions are complete, all immediate threats have been addressed, and all long-term threats are under control. An additional 62 sites were proposed in 2002 (Exhibit 3-30). The total number of NPL sites (including proposed) grew from 1,236 in 1990 to 1,560 in 2002. During this time period, the number of sites that have been cleaned up and have been transferred from "final" to "deleted" status have increased nearly 10-fold, from 29 in 1990 to 265 in 2002. In 2002, over 56 percent of the final and deleted sites were construction complete, compared to only four percent of the sites in 1990 (EPA, SERP, February 2003). Indicator Gaps and Limitations The NPL sites are tracked in CERCLIS. This database contains information on hazardous waste sites across the nation and U.S. territories including location, status, contaminants, and actions . taken from 1983 to the present. The number of NPL sites provides a general indicator of contaminated lands, but these numbers do not translate directly to the extent of contaminated land. The NPL data cannot easily be used to clarify how many lands are contami- nated because the NPL sites are divided into administrative groups (i.e., proposed, final, and deleted) that do not clearly describe whether the sites are currently contaminated. Additionally, there are many contaminated sites in CERCLIS that are not listed on the NPL, some contaminated sites are not in CERCLIS (e.g., are known only by local and state programs); and not all of the sites in CERCLIS are contaminated. Data Source The data source for this indicator is Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) data, EPA Superfund Emergency Response Program, 1983-2002. (See Appendix B, page B-24, for more information.) •v Exnirjit 3-3O. Superfund National Priorities List (NFL) site totals by status and m Deleted Sites 31 Proposed Sites Final Sites B Construction Complete 2000 2001 2002 !„-,. Mote: "Construction Complete" sites include most "Deleted" sites and some "Final" sites. F Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. National Priorities List Site Totals by Status and Milestone. March 26, 2003. (April 3, 2003; http://amf.epa.gov/saperfund/snes/ciueiy/tiueryMm/npltotalMm) and Number of NPL Site Actions and Milestones by Fiscal Year. March 26, 2003. (April 3, 2003; •^r-http://wwvf.epa.gov/supetfund/sites/query/queryhtm/npljy/htm). Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land. 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands 3-49 ------- Number and location of RCRA corrective action sites I Category! It— _ „ - Congress established the RCRA Corrective Action Program in 1984 because many hazardous waste management facilities were contaminated from current or past solid and hazardous waste management activities and required cleanup to protect humans and the environment. As with the Superfund Program, some sites subject to RCRA corrective action may be investigated and found to require little or no cleanup, while others may be found to have extensive soil, ground water, and/or sediment contamination. What the Data Show EPA estimates that approximately 3,700 hazardous waste management facilities may be subject to cleanup under the RCRA corrective action program (EPA, OSWER, October 2002). To date, EPA and authorized states have identified approximately 1,700 hazardous waste management facilities that are the most seriously contaminated and may pose significant threats to human health or the environment (EPA, OSWER, October 2002). These sites typically have both soil and ground water contamination and many also have contaminated sediments. Some RCRA corrective action sites are also identified by the Superfund Program as NPL sites. Indicator Gaps and Limitations RCRAInfo contains information about hazardous waste genera- tors and management facilities in the U.S. and its territories. RCRAInfo includes data on site location, status, contaminants and contaminant sources, and actions taken. RCRAInfo provides reliable data about the number and location of RCRA corrective action sites and about cleanup priorities; however, information on cleanup status at sites is less reliable, particularly for lower priority sites. Cleanup status data for the 1,700 high priority sites is current—particularly with respect to ongoing exposures of humans to contamination and migration of contaminated ground water, the two site conditions that the RCRA corrective action program has chosen to track most closely. Also, there are overlaps between the list of high priority RCRA corrective action sites and NPL sites. Due to these overlaps, number-of- site comparisons between programs and simple counts of contaminated sites can be misleading. Data Source ! The data source for this indicator is EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, RCRA Info Data, 1997-1999. (See Appendix B, page B-24, for more information.) . ...... ...... co n t a m i n a te d I a n d s ? I 99 E While some types of waste (e.g., most food scraps) are not typically toxic to humans, other types (e.g., mercury) pose dangers to human health and must be managed accordingly. The number of substances that exist that can or do affect human health is unknown; however, the TRI program requires reporting of more than 650 chemicals and chemical categories that are known to be toxic to humans. The EPA Superfund Emergency Response Program and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) have created useful lists of common contaminant sources and their potential health effects. Every 2 years, the ATSDR and EPA prepare a list, in order of priority, of hazardous substances that are most commonly found at the NPL sites and pose the most significant threat to human health due to their known or suspected toxicity and potential for human exposure (EPA, SERF, September 2002; ATSDR, 2001). Arsenic, lead, and mercury are the highest ranking substances on the list. All three of these substances are toxic to the kidneys, and lead and arsenic can cause decreased mental ability, weakness, abdominal cramps, and Jinemia (EPA, SERP, September 2002). Additional dis- cussion of these substances is available in Chapter 4, Human Health. EPA also maintains a separate list of common contaminants and their potential health effects. The list includes commercial solvents, household items, dry cleaning agents, and chemicals. With chronic exposure, commercial solvents such as benzene, can suppress bone marrow function and cause blood changes. Dry cleaning agents and degreasers contain trichloroethane and trichloroethylene, which can cause fatigue, depression of the central nervous system, kidney changes (e.g., swelling, anemia), and liver changes (e.g., enlarge- ment). Chemicals used in commercial and industrial manufacturing processes such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury, are toxic to kidneys. Long-term exposure to lead can cause permanent kidney and brain damage. Cadmium can cause kidney and 3-50 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- lung disease. Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and chromium have been implicated as human carcinogens (EPA, SERF, September 2002). Contaminants can come into contact with humans through three exposure pathways: inhalation, ingestion, and direct contact. Exposure routes can vary for each substance. Chemicals can contam- inate ground water due to leaking tanks, runoff, and leaching through soil or sediment. In addition, the cleanup of sites contaminated with radioactive materials has^ involved the remediation of approximately 1.7 trillion gallons of ground water—an amount equal to four times the U.S. daily water consumption (DOE, 2000). Information on waste generation amounts alone does not lead to a complete understanding of the effects of waste on people and the environment. The specific risks and burdens differ substantially from waste type to waste type. For example, one pound of grass clippings is not "equal" in terms of potential risk in exposure to one pound of dioxin. Exposure to waste is likely to vary as a function of manage- ment practices: treatment, storage, transfer, and disposal actions. Waste that is efficiently and safely treated and disposed of is likely to have relatively little effect on human health. No specific indicators have been identified at this time. Additional discussion of the human health effects associated with waste management and contaminated lands is found in Chapter 4, Human Health. 3.3.5 What ecological effects are associated with Waste management and contaminated lands? Hazardous substances can have negative effects on the environ- ment by degrading or destroying wildlife and vegetation in contaminated areas, causing major reproductive complications in wildlife, or otherwise limiting the ability of an ecosystem to survive. Certain hazardous substances also have the potential to explode or cause a fire, threatening both wildlife and human populations (EPA, SERF, September 2002). Waste from extraction activities can contaminate water, soil, and air; affect human health; and damage vegetation, wildlife, and other biota. Toxic residues left from mining operations can be transported into nearby areas, affecting resident wildlife populations. This type of damage is often the result of unlined land-based units that have min- imal release controls. These units include surface impoundments containing mill tailings and/or process wastewater, heap-leaching solution ponds, dusts, piles of slags, refractory bricks, sludge, waste rock/overburden, and spent ore. Spills and leaks from lined manage- ment units, valves, and pipes also are known to occur. Contaminated lands can pose a threat depending on several factors such as site characteristics and potential exposure of sensitive populations. The negative effects of land contamination on ecosystems and wildlife occur after contaminants have been released on land (soil/sediment) or into the air or water. Often, land contami- nation leads to water or air contamination by means of gravity, wind, or rainfall. No specific indicator was identified at this time. Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands 3-51 ------- 3.4 Challenges and Data Gaps Many of the specific data gaps related to development of the described indicators and their ability to answer the questions posed have already been identified. The discussion below augments the previously identified gaps. 3.4.1 Land Use The ability to accurately characterize and track land use over time is limited. Various federal efforts, such as the USDA NRCS, NRI, the USDA Forest Service FIA, the U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Status and Trends Program, and the NLCD, contribute in part to tracking some land uses and a variety of cover types. None of these are comprehensive for all lands or land uses, and some have limitations in their frequency of data collection or analysis. Some cover types and land uses are not sampled in any detail, including private and federal desert lands, federal shrublands and grasslands, and rangeland. In addition, Alaska is seldom included in national inventories, although Alaska represents approximately 16 percent of the land area of the U.S. and includes extensive shrublands, grasslands, and tundra. Each of the national systems has developed different methods, definitions, and classification criteria. While some effort has been made to share definitions across some of these systems (e.g., the NRI and FIA systems use essentially the same definition of forest land, and NRI and FWS define wetlands similarly), not all are consistent, especially in descriptions of developed or urban land, cropland, and rangeland. Examples of differences in classifications and acreage from several current national efforts are shown in Exhibit 3-31 for developed and agricultural land uses. The NLCD uses different classification and land use definitions because it is based on remote sensing data (an aerial perspective) rather than on ground sampling. FWS information is also based on aerial photo interpretatioiri. Given the increasing availability of high resolution aerial imagery, remotely sensed techniques for land cover delin- eations are likely to increase and classifications based on this inventory approach should be coordinated and defined. Another challenge is developing data on uses and cover types that at present are not adequately sampled. Further challenges include effectively integrating and harmonizing the various results of multi-agency, as well as state and local, efforts and coordinating the limited resources dedicated to national tracking of land cover/land use changes among agencies, so that inventories can be performed as frequently and as comprehensively as possible. The overarching goal is to assess national patterns in such a way that changes in land cover and land use that might have implications for human health or ecological condition can be detected and addressed. Exhibit 3-31: Land cover/land i se estimates TTI rJ Land:;:-! National Resources Inventory (NRI)A The Heinz Center8 U.S. Census Bureauc National Land Cover Data (NtCD)° 98 million acres developed land 32 million acres urban and suburban land 47 million acres urbanized areas 13 million acres urban clusters 36.7 million acres low and high density residential and commercial/industrial/ transportation 377 million acres cropland 32 million acres Conservation Reserve Program land 120 million acres pastureland 43.0-500 million acres cropland, hayland, and pastureland No data 331 million acres cropland 179 million acres pastureland and hayland .•• Note; The NRI, Helm Center, and NLCD sources do not include Alaska as part of the estimates. * USOA, Natural Resouites Conservation Service. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revise^December 2000). 2000 8 The Heinz Center, Tht State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. IJ c US. CenfW Bureau. Corrected Lists of Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters. November 25, 2002. (Marc\|2003; http://www.cemus.. _ .. 0 U5GS,NaikK«1 Und Cover Dataset NLCD Und Cover Statistics. 2001. (March 2003; MtP://landcoveru\j>sgov/nlcdhtml). 3-52 3.4 Challenges and Data Gaps Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land [ ------- The data available that actually summarize a national picture of land use are extremely limited. Relatively little comprehensive information exists about federal land management practices and extent For example, while the USDA Forest Service tracks acres managed for timber production, data are not easily accessible on acres used for grazing; oil, gas, and mineral development; or recreation Data needed to. summarize all lands under some form of "protection " such as parks, wilderness areas, reserves, or conservation easements at all levels of government, do not exist. In many cases, where land is used to produce food or fiber, indica- tors that report the amounts and values of these commodities might be used to' identify the condition/stress/pressure on the land. Examples of commodities include agricultural products forest products, and cattle produced from grazing land. The amount of fresh water used by humans might also be a good indicator of the pressure being applied to land and water resources. Commodity production is commonly correlated closely to population growth Reporting of commodity production trends in agriculture and forestry might also provide another view of the effects of these activities on the land and help evaluate policy options for ensuring long term, sustainable commodity production while reducing environmental effects. Land provides many other benefits in addition to commodity produc- tion. Research is being conducted on the subject of quantifying these "ecosystem services." Indicators are needed that will enable measuring and tracking some of these, services. 3.4.2 Qemicals Most of the national efforts to track chemical usage focus on how much is produced, used, or released, with less emphasis on tracking the extent or area of use. The TRI database requires reporting of releases of certain volumes of specific chemicals, but aside from knowing the location of initial releases, it does not track the extent of the area that might in some way be affected by the chemicals In addition, pesticide and fertilizer use are primarily tracked by understanding where these chemicals are sold, rather than where they are actually used. Further, not all toxic chemicals are on the list of TRI chemicals and therefore, some toxics are not reported. The TRI program faces the challenge of maintaining a current list that reflects the constant development, use, and release of new chemicals that might have effects on human and ecological health. lnd,cators for pesticide residue in food, potential pesticide runoff from farmlands, risk of nitrogen runoff, and risk of phosphorus runoff all address some part of the question of potential chemical d,spos,tion. Only the indicator for pesticide residues in food however, goes beyond stating the potential for chemicals to leave their point of use and actually shows the potential for consumers to be exposed to these chemicals. Indicators to better understand the actual deposition of chemicals, rather than potential disposition would be useful to correlate with actual human health and ecological condition indicators. State Pesticide Use Reporting Systems While there is no national pesticide use reporting system, several state systems exist. For example, California, with the most advanced system in the country, has had full pesticide use reporting since 1990. Reports about the specifics of application are filed by large- and small-scale farmers, commercial agricultural pesticide applicators, structural pest control companies, and commercial landscaping firms. (California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2000.) Better indicators of the linkages between chemical applications on the landscape and chemicals that find their way into the bodies of humans and other species are needed This includes better informa- tion on the chemistry, quantities, and longevity of various sub- stances; on the cumulative effects of various chemicals on the envi- ronment and humans; and on the pathways and effects of exposure In cases where nutrients do reach receiving waterbodies and raise the concentrations^above background levels, considerable uncertainty still exists concerning ultimate ecological effects. Current research does not clearly quantify the relationship between raised nutrient levels and resulting ecological changes. Better information is needed to provide an accurate picture of the human health effects of pesticide use. This information is difficult to collect, however. Even in California, where significant resources are ded,cated to pesticide regulation, the best available indicator is a measure of reported illnesses and injuries from pesticide exposure in the workplace. While this is valuable information, it does not address potential long-term health effects of non-workplace exposure that might result through drinking water and food exposure. Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.4 Challenges and Data Caps 3-53 ------- , „ . 11 l\| I •:•* •>: ' :. . ' i i.,,-1 -• ••-•!-• —i™™^^ H.npii« 3.4.3 Waste and Lands Used for Waste Management Several challenges and data gaps limit the understanding of waste and its effects on human health and ecological condition. First, as noted, waste data tend to be developed in response to the require- ments of specific mandates or regulations. Because these regulat.ons do not apply to all types of waste and are carried out at different levels of government, and in the private sector, complete data do not exist to answer the question: "How much waste is generated? Additionally, most waste generation is reported only by we.gnt providing little understanding of the volume of waste produced. Information about the amount of waste generated does not provide a complete picture on either the extent of waste-related problems or the effects of waste on human health, ecosystems, or the ambient environment. Different waste types pose substantially different types of risks. Some wastes are known to be hazardous to humans and the environment, but specifics about exposures and the effects of many other waste types are not well understood and data are limited. Finally, the risks posed by waste are largely a function of the type and effectiveness of waste management. The available data on waste and waste management have been limited by the stringent regulatory requirements and definitions that have driven most of the national information collection efforts. Data to describe how lands are affected by waste management are also limited. Even basic statistics on the acreage of lands used for managing waste and the condition of those lands are not available at the national level. To gain a more complete understanding ot the extent and effects of land used for waste management would require information on waste management methods, standards, and compliance, as well as information on lands where illegal dumping occurs. Establishing linkages to human populations or ecosystems within close proximity to lands managed for waste is an additional challenge. 3.U.4 Contaminated Land Today the best available information used to describe extent of contaminated land includes measures of the number and location of sites, two indicators of contaminated land that" lack national-quality data are the extent of contaminated land and the effects of contamination. Determining the extent of contaminated land would require national- level information on the number, location, and area of contaminated lands and data on the specific site contaminants and the associated risks, hazards, and potential exposures. Additional factors such as the potential contamination of ground water sources and the transportation or disposal methods needed to clean up the contamination would have to be considered. Such data are currently captured for only a subset of the nation's contaminated lands. In addition, information on known contaminated lands (e.g., some sites in EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System) that are not on the Superfund's NPL data in state and local databases, and information on the other type's of contaminated lands (e.g., leaking underground storage tanks) are not captured in the existing data. 3-54 3.4 Challenges and Data Gaps Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ------- Cl : i:-[ ••''. : 1: ••;?•'..., j- ;;i 'i •••••!: - M '' v'-•.'''• • •• '. hapter 4: Human Health ------- Indicators that were selected and included in this chapter were assigned to one o\| \|w,o categories: • Category 1 -"he indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by natioi} j\| level data coverage for more than one time period, The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are characterized bj jsounrf collection methodologies, data management systems, and quality assurance procedures. • Category 2 -The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data a\|\|availab\|e only for part of the nation (e.g., multi-state regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for mpre than \|pe time period, or not all the parameters of the indicator have been measured (e.g., data has been collected for birds, but not \| olants or insects). The supporting data are comparable across the areas covered, and are characterized by,; sound cpllectio Qfiethodologies, data management systems, and quality assurance procedures. i ------- ocument 4.0 Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving in the direction of measuring and assessing human health and ecological outcomes. Traditionally, EPA has used indicators such as decreases in emissions/discharges or decreases in ambient pollutant levels to measure environmental improvement. Health outcome measures complement these traditional approaches by reflecting the actual public health or ecological impacts that result from environmental pollution. By providing a quantitative assessment of these impacts, outcome indicators can strengthen environmental decision-making and enhance EPA's ability to evaluate, prospectively or retrospec- tively, the success of those decisions. The key to using outcome-based indicators is a clear understanding of the sequence of events that link changes in environmental conditions to health or ecological outcomes. Exhibit 4-1 depicts this sequence for human health. Each block in the diagram can have indicators associated with it. Indicators for the presence of pollutants or other stressors affecting air, water, and land are covered in Chapters 1 (Cleaner Air), 2 (Purer Water), and 3 (Better Protected Land), respectively, of this report. Indicators for the presence of pollutants in the body and their effects on health (altered structure or function, morbidity, or mortality) are covered in this chapter. The paradigm depicted in Exhibit 4-1 underlies the science upon which EPA bases its risk assessment process (NRC, 1983). Risk assessments, to a large degree, seek to estimate all linkages depicted in the exhibit. However, understanding the link between human expo- sure and health outcomes has always been challenging. Decades of research have provided the scientific foundation for understanding how exposure to individual pollutants at elevated levels'may affect human health. There is less certainly, however, about the effects of ambient exposures, which typically involve exposure to multiple pollutants at lower levels. Improved understanding of the linkages between these exposures and public health would strengthen EPA's ability to make and evaluate decisions. The indicators that describe the public health consequences of environmental exposures are called environmental public health indicators (EPHIs). Numerous national and international organiza- tions have recognized the compelling need for EPHIs. The greatest impetus came from a series of reports, by the Pew Environmental Exhibit 4-1: Environmental public health paradigm "* ). s . * a. 3 X* _ ... t, , [utant Formation and Release ^Lfnom Source Exposure/Contact I Air, Water, and Land Chapters - Individual - Community - Population Adverse Outcomes Mortality and Morbidity : Modified from National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the federal Government Managing the Process 1983 • •—-"—s—".-^~~~—<—-——__i^uu__^UUE **itmf™limma&atmtmlnimfauimau^ Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.0 Introduction 4-3 ------- TecMcal Document raft Report on the Ehyironi^ent 2p\|)\| Health Commission, which called on "Congress and the White House to protect Americans from chronic diseases—by tracking where and when these health problems occur and possible links to environmen- tal factors." The commission proposed that a Nationwide Health Tracking Network be established to track selected diseases and priority environmental exposures (Pew, 2001). When combined with other information, such as environmental monitoring data and data from toxicological, epidemiological, or clinical studies, EPHIs can be an important key to improving understanding of the relationship between pollution and health outcomes. Use of Environmental Public Health Indicators Environmental public health indicators can be used to: • Describe the health status of a population and discover important time trends in disease and exposure frequency. Most, if not all, of the indicators presented in this chapter perform this function. • Explain the occurrence or prevalence of diseases and exposure by helping to identify causal factors for specific diseases or trends. For example, the decline in the lung cancer rate in men has been related to the decline in smoking. For some areas presented in this chapter, the evidence for a relationship is quite strong (e.g., air pollution and pulmonary-cardiovascular related-illnesses). Other areas will require further research to better understand these linkages. • Predict the number of disease occurrences and the distribu- tion of exposure in specific populations. Such predictions could be used, for example, as input for setting priorities and making decisions to protect public health—e.g., establishing cleanup levels for environmental waste sites or regulatory levels for ambient pollutant levels. (Understanding the relationship between exposure and consequent health effects is critical to using indicators for predictive purposes.) • Evaluate policy decisions or interventions. (Again, understand- ing the relationship between exposure and effect is critical for this use.) Two types of environmental public health indicators are described in this chapter: • Health outcome indicators. These indicators measure the occur- rence in a population of diseases or conditions that are known or believed to be caused to some degree or exacerbated by exposure to environmental pollutants or stressors. • Exposure indicators. While there are four types of exposure indicators (see sidebar), this chapter focuses on biomonitoring indicators, which involve using tests of human fluid and tissue samples to identify the presence of a substance or combination of substances in the human body. S^ For some of the EPHIs. described in this chapter, a strong linkage has been established between environmental exposure and outcome. However, for many of the EPHIs presented, such as the outcome indicator of overall mortality, no linkage between environmental exposure and outcome has been determined. For these, further research, would be needed to establish and strengthen any linkages. Similarly, for some EPHIs, the linkage with the source of the pollution is clear (e.g., lead in gasoline), while for others the source or sources are much less certain. ' - . if fypes of Exposure Indicators Four j pproaches can be used to measure pr estimate exposure (i.e., t irect human contact with a pollutant). No approach is best": uited to all pollutants. Different approaches are appropriate to different types of pollutants, and each approach has si rengths and weaknesses. • Arrbient pollutant measurements. Historically, en\ ironmental measurements "of arobjent pollutant concentrations have generally beerj used to estimate hupian exposures. One limitation of ambient measurements is that the "presence of a pollutant in the environment does not necessarily mean that anyone has been exposed. Chapters 1 (Cleaner Air), 2 (Purer Water), arid 3 (Better Protected Laiiid) provide examples of ambient measurement indicators. • Stochastic models of exposure. This approach combines '.'.'. knowledge of environmental pollutant concentrations with information on people's activities and locations (e.g., time spent working, exercising outdoors, sleeping, shopping) to account for their contact with pollutants. This approach requires knowledge of pollutant levels where people live, work and play, as well as knowledge of the choice's thai t'Hey make in regard to day-to-day activities. ....... • Personal monitoring data. With personal monitoring, the mmbnifoTing''datar'S"everal environmental pollutants, ' nctably heavy metals and some pesticides, can be found it),.: : th]l body. These, pollutants or their breakdown products (ue., metabolites formed when a pollutant is broken dpwh in the ; b\|ray) leave residues that can be measured in human tissue ouj.uicjs such as. blood or urine. These residues je fleet the^ ^^ a\|Eunt of the pollutant that actually gets into the body, tut by" trfimselves they provide no information on how the individual came into contact with the pollutant. 1 4-4 4.0 Introduction Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- the Environment 2Q03: • ^chrik Document One of the greatest challenges to elucidating the connection between environmental exposure and disease is the fact that exposure to an environmental pollutant or stressor is rarely the sole cause of an adverse health outcome. More generally, individuals are exposed to more than one pollutant at a time, and exposure is just one of several factors that contribute to the disease occurring or to the severity of a preexisting disease. Other factors include, for example, diet, exercise, alcohol consumption, heredity, medications, and whether other diseases are also present Also, different people have different vulnerabilities, so some may experience effects to certain ambient exposure levels while others may not. All these factors make it difficult to establish a causal relationship between exposure to environmental pollutants and disease outcome except in rare cases, such as some historical occupational exposures, where exposure was unusually high. This chapter presents a broad spectrum of indicators that can now be used, or could potentially be employed in the future, to assess and track the public health impacts of environmental exposures. These indicators provide an overview of the health and exposure of people in the U.S. and identify the trends of those indicators in the U.S. Specific indicators for exposure and outcomes in children are presented, as children may be especially susceptible to_environmental pollutants. This chapter is organized into six sections: • Section 4.1 describes three case studies that illustrate the role of indicators in establishing linkages between effects and outcomes and in evaluating environmental management actions. • Section 4.2 compares health measures within the U.S. to these same measures throughout the rest of the world. • Section 4.3 discusses outcome indicators and trends for selected diseases that either have a major impact on the health .of people in the U.S. or may be caused to some extent by environmental pollution. Exhibit 4-2 lists the key public health questions thatare asked in this section and the indicators that are available to help answer these questions. • Section 4.4 presents biomonitoring indicators and trends for spe- cific environmental pollutants. The section begins by providing background on biomonitoring indicators and their limitations and data sources. The section then presents biomonitoring indicators for numerous specific pollutants and discusses other important pollutants for which biomonitoring data are not yet available. Exposure information for many of these pollutants is discussed in Chapters 1 (Cleaner Air), 2 (Purer Water), and 3 (Better Protected Land) of this report. The key exposure questions asked in this section and the indicators available to help answer these questions are presented in Exhibit 4-2. • Section 4.5 discusses an emerging field that attempts to quantify the overall burden of environmental disease on society. • Section 4.6 discusses the key challenges and data gaps for understanding the link between environmental exposure and health outcomes, and some recent government activities to continue and advance the work in this area. Many federal and state government agencies collect data that underlie environmental public health indicators. Continued effective coordination and collaboration among such agencies will be vital to further the development and use of environmental public health indicators. Key data sources used for this chapter include the: • World Health Organization (WHO), World Health Statistics Annual, a joint effort by the national health and statistical admin- istrations of many countries, the United Nations, and WHO. • United Nations, Demographic Yearbook, a comprehensive collection of international demographic statistics compiled from questionnaires sent annually and monthly to national statistical services and other government offices. • National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, which provides data on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces in the U.S. since 1933. • National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a continuous nationwide survey in which data on personal and demographic characteristics, illnesses, injuries, impairments, chronic conditions, utilization of health resources, and other health topics are collected through personal household interviews. • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, which provides weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases defined as notifiable (i.e., a disease that health providers must report to state or local public health officials due to its contagiousness, severity, or frequency). • National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, which provides data on all residents diagnosed with cancer in 11 geographic areas of the U.S. • The EPA's National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS), a multiday, multimedia study that examined chemical concentrations in indoor air, outdoor air, dust, soil, food, beverages, drinking water, and tap water. • National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a series of surveys designed to collect data on the health and nutritional status of the U.S. population. Chemicals and their metabolites were measured in blood and urine samples from selected participants. The chapter is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it provides a snapshot, at the national level, of the current U.S. environmental public health indicators and status based on key data sources with sufficiently robust design, quality assurance, and maturity. The chapter does not provide health status information that may be more applicable to certain geographic areas or to subgroups with potentially greater susceptibility to environmental pollution due to such factors as age, genetics, lifestyle, or medical status. Chapter 4 - 'Human Health 4.1 Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes 4-5 ------- , —~ : 1 * " if, - £FAs Draft teport on the Environment 2003 ecnnica BWSBil^ Exhibit U-2: Human Health - Questiqhs and indicators ! s i i" i r - i. •s -Health Status of the U.S. : Indicators and Trends,Ef Health and Disease I - « 0,,«r«n i ' i i . Indicator ^ame i: ; j What are the trends for life expectancy? What arc the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma? What are the trends for gastrointestinal illness? What arc the tends for children's environmental health issues? Life expectancy l_ancer mortality Cancer incidence Cardiovascular disease mortality Cardiovascular disease prevalence Chronic obstructive pulmona 7 disease mortality Asthma mortality Asthma prevalence Cholera prevalence Cryptosporidiosis prevalence E. coli O157:H7 prevalence Hepatitis A prevalence Salmonellosis prevalence Shigellosis prevalence Typhoid fever prevalence Infant mortality Low birthweight incidence Childhood cancer mortality Childhood cancer incidence Childhood asthma mortality Childhood asthma prevalence Deaths due to birth defects Birth defect incidence - it Category ],.;. [ 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ] Section 1 1 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.3 4.3.3 4.3.3 4.3.3 4.3.3 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 1 \| i Measuring Exposure to Environmental follutioi\|: Indicators and trends, r , t Question [ : , - i , , , What is the level of exposure to heavy metals? What is the level of exposure to cotinine? What is the level of exposure to volatile organic compounds? What is the level of exposure to pesticides? What is the level of exposure to persistent organic pollutants? What are the trends in exposure to environmental pollutants for children? _, What is the level of exposure to radiation? What is the level of exposure to air pollutants? Wttatis the level of exposure to biological pollutants? What is the level of exposure to disinfection by-products? Indicator Name i Blood lead level Urine arsenic level Blood mercury level Blood cadmium level Blood cotinine level Blood volatile organic compound levels Urine organophosphate levels to indicate pesticides No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Blood lead level in children Blood mercury .level in children Blood cotinine level in children No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Cleaner Air chapte • No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Categrku 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Section j 1 4.4.3 4.4.3 4.4.3 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.4.5 4.4.6 4.4.7 4.4.8 4.4.8 4.4.8 4.4.9 4.4.9 4.4.9 4.4.9 4-6 4.0 Introduction Chapter U - Human Health ------- Tecnriical DocunientM Efir\i\| Draft Report oh tke Environment 20Q3 U.I Environmental Follution and Disease: Links "Between txposure and Health Outcomes Many studies have demonstrated an association between environ- mental exposure and certain diseases or other health problems. ' Examples include radon and lung cancer; arsenic and cancer in several organs; lead and nervous system disorders; disease-causing bacteria such as £. coli O157:H7 (e.g., in contaminated meat and water) and gastrointestinal illness and death; and particulate matter and aggravation of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. As mentioned in Section 4.0, indicators of outcome and exposure can be important tools both for elucidating these links and monitor- ing the success of environmental management efforts. Indicators are one of several components needed to establish linkage. Other important components include ambient pollutant measures and toxi- cological, epidemiological, and clinical studies. Three case studies are described in this section to demonstrate how indicators can be used to establish associations between exposure and effect and to evaluate environmental management actions. fever each year. Deaths due to diarrhea-like illnesses, including typhoid, cholera, and dysentery, represented the third largest cause of death in the nation. Then scientists identified the bacteria responsible for most diarrhea deaths (typhoid, cholera, and dysentery) and elucidated how these , bacteria were transmitted to and among humans. Infected and diseased individuals shed large quantities of microbes in their feces, which flowed into and contaminated major water supplies. The - contaminated water was then distributed untreated to communities, which used the water for drinking and other purposes. This created a continuous transmission cycle. When treatment (filtration and chlorination) of drinking water was initiated to remove pathogens, the number of deaths due to diarrhea diseases dropped dramatically. Deaths due to typhoid fever were tracked throughout the early 20th century, as drinking water treatment was implemented across the country. Exhibit 4-3 shows the percent of the U.S. population that had treated water and the disease rate for typhoid fever from 1880-to 1980. In this example, the outcome measure was death rates due to typhoid, which was used in conjunction with an environmental process (the number of people getting treated drinking water) to evaluate and promulgate the use of drinking water treatment across the U.S. Drinking water treatment was one of the great public health success stories of the 20th century (NAE, 2000). It dramatically and significantly reduced death rates from waterborne disease, increasing C_ase jtudy on Waterborne Di isease This case study focuses on the impact of drinking water treatment on the decrease in mortality related to waterborne diseases. It demonstrates the valuable contribution to public health protection that can occur when the link between exposure and health outcomes is successfully made. As the case study describes, officials knew there was a high incidence of gastrointestinal disease, but they were not able to protect human health until they understood what caused these diseases. Based on this connection, officials were able to take effective action to protect public health. They also were able to use an outcome measure (deaths due to typhoid) to evaluate the success of these protective actions. At the beginning of the 20th century, waterborne diseases such as typhoid fever and cholera were major health threats across the U.S. More than ISO in every 100,000 people died from typhoid txhioit £1-3 tercent of population with treated water s versus typhoid deaths in the United States, 1880-1980 -=$ ^«?fe^;p-r,4,^«^^JMt^^^ „, -stf^K'Wj^^rnfc^r-^i^^^^^^^^^^lF^iti'i'.';",I'1^."«1 r^rls\|communicationi_^6p3.L\|. ,'; r ./ -;•- . J_: .,., ."j, 17;.'.' .. , -V> •''"' -.'- • "., ••". • •'. ' ',.'•'- ' -'-''-..' P'!' V_napter 4 - tiuman Health 4.1 Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes 4-7 ------- EPAs Draft Report on the Environment 20d3 echnica IE I "' i Uocuniierit life expectancy and reducing infant mortality. Today, public health is protected against new and emerging waterborne microbial contaminants by continual improvements to the drinking water treatment process and continual monitoring of waterborne diseases. Deaths due to cholera, typhoid, and dysentery are so rare in this country that they do not provide valuable information for evaluating the public health impacts of drinking water treatment Instead, the number of cases of these diseases are tracked to some extent, although reporting is not federally required. Indicators for waterborne disease and other important diseases with actual or potential environmental origins are discussed in Section 4.3. Case Study on Air iollution This case study illustrates how the association between deaths and peak air pollution concentrations was initially discovered by comparing mortali- ty rates and air monitoring data. It also describes how basic research on the health effects of air pollution has helped to establish strong linkages between levels of certain air pollutants and human health effects. These associations have provided sufficient basis for establishing regulations to control the level of pollutants in air. The success of these environmental management efforts can be evaluated by monitoring levels of regulated pollutants in air. However, except for lead (the subject of the third case study below), there are as yet no biomonitoring or outcome indicators that can more directly measure reduced human exposure or outcome on a national level. Nevertheless, a number of potential outcome indicators are discussed tliat could be available in the future if systems can be set up to track relevant biomonitoring or outcome data with sufficient reliability and coverage at a national level. Air pollution has been associated with several human health out- comes, including reported symptoms (nose and throat irritation), acute onset or exacerbation of existing disease (e.g., asthma, hospi- talizations due to cardiovascular disease), and deaths. The impact of air pollution on health was underscored in London in December of 1952, when a slow-moving area of high pressure came to a halt over the city. Fog developed, and particulate and sulfur pollution began accumulating in the stagnating air mass. Smoke and sulfur dioxide concentrations built up over 3 days. Mortality records showed that deaths increased in a pattern very similar to that of the pollution measurements. (This is illustrated in Exhibit 4-4.) It was estimated that 4,000 extra deaths occurred over a 3- to 4-day period. This was the first quantitative air pollution exposure data with a link to an adverse health outcome (i.e., mortality). While the London episode highlighted the hazard of extreme air pollution episodes, it was unclear whether health effects were associated with lower concentrations. By the 1970s, the association between respiratory disease and particulate and/or sulfur oxide air pollution had been well established (Dockery and Pope, 1997). Clinical studies (controlled studies in healthy adult subjects) also provide information about the association between air pollutants and health effects. For example, these studies have demonstrated that ozone causes a number of functional, symptomatic, and inflammatory responses, which tend to increase with an increase in ozone exposure dose (EPA, 1!?96). Effects of ozone include: •I Decreased pulmonary function, characterized by changes in lung volumes and flow; changes in airway resistance and responsiveness; and respiratory symptoms, such as cough and pain on deep inspiration (EPA, 1996). • An inflamii\|iatory response in the lungs (EPA, 1996). Based on these types of associations from toxicological, epidemio- logical, and clinical studies, EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six pollutants of concern: ozone, particulate matter, carbcin monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. These standards set limits to protect human health, including the health of "sensitive populations" such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly (EPA, 1999). ' Improvements in measuring air pollution and health endpoints, together with advances in analytical techniques, have made it possible to begin to quantitatively evaluate the success of air pollution control measures—such as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and associated regulations—to protect and improve public health. Though insufficient data were available at the time of this report to develop EPHIs for any criteria pollutants except lead, possible future EPHIs for air pollution include death due to respiratory and cardiovascular disease as well as increased hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular disease. 4-8 4.1 Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes Chapter 4 - Human ------- ^ feSS^K'E.asSiasS := Future EPHIs include: • Mortality. In many countries including the U.S., particulate air pollution has been associated with increased daily mortality from heart and lung diseases (e.g., congestive heart disease, chronic obstructive lung disease). In addition, chronic exposure to air pollution has been linked with increased risk of premature mortality (EPA, April 2002). • Hospital admissions. Hospitalization records are not widely available, and studies have been limited by their availability in communities around the U.S. Nevertheless, many studies have shown that increased admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases are associated with increased pollutant concentrations. Most recently, subtle changes in the cardiovascular system that can increase a person's risk of heart attack and bring about other cardiovascular effects have been identified as possible EPHIs. Establishing EPHIs for air pollution and health effects, whether cardiovascular or pulmonary, is still challenged by limits in knowledge of how much air pollution contributes to the risk of both cardiovascular and respiratory disease. Research is still needed to better understand which components of air pollution (i.e., gases, metals, or organics) cause health effects; the extent to which they contribute to risk; and the extent to which other factors (e.g., genetics, lifestyle, age) contribute to risk. Given these limitations, no indicators are presented for any of the six criteria pollutants except lead. A case study on lead is presented below, with further discussion on lead as an indicator provided in Section 4.4. Case Study on Lead The third case study concerns lead, a toxic pollutant to which there is human exposure from many different sources. In the previous case studies, outcome indicators were an important key to establishing a linkage between a health effect and its cause. Understanding the cause enabled officials to take action to protect public health. In the case of lead, though it was a known toxin, exposure came from so many sources that it was difficult to know what actions at the national level would effectively reduce lead exposure. Once regulations to do so were put in place, biomonitoring data provided a way to evaluate the success of this environmental management effort in reducing exposure to lead in the U.S. Lead is a neurotoxic metal that affects areas of the brain that regu- late behavior and nerve cell development (NAP, 1993). Its adverse effects range from subtle responses to overt toxicity, depending on how much lead is taken into the body and the age and health status of the person (CDC, 1991). Currently in the U.S:, human exposure to lead may occur in several ways, as listed in Exhibit 4-5. For example: • Homes built before 1978, commercial buildings, and steel struc- tures may contain deteriorating lead-based paint, which creates lead-contaminated dust (EPA, 1996). An estimated 24 million housing units in the U.S. are at risk for containing some lead paint hazards (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000). Of these, 16 million homes with lead-based paint have children in residence who are younger than 6 years old. • Other sources of lead exposure include lead-contaminated soil, dust, and drinking water; industrial emissions; and miscellaneous sources (CDC, 1991). For many years, the largest source of lead in the U.S. environment came from leaded gasoline. Elemental lead was emitted in the exhaust and settled on the ground and in people's homes. Most lead enters the body via ingestion and inhalation, after which it is absorbed by the bloodstream. Also, lead can cross the placenta, exposing the fetus to lead (EPA, 1996). In adults, most lead poison- ing is associated with occupational exposures. Infants, children, and fetuses are more vulnerable to the effects of lead because'their blood-brain barrier is not fully developed (Nadakavukaren, 2000). In addition, ingested lead is more readily absorbed into a child's bloodstream. Children absorb 40 percent of ingested lead into their bloodstreams, while adults absorb only 10 percent. In children, three major organ systems are affected by lead: the nervous system (the brain), the kidney, and the blood-forming organs (NRC, 1993). Lead-based paint Homes (built before 1978) Commercial buildings Steel structures (bridges, water towers) Lead-contaminated soil and dust Industrial emissions Past leaded gasoline use Deteriorating lead-based paint Lead-contaminated drinking water Leaded plumbing solder (now banned) Miscellaneous Home hobbies - art, jewelry, fishing weights Use of pewter dishware Cosmetics, traditional medicines Parental occupations gpurce CDC. Preventing lead Poisoning in Young Children 1991. Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.1 Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes 4-9 ------- EFAs Draft feort on the Environment 2003 • Technical Document l'"T :: I ••'•'!- • . :\|\|:, ;, As awareness of the health effects of lead has increased, the CDC has lowered the level considered to be a human health hazard (Exhibit 4-6) (CDC, 1991). In 1970, a blood lead level of 40 micro- grams per deciliter (Ug/dL) or higher was considered a hazard. Today, 10 \|Jg/dL or higher is considered a hazard (EPA, December 2000). Recent research suggests that blood lead levels less than 10 (Jg/dL may still produce subtle, subclinical health effects in children (Schmidt, 1999). In 1984, an estimated 6 million children and 400,000 fetuses were exposed to lead at levels that placed them at risk for adverse effects (NAP, 1993). Approximately 4.4 percent of all U.S. children in the 1990s had elevated blood lead levels (NCEH, 1998). As of 1998, an estimated 1 million U.S. children had blood lead levels above 10 Mg/dL (NCEH, 1998). Lead is one of the few pollutants for which biomonitoring and link- age data are sufficient to clearly evaluate environmental management efforts to reduce lead in the environment. The National Center for Health Statistics' National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a national survey of the health status of the U.S. popula- tion, has determined blood lead levels for the U.S. population since the early 1970s. In the 1970s, lead poisoning occurred increasingly in children who did not live in dwellings with lead-based paint, suggesting that another source or sources of lead exposure were of even greater concern than lead paint. Research found that combustion of leaded gasoline was the primary source of lead in the environment EPA promulgated two regulations: • One required the availability of unleaded fuel for automobiles designed to meet federal emission standards (e.g., catalytic converters) (EPA, 1973). fc Exhibit U-6: Blood lead levels considered elevated by the ^ '.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Public , 1 : HealtK Service, 1970-1990 „ 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 \| fcSWMSK,£fiC. Prmntmg I-"" ftiisorring in Young CWWren. 1991. d in Hiiiniii 111 inn u i in • in iii iii i n«iff i i • The second required a reduction of the lead content in leaded gasoline (EPA, 1986). Over the next decade, peak outdoor-air lead concentrations decreased as a result of these controls. Exhibit 4-7 compares the amount Of lead used in gasoline production and the average blood lead levels provided by the NHANES from 1976 to 1980. The NHANES survey found a similar decline in children's blood lead levels (Exhibit 4-8). In 1991, a report from the National Academy of Sciences predicted that declining ambient lead levels would reduce the average.blood lead level to less than IS Ug/dL By the late 1990s, the average blood lead level in the U.S. for children was 3 \|Jg/dL (Schmidt, 1999). These data show a demonstrable effect between regulatory actions to control lead and human exposure. id used in qasoW production f ^^^K&^fAMMs^iAi^ffy'iAtf^ii^iS ik, .4 ,-* ««y^«gKafe;fe!WSS^ * i V«« /-,^~ to^'>:.n^.te*^iS!S«^-i!^yfe\|iii ;d rates per TOQ.OOO people . \| 'iSiiSliiS\| Lead used in gasoline Average blood lead (ug/dL) icit Measunn^ le^w Expdswres7n/nfonts, • i^i'n-lfcVVW (>Tn»W,T&f"l^-j;Ar^S1".'a1f;"X>ai%W> IV.JJi.-lft^HSlW^r fe?i^-;;:,?v^;iK«J^'a'P"?-.^^i .' ,.-;:«,>:,;--?-»;;;»;' :-.,i: ISr., fc.s,;,3;;,,;,;.rj. 4-10 4.1 Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes Chapter U - Human Health ------- '" • ' * '"''-• i "•••••" •- " ' '° ~-~ . • .— .__ £fi^i:DraftReport on the Environment 2003 tlucidating Other Linkages For all three case studies, the linkage between exposure and disease is fairly strong. Subsequent sections of this chapter describe a number of areas of concern regarding the potential human health impacts of environmental exposure. The linkage in these areas ranges from strong to weak. For example, in some cases outcome indicators are available, but scientists are not yet sure how much of that outcome is contributed by environmental factors. In other cases, biomonitoring indicators are available, but scientists are not sure whether the presence of a contaminant in the body at the levels shown by the indicators causes adverse health effects. These areas are discussed in this chapter, despite relatively weak linkages, because the use of outcome and biomonitoring indicators is a developing area. Understanding of linkages will be strengthened over time as more research is conducted to develop environmental public health indicators and other data that reveal how pollutants contribute to disease. Exnibit 4-8: Concentration of lead in Uood of age 5 and under, 1976-198O 1988-1991, Li' 1992-1994,1999-2000 children "T "4 25 < 20 15 S .1QU Err 90th percentile (10 percent of _ children have this blood lead level or greater) Median value (SO percent of children have this blood lead level or greater) 1976- 1980 1988- 1992- 1991 1994 1999- J 2000 J 10 jig/dL of blood lead has been identified by CDC as elevated, which indicates the need for int^rver^on, (CDC Preventing Lead Po,Son,ng m Young Children 1991.) Recent research suggests that bipod Jewels less than 10 (ig/dl. may still produce subtle, subclinical heajth, effects m children (Schmidt, C W Poisoning Young Minds. 1999.) Source- U S ^Environmental Protection Agency America's Children and the Environment-Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses, Second Edition February 2003. Data from CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Bafiwahoji Survey, 1976- 2000 - J 4.2 Health Status of the U.j. C-ompared to the Rest of the World Several measures are used worldwide to describe health status. These indicators include life expectancy (i.e., the number of years people can expect to live at birth), the number of infant deaths, and the major causes of deaths. Collecting and reporting the data necessary to compare these measures between nations is a challenge. Yet, as travel and communications increasingly link the health of nations in the world, the importance of having comparable information has increased. Fortunately, considerable progress has been made to improve the comparability of the necessary data among nations. In addition to enabling comparisons of health status, the data also can be used to inform U.S. environmental health policy and programs, to focus research efforts, and to provide insights into linkages between environmental factors and health. Life Expectancy Life expectancy is the average number of years at birth that a group of infants would live if throughout life they experienced the age-specific death rates present at birth. In 2000, life expectancy at birth for all people in the U.S. was a record 76.9 years (Pastor, et al., 2002). In 1997, the U.S. ranked 19th in terms of life expectancy for' both females and males when compared with other countries (Exhibit 4-9). Life expectancy at birth varies widely, both between males and females and between nations. For both sexes, Japan reports the highest life expectancy of all nations, with males - expected to live 772 years and females expected to live 83.8 years. Infant Mortality Infant mortality is a particularly useful measure of health status because it indicates both the current health status of the population and predicts the health of the next generation (NCHS, 2001). Between 1970 and 2000, the infant mortality rate in the U.S. declined from 20.0 to 6.9 per 1,000 live births, the lowest ever recorded in the U.S. (Pastor, et al., 2002; Mannino and Smith, 2001). When compared to other countries, the U.S. ranked 11 th in 1960 with regard to infant mortality. In 1998, the U.S. ranked 28th (Exhibit 4-10). Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World 4-11 ------- EFAs Draft Report on tne Environment 2OQ3 JL. Leading Causes of Death It Is customary to measure the health of a nation by listing the lead- ing causes of death. Comparisons of the 10 leading causes of death in the U.S. and for the world demonstrate that infectious diseases are a major contributor to deaths outside of the U.S. Four of the 10 leading causes of death in the world are infectious diseases (Exhibit 4-11). These diseases account for 20.3 percent of the deaths worldwide. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S. as well as in the world. While heart disease accounts for nearly one-third of the deaths in the U.S., it accounts for only 12.4 percent of the deaths in the world. Cancer Morbidity and Mortality The age-adjusted cancer mortality rates for all body sites except skin are higher for males than females in all of the countries presented in Exhibit 4-12. There is wide variation among men and women in age- adjusted cancer death rates. Hungary has the highest age-adjusted total cancer (except skin) death rates for both males and females (272.3 and 149.4 per 100,000 people, respectively). The U.S. ranks 16th for males, with an age-adjusted cancer death rate of 161.8 per 100,000, and 10th for females, with an age-adjusted cancer death rate of 116.4 per 100,000. Sweden has the lowest age-adjusted Exnitit 4-9: Life expectancy at birth,i:\|ccording to sex, United States and selected coifitries, 1997 • --T .-> •- .... 1^.. -..-. ->-..; .-...vfe- :•• •..•.•-:X".:.l&! Note: least f Source: milfion'people. Pastor R.N., et al. Health. United States, 2I&02. . (jgeinyedia Jit , lowest life, expectancy base j on the latest d\|teha6rewfo^ountries^rge6gPaPh!c areas with at 4-12 4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- °fi the;Environment 2003 ioit 4-10: Infant mortality rates per 1,000 live oirtns, , United States and selected countries, 1998 Hong kong fesor^ i. Sweden jlpi~ /apan Norway , Finland ISEX, f 1 f Singapore 1 Ife-^- France (fc, • Germany &, 4 Denmark jf~ _» -Switzerland H^ Austria ^™v Australia \|L Czech Republic Is SN>. . Netherlands ft i SL, Canada E=.— - " Italy J"?}^ New Zealand Is • Scotland 1" Northern Ireland E Belgium Spain nd and Wales Israel Greece Portugal Ireland Cuba United States Slovakia Kuwait Poland Hungary Puerto Rico Chile Costa Rica Bulgaria EZL— " Russia Romania B?2- te,, .( J! IV — 1 4.2 -- '__J 4.6 ; ^__J4.6 14.7 1 4.8 - 14.9 ~ 15.0 15.2 ; : 15.2 I 5.3 15.3 15.5 1 5.5 _ J 5.6 15.6 15.7 I 5.7 15.7 ' -:----\ 5.7 15.9 16.2 S 7.1 1 8 8 I 9.4 ..'. .19.5 19.7 110.5 . _ J10.9 1 12.6 114.4 1 16.4 1 20.5 till } 5 10 15 20 2 JT -, 'A 1 5! Rate per 1,000 live births 1 f v 4 «„„ -; ^v ' Data for Ki^wait, Slovakia, and Spam are for 1996. IT Source; Pastor, Jl.N., et al. Health. United States,2002. 2002. cancer death rate for males, and Greece has the lowest rate for females (137.9 and 81.8 per 100,000, respectively) (United Nations, 2001). The age-adjusted incidence of cancer for all sites except skin varies widely among different countries (Exhibit 4-13). Hungary reported the highest age-adjusted incidence of cancers for males (405.4 per 100,000 people). New Zealand had the highest age-adjusted cancer incidence rate for females (303.2 per 100,000 people). The U.S. has the third highest age-adjusted cancer incidence rates for both males and females (361.4 and 283.2, respectively). Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates are higher for males than females in each of the countries presented in Exhibit 4-13 except Denmark (GLOBOCAN 2000, 2001). The varying incidence and mortality rates for cancer between different countries could be due to many factors. Factors related to the economic, social, cultural, psychological, behavioral, and biological mechanisms that influence the onset of cancer may contribute to these differences in rates (NCI, 2002). A portion of these differences might also be attributable to the varying prevalence of certain behavioral risk factors for cancer—such as cigarette smoking, diet, and alcohol consumption—within different countries. The availability and use of certain drugs, such as anticancer and immunosuppressive drugs, may also cause differences in the rates of cancer among different countries. The extent to which early diagnoses and treatment methods are available and utilized could also account for some portion of the variation in cancer rates among different countries, as could variations in methods of classifying and reporting cancer. For more on morbidity, mortality, and age-adjusted rates, see Section 4.3. Chapter 4 - Human Healtn 4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World 4-13 ------- EPAs Draft Report on the Environment 2003 • Technical Docur\|i\|h^ " 'LJUyX ' "' :" MMI^^ HflUliH " ' , f' '" »- : L: •:"" • '• ' 'f Cxnioit 4-11; NJumber of deaths and percent of total deaths; l\| H in i ; UN I,, L ! i i 1 i i \ > world (including U.S.), 1990, Lit H , h. [LI, i, ,1 iiailS; • i Cause of Death ; World (Including U.S.) (1990) All causes Heart disease Stroke Lower respiratory infections Diarrheal diseases Conditions arising during the perinatal period Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Tuberculosis Measles Road traffic accidents Trachea, bronchus and lung cancers All other causes United States (1999) All causes Heart disease Cancer Stroke Chronic lower respiratory diseases Accidents (unintentional injuries) Diabetes mellitus Influenza and pneumonia Alzheimer's disease Nephritis, nephritic syndrome, and nephrosis Septicemia All other causes ;,„ 'Sources: TOfid Resources Institute, e, t 'al. World Resources 'i'9,98-,99. and Unite! iSiSiiiiKSilSsiSi iNumber ,6f Deaths 50,467,000 6,260,000 4,381,000 4,299,000 2,946,000 2,443,000 2,211 ,000 1,960,000 1,058,000 999,000 945,000 27,502,000 2,391 ,399 725,192 549,838 167,366 124,181 97,860 68,399 63,730 44,536 35,525 30,680 484,092 'l9S»8;'Ari3ef\| prJO Jeading causes of death, Itates, 1999^ H3M539b££&3Mbl!!9&!S!£l!£S$^1&%!?!!? '.;] Percent of : I ^H Total Deatjhs \| j • 100.0 12.4 8.7 8.5 5.8 4.8 4.4 3.9 2.1 2.0 1.9 54.5 100.0 30.3 23.0 7.0 5.2 4.1 2.9 2.7 1-9 1.5 1.3 20.2 \ * "i ;1 -•i r,4 si i? I i '! •' • 1 :'-.! ^ % ;,:-.\| ;"1 ;"! /j ~i 1 3 3 "" "LS •1 #&£ «8\| • : : " : n ii ; ; :.: ; • i::,,, ; ; '.;: .• .'^ 4^ • ^i&'^:£3jj^^ 4-14 4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- m Exhibit 4-12: Age-adjusted cancer mortality rates for all sites except skin, Ly sex for selected countries, 20OO Unjtedingdom __ -128-1 lreland 1 27. 8 Netherands 120 anada i:116.7 116.4 Austria 113.8 Nprwa Slovakia 108.8 1673 161.8 United States _Sweden104 JJwjtzerland J103.3 'Australia 2J 103.2 Russian Fed. ; 100.6 J 92-5 149.5 145.8 Bulgaria^ ^89.4 Portugal J89.1 _Spain_j85 Greece 81.8 260 220 180 140 100 Surce: United Nations. Demographic Yearbook, l!)99.2QOT. 60 20 , 60f Rate per 100,000 peopfe " T I 100 , 140, 180 220 260 300 _ Qiapter 4 - Human Health 4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World 4-15 ------- Exnitjit 4-13: Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates for all sites excepllljin, b^ sex for selected countries, 2000 4-16 4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World Chapter 4 - Human ------- Pw=:a«vvr^\—x^e-rr—.•••• "--• Exhibit 4-13: Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates for all sites except skin, by sex for selected countries, 2000 Males 405.4] 375.31 361.4] 359.3 1 355.3 Females New Zealand 303.2 Denmark : 296.9 United States United States 342.6J 335.2 j 323.4] 318.3 3123 299.7 299.6 J 290.511! 287.2 283.4 281 278 275-5 272.3 272.1 270.3 283.2 "Australia 1 279.3 275-9 Canada ! 266 Netherlands 253.4 Sweden; 250.1 2 249.8 I242-6 237.1 235.3 234.3 222.6 AustriaJ 219.6 ~™IZOiE 217-8 SwrtzeriancT? 211.3 ~SlovaEia"s 204.3 -. d^^J 193.5 PortugaH 192.8 Romania^ 185.8 Bulgaria^! 180.4 japarT^ 170.5 Spain_ _^ 166.3 Greece :! 158 -~ 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 15J3 2.0Q ^ i Incidence rate per 100,000 people 250 300 350 400 450 = Source GLOBOCAN. Cancer Incidence, Mortality, and Prevalence Worldwide, Version 1.0 2001, Internattonal Agency for Research on Cancer. 1ARC Cancer Base No. 5. 2001 4-16 4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World Oiapter U - Human ------- Technical Document • EfAs Draft Report on the fii4/ironm Exhibit 4-12: Age-adjusted cancer mortality rates for all sites exce: Hungary J149.4 144 ew Zealand 131 .1 jnite ------- 4.3 Health Status of the U.J.: Indicators and Irend: f Health and Di Morbidity o isease This section identifies key indicators of health outcomes (mortality and disease) in the U.S. and describes trends for these outcomes. These outcomes are featured in this report because they are important measures of the health of people in the U.S., and/or because environmental exposure does or may play a role in contributing to the outcome. The case study on air pollution, presented earlier in Section 4.1, provides an example of how health outcome data can be used to elucidate the linkage between pollution exposure and health outcomes. In this case study, a comparison between mortality rates and air monitoring data revealed an association between deaths and peak air pollutant concentrations. Mortality Overall mortality is a key measure of health in a population. There were more than 2,391,399 deaths in the U.S. in 1999 (Anderson, 2001), a number much larger than the 1,989,84T recorded in 1980. The increase in the number of deaths reflects the increase in the size and the aging of the U.S. population. The age-adjusted death rate for all causes has declined steadily since 1950, from 1,446 per 100,000 people to, 876 in 1998. The age-adjusted death rates are higher for men than for women, a relationship that has not changed over the years. Heart disease, cancer, and stroke are the three leading causes of death, accounting for about 60 percent of all deaths. This section presents trends in life expectancy and in mortality due to cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma. It also presents trends in mortality for children, including infant mortality and mortality due to cancer, asthma, and birth defects. Unless otherwise noted, the death statistics are based on the underlying cause of death and are compiled from death certificates. The underlying cause of death is the disease or injury that is judged to have initiated the events that led to death. The mortality rate is the proportion of the population that dies of a disease. The rate is usually calculated for a calendar year, is often expressed per 100,000 population, and is called the crude death rate. Morbidity is another measure of health for a population. Morbidity data are often described by using the incidence and prevalence of a disease or condition: • Incidence refers to the number of new cases of a disease or con- dition in a given time period in a specified population. • Prevalence refers to the total number of persons with a given disease or condition in a specified population in a particular time period. This section provides information on trends for several diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and gastrointestinal illness. It also examines trends in children's environmentally related diseases, including cancer and asthma as well as low birthweight and the incidence of birth defects. C-omparison Across lime, Topulations, and (ueograpnic Areas Incidence, prevalence, and mortality statistics may be used to compare the rates of disease at two or more points in time or across different populations or between different geographic areas. These comparisons are particularly useful to determine whether the populations differ by some factor (often called a risk factor) that is known or suspected of affecting the risk of developing the disease or condition. For example, different populations that are compared can be countries, workers in factories, or states. In general, disease incidence, prevalence, and mortality increase with age. For this reason, when comparing different populations, the data must often be adjusted to account for the age differences between the populations. The adjusted data, called "age-adjusted rates," are used when appropriate in this chapter. Terceived Well-Being Another measure of health, perceived well-being, is discussed briefly here, but is not covered by an indicator. The reporting of health as excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor captures both the physical health of the individual and the emotional aspects of well-being (Kramarow, et al., 1999). In 1999, approximately 90 percent of the population of the U.S. reported that they were in good, very good, or excellent health (Eberhardt, et al., 2001), a slight increase from 89.6 percent in 1991. As might be expected, the percentage of people reporting good-to-excellent health decreases with age. While 95 percent of those 18 to 44 years of age reported good-to- excellent health, only 77 percent of persons 65 years of age and older reported that they were in good-to-excellent health. Also, non-Hispanic African Americans and Hispanics of all ages reported worse health than non-Hispanic Whites (Eberhardt, et al., 2001). Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease . 4-1 7 ------- tr/vs Draft Mport $,NO! OfjlcwS phuyrw . — - - _ - - „ . - _ - -3 -45.; -49.8 66.51 39.3 I •BBH JBBH )•• ^•H; a 20 9H izf • 10.3 ------- Cancer mortality - Category 1 (continued) Cancer incidence - Category 2 (continued) _-~--~_J__^ .^,. , , -^^^^^^^J E Exhibit 4-14: Trends in United States cancer mortality rates and Surveillance, Epidemic ogy and End Results (SEER) ^ - incidence (annual percentage change 1973-1998) Er Mortality Incidence Sr^~ !^__ Lung (females) \|\|r Liver &, intrahep g Non Hodgkm fe?"» Melanomas of skin ISr" "Multiple myeloma i^ pttS? .".Esophagus H^_ Kfdney/renaf \|%x=— - Brain &ONS SF£ Lung (males) ~f- Prostate &^T_ .All cancers jS^ ~ Pancreas • k_ Leukemia js^ ~ Alt except lung ^~ Ovary ^L, ™_Breast (females) \|r _ ^ Larynx aUS^n. ~ "^"Thyroid ^^ Urinary bladder H^ , Colon/rectum ^Corpus & uterus, NOS K£ ^ Oral cav & pharynx Sr.^ Stomach k— L Cervix i4ten SPife— H.pdgfa'n's E= Testis - - - - - - - - - - - - - -? -^ -2 -2 -31 -45.2 -49.8 «iayJi^--i..».mJi.MJJi.»i".m»a 150.6 m^ ^im ^a3 ?S 20 SI 17.S JH 10.3 \|J 4.4 1 1.6 i 0.0 -3.2 1 -9.0 1 -10.0^ 13.0 • 4.2 B 4.7 B\| 0.9 !S( 4.1 HS .801 .1 BH 4 •! tt@B{ f^s6t 66.5 BSSSSaaJ! -^93 I 56 1 45.2 ?5.8 2.7 4 ' - i Melanbmas of skin Lung, (females) Prostate b'ver & intrghep Non-Hodgkin's •Testis Thyroid Kidney/renal Breast (females) Ali cancers AH except lung Multiple myeloma Brain S.ONS Esophagus Urinary bladder Ovary lung.(males) Colon/rectum ieukemias Pancreas Oral cav & pharynx Hpdgkin's Larynx Corpus & uterus, NOS Stomach Cervix uteri - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - Jgjr,,,,,,,' ,-- -- ^—^-,-j; 14q ^ 116 3 tew^sfcs— isj^4n JKiSSSa^fi •? £^^S4.9 ia^aite/ inat-;j>^ SB! 22.4 SI 21 d 8119.0 »17.6 llO.l -l.ll -4.8\| -S.9< -6.7* -9.5 g -14.71 16.4 B -?3.oB\| -26.3 IB! -34.0 BB -43.7 H\| if 1 '! * i ' 'I . ' '\| ? " 1 ; ...i 1 '• i -"'i ."1 ' 1 •••'I j 1 5* . •. .4 •• 1 -.".1 -'. '1 -'I •'. J •Sf :. iv i^. ~ "20° "15° •10° ~SO ° 50 10° 1SO 20° ^ -200 -150 -100 -JO 0 SO 100 ISO 200 ' \|^ Percent change, 1973-1998 ^ Percent^change, 1973-1998 sf?TQS » Not otherwise specified _ , ^ J g-OI^S « Other nervous system \| ?,Source Ries LAG, eta! Swrvq/fance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Cancer Statistics Review, 7573 1998 2001 * " 1 4-20 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health Chapter 4 - Human .Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-23 ------- raft Report on the Environment 2003 • lecnnical Document EPAs Draft "Report on the Environment 2003 • Ipchnical Documeht includes five years 1997-2001. These include two diseases—cholera and typhoid fever—that are rarely identified in this country. These diseases are nevertheless included because they can be severe illnesses and a sudden increase in their reporting would signal a public health emergency for which prompt action would be needed. In addition to the seven diseases discussed here, a number of other gastrointestinal diseases are caused by microorganisms. These include giardiasis, caused by the pathogen Giardia. Giardiasis has become notifiable only as recently as 2002 (CDC, 2003), so no indicator is available at this time. The primary means of transmission for the seven diseases reported here is oral-fecal. The disease microbes shed in the feces of infected individuals and then can be transmitted to humans through food, water, person-to-person contact, or contact with ill animals. The seven diseases are cholera, cryptosporidiosis, E. coli O157:H7, Hepatitis A, salmonellosis, shigellosis, and typhoid fever. Exhibit 4-22 shows the incidence of each for 1997 through 2001. Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Associated wit* Drinking Water 1971 -2000 Since 1971, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), EPA, and the Couij oil of State and Territorial Epidemiologists have maintained a collaborative surveillance system for the occurrences and causes of water!: orne-disease outbreaks (WBDO). These data are only a small part of the larger body of information related to drinking water quality in the United States. State, territorial, and local public health agencies are primarily responsible for detecting and investigating WBDOs and voluntary reporting them to CDC these data are used to identify types of water systems, their deficiencies, the etiologic agents (e.g., microorgar evaluate current technologies for providing safe drinking water and safe recreational wa sms and chemicals) associated with outbreaks, and to ers. This system reports outbreaks and estimated numbers of people who become ill. It does not provide information on non-outbreak re ated or endemic levels of waterborne illness. Moreover, the focus is on acute illness. The system does not address chronic illnesses s CDC and EPA are collaborating on a series of epidemiology studies to assess the magn tude of non-outbreak waterborne illness associated with consumption of municipal drinking water. Between 1971 and 2000, there were 751 reported waterborne disease outbreaks associ ty systems, and community water systems (Exhibit 4-21). During 1999-2000, community systems, and 12 from community systems) associated with drinking water ted with drinking water from individual, non-communi- a total of 44 outbreaks (18 from private wells, 14 from non- ; reported by 25 states (Craun and Calderon, 2003). However, these data should be interpreted with caution. Many factors can influence local, territorial, and state public health agencies. For example, the size of the outbre public awareness of the outbreak, whether people seek medical care or report to a laboratory testing for organisms, and resources for investigation can all influence This system underreports the true number of outbreaks because of the multiple stej investigated. Thus, an increase in the number of outbreaks reported could either refj and reporting at the local and state level. Exnibit 4-21: Number or reported waterborne diseasi with drinking water by year and type of water system, Unite :h as cancer, reproductive, or developmental effects. Ic'call hether a WBt)O is recognized and investigated by k, severity of the disease caused by the outbreak, :al health authority, reporting requirements, routine the identification and investigation of a WBDO. ; required before an outbreak is identified and ct an actual increase or improved surveillance ifr •outbreaks associated ! Btates, 1971-2000 (n=75l) Type of Water System* IHH Non-community •Non-community water systems are systems that either (1) regularly supply water to at least 25 of the s\| Krtooh, f«tori«s, office buildings, and hospitals that have their own water systems), or (2) provide water ij a JJS iUtion of campground). ' ' * Individual water systems .are not regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act and serve fewer than 25 persoij * Community water jystems provide water to at least 25 of the same people or service connections year roj Source; Based on data pre;ented in Craun, G.F. and R.L Calderon. Waterborne Outfcreafo in the United States^ \e peopfe at least 6 months per year, but not year round (e.g., 1 place where people do not remain for long periods of time (e.g., fe , ,™ 0^,, ^ ^ * 5 «, i or 15 service connections, including many private wells. 20Q3, 4-26 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease .Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- The data source for these seven indicators is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. This system provides weekly provisional information from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) on the occurrence of diseases defined as notifiable. A notifiable disease is one that, when diagnosed, health providers report to state or local public health officials. Notifiable diseases are of public interest because of their contagiousness, - severity, or frequency (Pastor, et al., 2002). State epidemiologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabulates and publishes -these data in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWK) and Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or report- ing jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recommend additions or deletions to the list of nationally notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging priorities. Reporting nationally notifiable 'diseases to CDC, however, is voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative disease burdens. These data, however, must be interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting is influenced by many factors such as the diagnostic facilities available; the control measures in effect; public awareness of a specific disease; and the interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials responsible for disease control and public health surveillance. Finally, factors such as changes in case definitions for public health surveillance, introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent of the true incidence of disease. 1997 • 1998 M 1999 H 2000 • 2001 Exhibit 4-22: Prevalence of reported gastrointestinal diseases, United States, 1997-2001 Cryptosporidiosis E. co/i O1 57:H7 t ^ „ » * r»iWi wJ-.-» Disease gyrces CDC Notice to Readers- Final 2001 Reports of Notifiable Diseases. 2002; CDC Notice to Readers Ftnal 2000 Reports of Notifiable Diseased 2001, CDC Notice to Readers Inai 1999 Reports of Notifiable Diseases. 2000. CDC. Notice to Readers: Final 1998 Reports ofNabfiqble Diseases 1999, CDC Notice to Readers Final 1997 Reports of Notifiable Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Di: Disease 4-27 Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-29 ------- EfAs Draft "Report on the Environment 20Q3 • technical DocurneM lf?nCP_ — \.nolprfl — y ^pit'pnf __l , ! I E"PAs Draft "Report on the Environment 20O3 • Technical Documejfij: Infectious disease prevalence - Salmonellosis - Category[2 Salmonellosis is a disease caused by one of the more than 2,000 strains of the bacterial genus Salmonella. Most persons infected with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days, and most persons recover without treatment, though antibiotics can be used. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. In these patients, the Salmonella infection may spread from the intestines to the bloodstream and then to other body sites. It can cause death unless the person is treated promptly with antibiotics. The elderly, infants, and those with impaired immune systems are more likely to become severely ill from salmonellosis (CDC, 2001 f). What the Data Show Every year, approximately 40,000 cases of salmonellosis are reported in the U.S. Because many milder cases are not diagnosed or reported, CDC estimates the actual number of infections to be 1.4 million. Salmonellosis is more commori in the summer than winter. It is estimated that somewhat more than SOO persons die each year with acute salmonellosis (CDC,'2001 f). Data Source National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-29, for more informaition.) Infectious disease prevalence - jnigellosis - Category 2 - Shigellosis is a bacterial disease affecting the intestinal tract. Anyone can get shigellosis, though it is most common in children between the ages of 1 and 14. Most who are infected with Shigella develop diarrhea, fever, and stomach cramps starting a day or two after they are exposed to the bacterium. The diarrhea is often bloody. Shigellosis usually resolves in S to 7 days. In some per- sons, especially young children and the elderly, the diarrhea can be so severe that hospitalization is necessary. Some persons who are infected may have no symptoms at all, but may pass the Shigella bacteria to others (CDC, 2001 g). What the Data Show I Every year, about 14,000 cases of shigellosis are reported in the U.S. Because many milder cases are not diagnosed or reported, the CDC estimates the actual number of infections to be 448,000. Shigellosis is particularly common and causes recurrent problems in settings where hygiene is poo]r (CDC, 2001 g). ! Data Source National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See App'endix B, page B-29, for more information.) 4-30 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- The data source for these seven indicators is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. This system provides weekly provisional information from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) on the occurrence of diseases defined as notifiable. A notifiable dfsease is one that, when diagnosed, health providers report to state or local public health officials. Notifiable diseases are of public interest because of their contagiousness, severity, or frequency (Pastor, et al., 2002). State epidemiologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabulates and publishes these data in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or report- ing jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recommend additions or deletions to the list of nationally notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging priorities. Reporting nationally notifiable 'diseases to CDC, however, is voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative disease burdens. These data, however, must be interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting is influenced by many factors such as the diagnostic facilities available; the control measures in effect; public awareness of a specific disease; and the interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials responsible for disease control and public health surveillance. Finally, factors such as changes in case definitions for public health surveillance, introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent of the true incidence of disease. txniuit 4-22: Trevalence or reported gastrointestinal diseases, United jtates, I997-20O1 1997 • 1998 B 1999 2000 H 2001 Cryptosporidiosis E. co/iO157H7 Disease &' «- -: - w ,*">• ' gpurces CDCJVofice to Readers, Final 2001 Reports of Notifiable Diseases 2002, CDC Notice to Readers Fmaf2000 Reports of Notifiable Diseases 2001; CDC Notice to Readers. fjjjtJ999 Reports of Notifiable Diseases. 2000: CDC. Notice to Readers final 1998 Reports of Notifiable Diseases 1999, CDC. Notice to Readers' Final 1997 Reports of Notifiable jjseases 1998 Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-27 ------- UT/AS Draft "Report on the "Environment 2003 • lechnical Docum^t nfectious disease prevalence - CJnolera - Category 2 1 Cholera is a diarrhea illness caused by infection of the intestine with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae. Infections can often be mild or without symptoms, but can sometimes be severe, and even fatal. Approximately 1 in 20 infected persons has severe disease characterized by severe, watery diarrhea that can lead to dehydra- tion and shock. Without treatment, death can occur within hours (ICTDRN, 2002). What the Data Show Very few caseis of cholera are reported on Jan annual basis in the U.S. It is believed most cases are associ^t^d with consumption of contaminated seafood or with international travel to areas where cholera is endemic (e.g., South America) (CDC, 2001 a). Data Source i National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance ^ystem, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page E>-27, for more information.) ' Infectious disease prevalence - Cryptosporidiosis - Category 2 Cryptosporidiosis is an illness resulting from infection of the gastrointestinal tract with Cryptosporidium panum and other species of Cryptosporidium. This pathogen is excreted by humans, as well as wild and domestic animals, including farm animals; it contaminates water sources via animal feces or domestic sewage. Runoff from agricultural operations into drinking water sources has been one cause of Cryptosporidiosis outbreaks (Franzen and Muller, 1999). Severe diarrhea is the most common symptom. Additional symptoms include gastric pain, fever, nausea, and fatigue (Guerrant, 1997). There is no antibiotic that is effective for treatment of Cryptosporidiosis. As a result, a healthy immune system is important in limiting an individual's response to Cryptosporidium parvum infection. Cryptosporidiosis can be deadly when contracted by immunocompromised individuals. In extreme cases of Cryptosporidiosis, infection can spread beyond the gastrointestinal tract to the gall bladder and biliary tract. What the Data Show ; The occurrence of symptoms or conditions associated with Cryptosporidiosis are likely underreported, "We do not know exactly how many cases of Cryptosporidiosis actually occur. Many people do not seek medical attention op ate not tested for this parasite and so Cryptosporidium often gbe\|s undetected as; the cause of intestinal illness" (CDC, 1998b).; ; Data Source National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance £ystem, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-28, for more information.) 4-28 " 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human rlealtn ------- nfectious disease prevalence - £ coll Ol57:j i7 - Category 2 E. coll O157:H7 is one of over 170 strains and many hundred sub-strains of the bacterium Escherichla coli. Most strains are harmless and live in the intestines of healthy humans and animals; this strain can cause severe illness. E. coli O157:H7 is not a disease itself, but rather a cause of illness. The identifier in the name of the bacterium refers to the specific antigenic markers found on its cell wall and distinguishes it from other types of £. co/i. Infection often leads to bloody diarrhea and occasionally to kidney failure, particularly in young children (CDC, 2001 b). A 1982 outbreak of severe bloody diarrhea was traced to contaminated hamburgers. What the Data Show CDC estimates that 73,000 cases of £. coli O157:H7 occur annually in the U.S., and that 61 fatal cases occur annually. The illness is often misdiagnosed; therefore, expensive and invasive diagnostic procedures may be performed. Patients who develop severe disease may require prolonged hospitalization, dialysis, and long-term follow-up (CDC, 2001 b). Data Source National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-28, for more information.) nfectious disease prevalence - Hepatitis /\ - Category 2 Hepatitis A virus (HAV) is one of five viruses in the hepatitis group of viruses (A to E) that cause liver disease. Symptoms include jaundice, fatigue, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and fever. Adults tend to be more symptomatic than children. HAV is found in the feces of infected people and is usually spread through contaminated food, water, or intimate contact (CDC, 2002d). What the Data Show The annual number of reported cases for HAV in the U.S. exceeds 10,000. The estimated number of new infections approaches 100,000 per year. It continues to occur in epidemics both nationwide and in communities. The number of cases is now reaching historic lows and continues to slowly decline, though about one-third of Americans show evidence of past infection (CDC, 2002e). Data Source National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-28, for more information.) Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-29 ------- EPAs Draft "Report on the Environment 2003 ecnnica Document Infectious disease prevalence - Salmonellosis - Category Salmonellosis is a disease caused by one of the more than 2,000 strains of the bacterial genus Salmonella. Most persons infected with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days, and most persons recover without treatment, though antibiotics can be used. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. In these patients, the Salmonella infection may spread from the intestines to the bloodstream and then to other body sites. It can cause death unless the person is treated promptly with antibiotics. The elderly, infants, and those with impaired immune systems are more likely to become severely ill from salmonellosis (CDC, 2001 f). What the Data Show Every year, approximately 40,000 cases of salmonellosis are reported in the U.S. Because many milder; cases are not diaghosed or reported, CDC estimates the actual nujnber of infections to be 1.4 million. Salmonellosis is more common in the summer than winter. It is estimated that somewhat mpr^ than 500 persons die each year with acute salmonellosis (CDC, !2001 f). I i I ! Data Source National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-29, for more information.) j lie nrectious disease prevalence - Jnigellosis - Category 2 I , , ^ p.™™™™™^™™™™^,.^™.^™^^!!!!* Shigellosis is a bacterial disease affecting the intestinal tract. Anyone can get shigellosis, though it is most common in children between the ages of 1 and 14. Most who are infected with Shigella develop diarrhea, fever, and stomach cramps starting a day or two after they are exposed to the bacterium. The diarrhea is often bloody. Shigellosis usually resolves in 5 to 7 days. In some per- sons, especially young children and the elderly, the diarrhea can be so severe that hospitalization is necessary. Some persons who are infected may have no symptoms at all, but may pass the Shigella bacteria to others (CDC, 2001 g). What the Data Show i Every year, about 14,000 cases of shigellosis are reported in the U.S. Because many milder cases are not diagnosed or reported, the CDC estimates the actual number of infections to be 448,000. Shigellosis is particularly common and causes recurrent problems in settings where hygiene is poof (CDC, 2001 g). Data Source National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-29, for more information.) \| 4-30 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 14 - Human Health j ------- Infectious disease prevalence - Typhoid fever - Category 2 Typhoid fever is a life-threatening illness caused by the bacterium Salmonella typhi. Typhoid fever is characterized by fever, headache, nausea, and loss of appetite. Salmonella typhi lives only in humans. Persons with typhoid fever carry the bacteria in their bloodstream and intestinal tract. In addition, a small number of persons (2 to 5 percent), called carriers, recover from typhoid fever but continue to carry and shed the bacteria. Both ill persons and carriers shed S. typhi in their feces and urine (WHO, 1997). What the Data Show In the U.S., about 400 S. typhi cases occur each year, many of which are acquired while traveling internationally. Typhoid fever is transmitted by eating food or drinking beverages that have been handled by a person who is shedding S. typhi, or by consuming water contaminated with S. typhi bacteria (CDC, 2001 h). Data Source National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-30, for more information.) 4.3.4 What are the trends for children's environmental health issues? Special consideration must be given to children's health issues ' because children may be more susceptible to disease and generally may be more vulnerable to their surroundings for many physiological reasons. This section discusses five indicators for children's environmental health issues: infant mortality, low birthweight, childhood cancer, childhood asthma, and birth defects. Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-31 ------- EPAs Draft "Report on the Environment 2003 ecnca Document Infant mortality - Category Infant mortality in the U.S. is defined as the death of a child before age 1 . What the Data Show In 1999, a total of 27,937 deaths occurred in infants under 1 year of age (Hoyert, et al., 2001). The infant mortality rate was 7.1 per 1 ,000 live births, the lowest ever recorded in the U.S. The infant mortality rate for African American infants was 14.6 per 1 ,000 live births, more than twice the rate for White infants (5.8 per 1 ,000 live births). The infant mortality rate for Hispanic infants was 5.8 per 1 ,000 live births. The 10 leading causes of infant deaths account for 67.6 percent of all infant deaths in the U.S. (Exhibit 4-2:5). Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, and Utah have the lowest infant mortality rates. Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana have the highest (Hoyert, et al., 2001 ). Data Source National Vitiil Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-30, for more information.) 1 ; , \|" ' •""• WWRff&S$''~1SBf '' ~r 7TITii£T~4:^'"7P' if lf '" MI Exhibit U-23: Number of infant deatns, percent of fptai deaths, and infant It! ~™ " " <^S~ "i IT mil n Ita ft in into Mi 1 ^fc^y,..^ ^ j, kite (»* T M, 4, 4 Newborn affected by maternal complications of i pregnancy J 5 Respiratory distress of newborn "I ii 6 Newborn affected by complications of placenta, cord, 1 and membranes i i 7 Accidents 1 8 Bacterial sepsis of newborn \|; 9 Diseases of the circulatory system \|;:! 10 Atelectasis in All other causes 1' — " ' U R»t« a pel 100,000 ir« births in 1999 E, ^ tou«;..% : _ : ^' •£,/-% J,. ^. vl • -"i -^* ^ili'irri^i - ! ' 1 4-32 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- ;..-.'-;...•:.:•---- .--•--.-•-..-.. • ; •; . .- - _ .. ; ;-...--_.. I \| -•-.-'.'- : . . - -' I .•-•.-.-'.••!'.(;.'.,'>.--' __ •• .' . . ,.."_.....'.. ,••".. ';',%l -..•' -f. „.....',.....'. - Low Dirtnweignt - Category I An infant with low birthweight is defined as a full-term infant, born between week 37 and 44 of pregnancy, and weighing 2,500 grams or less at birth. Weight is a critical health measure because low birthweight children are more prone to death and disability than their counterparts. What the Data Show The percentage of infants who were born with a low birthweight (weighing less than 2,500 grams) was 7.6 percent in 2000 (Martin, et al., 2002). In 2000, the low birthweight rate for non- Hispanic African Americans (13.1 percent) was twice the rate of that for non-Hispanic Whites (6.6 percent), a relationship that existed for at least the 9 prior years as well (Exhibit 4-24). In 2000, the low birthweight rate for Hispanics was similar to that of non-Hispanic Whites (6.4 and 6.6, respectively). Also shown in Exhibit 4-24 is that non-Hispanic African Americans had the highest proportion of very low birthweight infants (weighing less than 1 ,500 grams) in 2000, compared with Hispanic and non-Hispanic White populations in the U.S. Data Source National Vital Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-30, for more information.) KS ' ' > * ? t * & tf J 3 4 * ' \| ^ Exhibit 4-24; Tercent of live birtns of very low birthweight and" low birthweight, \|$ri_ '<• ty race and Hispanic origin of mother, United States, 1991-2000 5S~~ w ., ^ ^ ^^un-tsw^,^^ ^^ ^^ ~- * * S 1 ! Very Low Birthweight1 1 White Black Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Hispanic3 " 2000 1.14 3.10 1.14 i 1999 • ' 1.15 . 3.18 1.14 1998 1.15 3.11 1.15 1 1997 1.12 3.05 1.13 \| 1996 1.08 3.02 1.12 1 1995 . 1.04 2.98 1.11 ; 1994 1.01 2.99 1.08 I 1993 1.00 2.99 1.06 ! 1992 0.94 2.97 1.04 i 1991 0.94 2.97 1.02 Jless than 1 ,500 grams (3 Ib 4 02 ) EUss than_2,JOO grams (5 Ib 8 oz ) jpStr - ^Includes all persons of Hispanic origin of any race pboxe Martin, I A , et al Births Final Data for 2000 2002 l^~"^ Low Birthweight2 B^l White Black ^ Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Hispanic3 : 6.6 13.1 6.4 1 6.6 13.2 • 6.4 ? 6.6 13.2 6.4 . .1 i 6.5 13.1 6.4 '.'4 i 6.4 13.1 6.3 "3 ] 6.2 ' 13.2 6.3 , '_'_i j 6.1 13.3 6.2 :~f ; 5.9 13.4 6.2 , 1 ! 5.7 13.4 6.1 1 5.7 13.6 6.1 1 1 \ " » / •> , H v> , , JM 4^ ( "1^^ ^ t T & ^A(t^^ \!w S * AJ Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-33 ------- E"RAs Draft foport on the Environment 2003 ecnnica Documdrit Childhood cancer mortality - Category Childhood cancer incidence - Category 2 — " •"••' -•-•••— "-"\|f il . . 1 ^ y2 i qP_^_~__lw^v_rw____r_ 8 1 ' -mfKpm—^-nTvv*-^ I ,> , i tnw% 1 Cancer is a disease characterized by uncontrolled growth of cells. A cancerous cell loses its ability to regulate its own growth, con- trol cell division, and communicate with other cells. These cellular changes are complex and occur over a period of time. They may be accelerated in children. Cancer cells can invade nearby tissues and can spread through the bloodstream and lymphatic system to other parts of the body (NCI, 2003). The classification of cancers in children differs from the classification used for adult cancers. What the Data Show In 1999, there were nearly 2,200 deaths due to cancer in children and adolescents under 20 years of age (Anderson, 2001). The age-adjusted cancer mortality rates by race and age group are presented in Exhibit 4-25. In 1999, cancer was the third leading cause of death in children 1 to 4 years of age, accounting for 8 percent of the total deaths in this age group (Anderson, 2001). The death rate for cancer in this age group was 2.8 per 100,000 population. For children 5 to 9 years of age, cancer was the sec- ond leading cause of death accounting for 14.7 percent of total deaths. The death rate was 2.6 per 100,000 for children 5 to 9 years of age. In older children (15 to 19 years of age), 5.4 percent of total deaths in this age group were due to cancer, Cancer ranked fourth among leading causes of death, with a mortality rate of 3.8 per 100,000 population. Exhibit 4-26 presents the age-adjusted iricidence rates for cancers in children of all races between the ages of 0 and 19 years, 1975 to 1998. There has been an increase in the incidence for all types of childhood cancer since 1975. There als,o has been a substantial decline in the cancer death rate for children, largely due to improved treatment (EPA, December 200\|0). Data Sources Mortality: National Vital Statistics System, National Center' for Health Statistics. (See Appendix B, page B-31, for more information.) \| Incidence: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, National Cancer Institute. (See Appendix^, page B-31, for more information.) ! i, ; „ ..-..; ... , :.. :; i .;,V,.,.;;,..: Exhibit H-25: Age-adjusted1 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results ISEER) childhood cancer (all sites) incidence J ' t 3 ' ir i " i i •Ip^'''^^ ... - ,„, and United Jtates mortality rates by race and ag!rarpi)\|, 1994-1998 ••-.., Bi • - i : ' -. M : Ages 0-14 , !; . , ; . .; : Ages 0-19 jj •. j a I \| i- M sin 3 •« L §N 1 p Race All Races White Black ill** Rates Jcc dci nit nil Source: R:ei Incidence Total Male Female 14.4 15.4 13.4 14.8 15.6 13.9 12.0 13.0 10.9 Mortality Total Male Female 2.7 3.0 2.4 2.7 3.0 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.6 Incidence Total Male Female 15.9 16.7 15.0 16.4 17.2 15.6 12.5 13.3 11.7 ' Mortality Total Male Female 3.0 3.3 2.6 3.6 3.4 2.6 :3.1 3.2 2.9 , ,, „, , i,,,, , „ , ; ;, „„„ tlis per 100,000 per year and are age adjusted to the 1970' US. standard populat LA.G, irt al. SffR Cancer Statistics Review, !973- 1988. 2001 . '. '[ ". . ,:3l^l4J4i3IISi3£SsEs5a35Siil;& 4-34 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter U - Human Health ------- Cnildnood cancer mortality - Category 1 (continued) Cnildnood cancer incidence - Category 2 (continued) P-«- Exhibit U-26: Age-adjusted Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer incidence rates by f-'~ international c assification of childhood cancer (1CCC) selected group and subgroup and year of diagnosis, \|£" . ' childrenO to 19 years, 1975-98 a— , ,_ -f1 ,» ,<< i t , J \|iH': \ 1975-1980 i 1981-1986 1987-1992 1993-1998 ^Hj^^HI F ' £ £"-" IP^ £ %£• fti E E1 tw : ^£5 g^L ^ BN^_ ^ -• " ^ ! E- ITT iS-E^ cw p- All groups combined 140.0 149.0 157.5 159.1 Leukemia 33.2 36.3 37.6 . 37.4 Lymphomas and reticuloendothelial neoplasms 24.1 , 24.9 24.8 23.9 Central nervous system 23.4 24.3 29.6 27.8 Sympathetic nervous system tumors 7.7 8.1 ^ 7.6 8.5 Retinoblastoma 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 Renal tumors 6.0 6.6 6.3 7.1 Hepatic tumors 1-2 1.5 1.7 1.8 Malignant bone tumors 7.8 9.2' 8.9 9.4 Soft tissue sarcomas 10.4 10.9 11.2 11.4 Germ cell, trophoblastic and other gonadal . neoplasms 8.6 9.8 11 .3 11 .7 Carcinomas and other ' , malignant epithelial neoplasms 13.9 13.5 14.6. 15.0 Notes Rates are cases per 1 ,000,000 per year and are age adjusted to the 1970 U S standard population Source Ries, L A G , et al SEER Cancert Statistics Review, 1973 7998 2001 • . 1 - ' - 1 '-• •• 1 I \ Chapter 4 - Human Healtn 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-35 ------- EFAs Draft pport Ml the Environment 2^63 • I ethnical Upcum^Hi\|: Childhood asthma mortality - Category 1 Childhood astnma prevalence - Category 1 ir Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by inflam- mation of the airways and lungs. During an asthma attack, the airways that carry air to the lungs are constricted. As a result, less air is able to flow in and out of the lungs (NCHS, 2001). Currently, there are no preventive measures or cure for asthma; however, children and adolescents who have asthma can still lead quality, productive lives if they control their asthma. Asthma can be controlled by taking medication and by avoiding contact with environmental "triggers" for asthma. Environmental triggers include cockroaches, dust mites, furry pets, mold, tobacco smoke, and certain chemicals (CDC, 2002g; CDC, 2003b). What the Data Show In 2001, approximately 6 million (9 percent) of U.S. children had asthma, compared to approximately 3.6 percent of children in 1980 (EPA, 2003a). In 1999, there were 32 deaths due to asthma for children under 5 years of age and 144 deaths for children 5 to 14 years of age (Mannino, et al., 2002). This number is slightly lower than the 189 asthma deaths among children under IS years of age in 1998. Boys were more likely to have been diagnosed with asthma than girls; the condition was diagnosed in 13 percent of boys compared with 10 percent for girls. Of the 4 million children who reported that they had an asthma attack in the last 12 months, boys were most likely to have had an attack when they were 5 to 11 years of age. Girls were most likely to nave had an attack in the previous year at 12 to 17 years of age. Fourteen percent of non- Hispariic African American children had been diagnosed with asthma. The proportion of non-Hispanic White and Hispanic children who had ever been diagnosed with asthma was nearly the same, 11 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Asthma rates in children have increased since 1980, especially for children age 4 and younger and for African-American children (Exhibit 4-27). Data Sources Mortality: National Vital Statistics System, National Center for Health Statistics. (See Appendix B, page B-31, for more information.) Prevalence: National Health Interview Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (See Appendix B, page B-32, for more information.) . ! t. MO 120 !>100 astnma attack prevalence, 1997-2001, i 40 20 diagnosis, current asthma, ana OWvSr ***** »** ^ P* ^ * - M children Asthma prevalence Asthma lifetime diagnosis Current asthma prevalence Asthma attack prevalence J_ J_ Nate: T980 198? 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 The survey question! for asthma changed in 1997; data before 1 997 cannot be directly compai i! Based 0" and updated (jpoi Akinfaami, LJ. and K,C. Schoendorf. Trends in C/iiUfipoi 4-36 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- ^b^^A^^lSi^y-'^lk^j^'^^-^^'^-'ig- Deaths due to birth defects - Category 1 Birth defect incidence - C-ategpry I Congenital anomalies, or birth defects, are structural defects that are present in the fetus at birth. Because the causes of about 70 percent of all birth defects are unknown, the public continues to be anxious about whether environmental pollu- tants cause birth defects, developmental disabilities, or other adverse reproductive outcomes. The public also has many questions about whether various occupational hazards, dietary factors, medications, and personal behaviors cause or contribute to birth defects (CDC, 2002c). txnioit U-28: Number and rate of live births witn : ^p1" I_AIHUIU M--Z.U. i >uinut;i CLIIU iau3 uj uvti uuuii wiui M; fc:(-Leq cviiyeiHLcll Hi anomalies, United States, 2000 aa. • I I I5 i i 1 r J I i E P i" P S K £ i i ;i i f K- h i Congenital Anomaly ; (All races) \| . j Anencephalus Spina bifida/Meningocele Hydrocephalus v Microcephalus Other central nervous system anomalies Heart malformations Other circulatory/respiratory anomalies Rectal atresia/stenosis Tracheo-esophageal fistula/Esophageal atresia Omphalocele/Gastroschisis Other gastrointestinal anomalies Malformed genitalia . Renal agenesis Other urogenital anomalies Cleft lip/palate Po lydacty ly/Sy ndactyly/Adacty ly Clubfoot Diaphragmatic hernia Other musculoskeletal/integumenta! anomalies Down's syndrome Other chromosomal anomalies A ^ Number of Congenital Anomalies Reported 425 822 940 . 284 822 4,958 5,484 333 • 481 1,180 1,185 3,344 547 3,943 3,259 3,460 2,271 427 8,614 1,863 1,575 4 j -; ! Rate ! 10.7 20.7 23.7 7.2 20.7 124.9 138.1 8.4 12.1 29.7 29.9 84.2 13.8 99.3 . 82.1 87.2 57.2 10.8 217.0 46.9 39.7 What the Data Show Birth defects (congenital anomalies) are a leading cause of infant deaths, accounting for 5,473 (19.6 percent) of the 27,937 infant deaths in 1999 (Hoyert, et al., 2001). The most frequently occurring types of birth defects were those affecting the heart and the lungs. Because some birth defects are not recognized immediately, they are und.erreported on the death certificate, so the numbers underestimate the problem (Friis, et al., 1999). Exhibit 4-28 presents the number and rate of live births with congenital anomalies. Data Source National Vital Statistics System, National Center for Health Statistics. (See Appendix B, page B-32, for more information.) __ Stes^aca nuniber of live births with specified congenital anomaly per 100,000 IIVP births in [specified group I jj-, I y3ote- Of the 4,031,591 live births, there was no response recorded for the congenital anomaly item t %r 61,744 births , r , s i ource- Martin, J.A, et al. Birihs: final Data for 2000. 2002. Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-37 ------- £"PAs Draft import !on the Environment 2dOS • 1e{:hnical Dqc^m\|\|\|j: 4.3.5 What are the trends for emerging health effects? In addition to the diseases reported in the preceding pages, several other diseases are the cause of emerging concern because of their potential impacts on the health of the .U.S. population. Information for eight such diseases—diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, renal disease, autism, and three arthropod-borne diseases (lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and West Nile virus)— is presented in this section. The increasing prevalence of these "emerging" illnesses positions them as potential future candi- dates for consideration as EPHIs. This will be dependent on their , increasing prevalence in the population or a better determination of the role of exposure to environmental pollutants in the onset or exacerbation of these diseases. No specific indicators have been presented for these diseases at this time, but data collected by the CDC, individual states, and other sources illustrate the recent trends in these diseases. Diabetes Diabetes is a set of metabolic disorders. Diabetes mellitus (type 2) is the most common form of diabetes and is a disease whereby the body's insulin activity is altered. Insulin is a hormone that signals many biological processes such as the conversion of glucose to glycogen. Glycogen is the form in which food energy is stored in the body. The general symptoms of diabetes are elevated blood glucose levels, excessive thirst, frequent urination, and unexplained weight loss. Heredity, obesity, and age are factors that also contribute to diabetes. Estimates of the prevalence of diabetes vary widely. However, CDC estimates that there are about 11.1 million diagnosed cases of diabetes (CDC, 2002b). In addition to these cases, CDC estimates that there may be about 5.9 million more cases that are undiagnosed (CDC, 2002b). The total of 17 million diagnosed and undiagnosed cases combined amounts to a prevalence of 6.2 percent of the U.S. population. CDC estimates that 1 million new cases of diabetes are diagnosed per year among people aged 20 years and older (CDC, 2002b). In 1999, diabetes ranked as the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S. There were 68,399 deaths due to diabetes (Hoyert, et al., 2001). The age-adjusted death rates for diabetes increased between 1980 and 1996 from 15.3 to 20.6 per 100,000 people. By 1999, the rate had risen to 25.2 per 100,000 people. On average, Hispanic Americans are 1.9 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic Whites of similar age. The risk of diabetes for Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic Blacks is almost twice that for non-Hispanic Whites. Similarly, residents of Puerto Rico are 2.0 times more likely to have diagnosed diabetes than U.S. non-Hispanic Whites. On average, American Indians and Alaska Natives are 2.6 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic Whites of similar age. Approximately 15 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives receiving care from the Indian Health Service have diabetes. At the regional level, diabetes is' least common among Alaska Natives (5.3 percent) and most cpmrnon among American Indians in the southeastern U.S. (25.7 percent) and in certain tribes from the Southwest (CDC, 2002b). Exhibit 4-29 shows age-adjust- ed prevalence data for diabetes in the U.S. by race/ethnicity. Alzk Dis leimers Uisease ; -1 I r j Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder. The symptoms of Alzheimer's disease may include demerytia, loss of memory, and decreasing physical abilities such as dressing or eating. In the U.S., an estimated 4 million people, mostly elderly, have Alzheimer's dis- ease (Hoyeit and Rosenberg, 1999). In 1999, an estimated , 354,000 non-institutionalized adults 18 \|to 64 years of age!reported Alzheimer's disease as their main disability (CDC, 2001 e). The death rate due to Alzheimer's disease rose steadily from 1979 to 1996. In 1999, Alzheimer's disease was the eighth leading cause of 4-38 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health arid Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- death in the U.S. (Hoyert, et al., 2001). There were 44,536 deaths attributed to Alzheimer's disease (16.3 deaths per 100,000 population). The death rate for Alzheimer's disease rises sharply with age. In 1999, among people 75 to 84 years of age, there were 15,836 deaths and in this age group Alzheimer's disease ranked as the seventh leading cause of death (Anderson, 2001). The death rate for Alzheimer's disease for this age group was 130.4 per 100,000 population. Among persons 85 years of age and older, there were 24,980 deaths due to Alzheimer's disease for a death rate of 598.3 per 100,000 population. Death rates for Alzheimer's disease are higher for women than for men and higher for Whites than African Americans (Hoyert, et al., 2001). The 1999 death rates for Alzheimer's disease are highest for White females (25.6 per 100,000), followed by White males (11.4), African American females (9.0), and African American males (4.2). The Alzheimer's disease death rate for Hispanics is 3.1 per 100,000. Hispanic females have a higher death rate (4.3 per 100,000 popula- tion) than Hispanic males (2.0 per 100,000). The death rates from Alzheimer's disease are higher in the Northeast and in the Northwest regions of the U.S. (Hoyert and Rosenberg, 1999). Tarki Dis insons L/isease Parkinson's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by symptoms such as tremors, muscle rigidity, and changes in walking patterns. The National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke (NINDS) estimates that there are about 500,000 people in the U.S. with Parkinson's disease (NINDS, 2002). The disease mostly affects elderly people and is second only to Alzheimer's disease in the num- ber of older people that are affected (Checkoway and Nelson, 1999). It affects about 0.4 percent of those 40 years of age and older, 1 percent of those older than 65 years, and about 3 percent of those 80 years of age and older. Males are 1.3 times more likely than females to have Parkinson's disease. A steady increase in the death,rate due to Parkinson's disease among people 75 years of age and older has been observed in the U.S. In 1999, there were 14,593 deaths due to Parkinson's disease (Hoyert, et al., 2001). Virtually all of the deaths (14,298) occurred in people 65 years of age and older. The death rate was 5.4 per 100,000 population, with males having a higher death rate than females (6.2 versus 4.5 per 100,000). The 1999 death rate due to Parkinson's disease was higher for Whites (6.2 per 100,000 people ) than for African Americans (1.5 per 100,000) (Hoyert, et al., 2001). The death rate for White males was 7.1 per 100,000 and for White females 5.3 per 100,000. The death rate for African American males was 1.6 and for African American females 1.3 per 100,000. The death rate for Hispanics was 1.2 per 100,000, with Hispanic males having a slightly higher death rate (1.4 per 100,000) than Hispanic females (1.1 per 100,000). "Renal Disease The kidneys are vital organs and can be seriously affected by a number of primary diseases such as diabetes or hypertension. As these diseases progress, the kidneys may fail to function. Total and permanent kidney failure is called end stage renal (kidney) disease (ESRD). It is estimated that about 424,179 people in the U.S. have ESRD (NIDDK, 2001). Most ESRD occurred in people who have diabetes (150,404 people), hypertension (100,169 people), or glomerulonephritis, a kidney disease (62,119 people). The U.S. government maintains the U.S. Renal Data System, which provides information on the incidence, prevalence, and mortality for ESRD (CDC,-2000a). Data from this system indicate that there were 89,252 people with ESRD who began treatment in 1999. These cases of ESRD resulted from diabetes for 38,160 people and from hypertension for 23,133 people. Kidney diseases and other primary diseases were responsible for the remainder. Between 1979 and 1998, the age-adjusted death rates for all types of kidney disease increased, peaking between 1984 and 1988. The age-adjusted death rates for all types of kidney disease are higher among African Americans than among Whites, with African American males having the highest rates during the 1979 to 1998 period. In 1979, the death rate for total kidney disease was 8.6 per 100,000 people. By 1999, kidney disease had risen to rank as the ninth leading cause of death in the U.S. (Hoyert, et al., 2001). That year there were 35,525 deaths due to all types of kidney disease; 34,719 of them were due to kidney failure. The death rate for kidney disease was 13.0 per 100,000 people; the death rate for kidney failure was 12.7 per 100,000 people (Exhibit 4-30). Death rates for kidney failure were highest for African American females at 19.0 per 100,000, followed by African American males at 17.8 per 100,000. African Americans and American Indians have higher rates of ESRD than Whites or Asians (AHA, 2001). African Americans represent 32 percent of the patients receiving treatment for ESRD. Recently there has been an increase in ESRD due to diabetes among American Indians and Alaskan Natives (CDC, 2000c). Between 1990 and 1996, the age-adjusted rate of new ESRD treatment among American Indians with diabetes increased 24 percent, from 472 to 584 per 100,000 persons with diabetes. Autism Autism is one of several related severe cognitive and neurobehavioral disorders that are classified under the term autistic spectrum disorders. Information about the prevalence of autism in the U.S. is limited, reflecting the use of different diagnostic criteria and a lack of research. First described in the 1940s, autism was thought to affect 2 to 4 children per 10,000 population^ Today the prevalence is currently believed to be as high as 1 in 500 children* for all autistic Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-39 ------- EPAs Draft feport on the Environment JJ30$ Exhibit 4-30: Death rates for kidney disease United States, 1999 i I _ks , rii;:.'S«.:»: v. '„ IB!::.:;/,,: n pmHiHi Cause of Death Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, nephrosis Kidney failure Other All Races Both Male Female Sexes 13.0 12.8 13.3 12.7 12.5 13.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 e White 1 ,:i ' , i Both Male Female Sexes 12.5 12.4 12.6 12.2 12.1 12.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 « A! Other : i Both Male Female Sexes 1S.6 14.8 16.3 15.2 14.4 16.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 HEDi@39MHMHHniI : Both Male Female ' Sexes ! . ,19.3 18.2 20.2 i 1 18.9 17.8 19,0 \| 0.4 0.4* 0.4* •-i -« !'i ,;:\| >r,.f . ;f; S- y -.'« J (Utfts are per 100,000 population. I: '%i(e does not meet the standards of reliability or precision. ! Source; Hoyert, et it. Deaths: flnol Data for 1999. 2001. spectrum disorders (Iversen, 2000). Currently, autism affects about , 400,000 people in the U.S., and occurs about four times more often in boys than in girls. Researchers have reported that the number of persons with autism is increasing. For example, a recent California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) report showed an over 200 percent increase in the number of persons entering the regional center service system with autism between 1987 and 1998 (CDDS, 1999). Other states have reported increasing numbers as well (Yazbak, 1999). However, these reports do not necessarily reflect a change in the rate of autism because they do not consider the increase in the total population (Fombonne, 2001). The number of cases of autism in children in the U.S. has increased over time. The number of children 0 to 21 years old with autism who are also enrolled in federally supported programs for the disabled has grown from 5,000 in 1991 to 79,000 in 2000 (NCES, 2001). This represents an increase from 0.1 to 1.1 percent of all children with disabilities served, or an increase from 0.01 to 0.14 percent of all children in public schools. Artnropoa-fiome Diseases Certain ticks and mosquitoes (arthropods) can carry bacteria and , viruses that cause disease in humans. They acquire the bacteria and viruses when they bite an infected mammal or bird. Arthropod-borne diseases include Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF), and West Nile virus (WNV). Lyme Disease Lyme disease is the most commonly reported arthropod-borne disease in the U.S. (Orloski, et al., 2002). The illness was first ; described in Europe during the 1800s; however, it was not identified in the U.S. until the early 1970s when a cluster of children with ??SS5S;JS^^ !!>iiJ:i^!iifii "juvenile rheumatoid arthritis" in Lyme, Connecticut, was reported by their parents (Shapiro and Gerber, 20:00). Investigation of the cluster led to the description of Lyme arthritis in 1976 and then to . the identification of the causal pathogen) Between 1992 and 1998, there were 88,967 cases of Lyme diseasej reported to the CDC.. The number of cases increased from 9,8$6 in 1992 to 16,802 in 1998 (Exhibit 4-31). , j The incidence of Lyme disease was highejst in eight northeastern and mid-Atlantic states and two north centraj states. These states accounted for 92 percent of the total ca£es. : i Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever . ; it , Although Lyme disease is the most commonly reported tick-borne disease in the U.S., RMSF is the most cojnmonly fatal tick-borne disease in the U.S. (Holman, et al., 2001^. Physicians first recognized RMSF in the; northwestern U.S. during the late 1800s; Howard Ricketts identified the causal pathogen ir) the early 1900s (Gayle and Ringdahl, 2001; Paddock, et al., 199\|9). RMSF was the first disease in the U.S. shown to be transmitted by tick bite (Walker, 1998). Although RMSF was first identified in the Rocky Mountain states, fewer than 3 percent of cases we^e reported from that area between 1993 and 1996. The highest incidence of cases in that time period was found in North Carolina and Oklahoma. These two states accounted for 35 percent of the total cases from 1993 to 1996 (CDC, 2002c). RMSF has been reported throughout the continental U.S. (excep" in Maine, New Hampshire, a\|nd Vermont). ' Between 1990 and 1998, there were approximately 4,800 cases of RMSF reported to the CDC (CDC, 2000b). The annual number of cases has varied between 250 and 1,200 cases since 1942J, with a ; peak between 1975 and 1981. ; \| 1 i • I The ratio o':the number of deaths due tb RMSF compared to the number of cases of the disease is the highest'in children under 10 4-40 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- Exhibit 4-31: Number of reported cases of Lyme disease, United States, 1982-1998 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 (1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 BCS&urce: Orloski K.A, et al Surveillance for Lyme Disease. 2002. years of age (2 to 3 percent) and those over 70 years of age (9 percent) (CDC, 2000b). West Nile Virus In 1937, WNV, a strain of encephalitis, was first identified as a human pathogen in the West Nile region of Uganda. The pathogen was found in blood taken from a woman during a yellow fever investigation (Rappole, et al., 2000). Since 1937, WNV has been determined to be widespread in many areas of the world, particularly Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Russia, India, and Indonesia (Horga and Fine, 2001). Year Cases of WNV were first documented in the U.S. in 1999 (CDC, 2000d). A total of 80 cases in humans were reported in 1999 (62 cases) and 2000 (18 cases). Because severe neurological illness (encephalitis meningitis) occurs in fewer than 1 percent of persons infected, it is thought that a greater number of cases with less severe symptoms may go unreported. Based on this assumption, it is estimated that approximately 2,000 persons may have been infected with WNV during 2000 (CDC, 2000d). The prevalence of . the disease in humans is increasing. During 2002 there were 3,989 diagnosed cases in humans (CDC, 2002f). The number of deaths caused by West Nile encephalitis has increased from 7 in 1999 to 259 in 2002 (CDC, 2002f). Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-41 ------- El As Draft "Report on the tnvironment 2dQ3 ecnnica AAeasuring txposure to tnvironmental Tollution: Indicators and Irends Historically, human exposure to pollutants has been estimated based on: • Measurements of ambient pollutant concentrations in air, water, or land, combined with: • Estimates or measurements (through personal monitoring) of the frequency and duration of human contact with the contaminated media. This approach has provided a valuable foundation for many of the regulatory and non-regulatory actions that have been taken to limit exposure to ambient pollutants. However, ambient measurements do not provide information on the degree to which ambient pollutants actually enter into the body. Another type of indicator—biomonitor- ing data—can help provide this information. Biomonitoring measures the amount of a pollutant in human tissue or fluids. It provides an important complement to more traditional exposure assessment indicators. National-scale biomonitoring data can be used to: • Measure and track average body burden resulting from exposure across the entire population to a variety of pollutants. • Enhance environmental disease prevention efforts by providing an important bridge to understanding the relationships between ambient pollutant concentrations, exposures to these poljutants, and health problems. (The lead case study, discussed earlier in Section 4.1, provides an excellent example of this application.) • Establish reference ranges to identify people with unusually high exposures or the percentage of the population with pollutant exposures above established levels of concern (CDC, 2003a). This section focuses primarily on biomonitoring indicators and is divided into ten parts: • Section 4.4.1 provides background information on biomonitoring indicators—what they are and their limitations. • Section 4.4.2 describes the major data sources for these indicators. • Sections 4.4.3 to 4.4.8 describe specific pollutants and the data available to monitor these pollutants, including heavy metals (Section 4.4.3), cotinine (Section 4.4.4), volatile organic com- pounds (Section 4.4.5), pesticides (Section 4.4.6), and persist- ent organic pollutants (Section 4.4.7): Section 4.4.8 presents indicators that are available to specifically monitor children's expo- sure to some of these pollutants. In'alj, 10 biomonitoring indica- tors are currently available for trackingjtrends in human exposure to specific environmental pollutants. Summaries of the data linking exposure to human health effects can be found in ATSDR's toxico- logical profiles and EPA's criteria documents for these chemicals. H Section 4,4.9 briefly discusses a number of pollutants—radiation, air pollutants (except for lead), biological pollutants, and disinfection by-products —for which rio biomonitoring indicators currently are available or feasible. For these pollutants, traditional exposure assessment will continue to s^rve as the method for estimating human exposure until biomonitoring indicators become available or feasible. , •I Finally, Section 4.4.10 touches on endocrine disrupters— considered an emerging issue. ' U.U.I Diomonitoring Indicators •'• •. : "Dose" (the amount of a pollutant that enters the body) is often expressed as average daily dose or total potential dose. Once a pollutant crosses the boundary into the body, biological processes : act on that contaminant to utilize, remov£, or store the contaminant and/or its metabolites. Body burden isjthe concentration of a contaminant dose that is retained in the human body Body burden can be estimated from measurements of the contaminant in the blood, urine, or adipose tissue. These 'measurements provide the basis for biomonitoring indicators. , The buildup of a contaminant in the body (i.e., the level of body burden) depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant; the efficacy of the biological removal processes; and the magnitude, timing, frequency, and duration of exposure. Some contaminants, such as lead, are not easily removed and are retained in the body for long periods of time. Other contaminants, such as many volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are rapidly eliminated in exhaled breath or other removal processes. ; The level of body burden is usually estimated from the concentration of a contaminant (or its metabolite) meaiured in the blood, urine, hair, or adipose tissue, and can be used 1:o infer that an exposure occurred. In some cases, the level of body burden associated with a particular contaminant may prove to be ajn indicator of the person's extent of exposure to that pollutant. ' ; There are a number of potential problemk, however, with using body burden as an indicator of exposure. In some cases, several different pollutants may give rise to the same biomarker. Further, most ' measures of body burden reflect only a different exposure scenarios can lead to • snapshot" in time and many :he same concentration measurement. Lastly, the measure gives no information about how the person was exposed. \ 4-42 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators Jind Trends CJiapt£r 4 - Human Health ------- Nonetheless, national scale measures of body burden are useful indicators of exposure in the population. While such measures do not necessarily provide information about the nature of the expo- sures, they do represent the average levels of exposure in the popu- lation as a whole. Such national scale measures of body burden are often more convenient to obtain than to estimate the exposures by accounting for all of the exposure concentrations and durations for the whole population. As mentioned earlier, body burden (biomoni- toring) data are not available for all pollutants of interest to EPA. In such cases, ambient data or exposure measurements and models are used to assess human exposure. 4.4.2 Data Sources for Diomonitoring Indicators Two primary sources provided data for the biomonitoring indicators presented in this section: • The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Specifically, data were used from the second, third, and fourth surveys (NHANES II; NHANES III; and NHANES IV [1999-2000]). • EPA's National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS). Specifically, data were used from surveys of three regions: Maryland, EPA Region 5, and Arizona (NHEXAS-MD; NHEXAS-Region 5; and NHEXAS-AZ). Two others sources of biomonitoring data—autopsy data and tissue registry data—were considered but not used for these indicators. As described below, neither of these sources contains rich biomonitor- ing data, which significantly limits their usefulness as data sources for human contaminant levels. National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) NHANES consists of a series of surveys conducted by CDCs NCHS. The survey is designed to collect data on the health of the U.S. population, including information on topics such as nutrition, cardiovascular disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001 c). The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976 through 1980; NHANES III was performed from 1988 through 1994; and the most recent NHANES for which data are available took place in 1999-2000. In this section, the year(s) in which the data were collected are identified in each citation, of NHANES. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be potentially harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with laboratory analysis, some chemicals were measured for all people in the survey, while other chemicals were only measured in representa- tive subsamples of people in an age group. The CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (often referred to as the "CDC Report Card") (CDC, 2001 c) summarizes chemical exposure data from NHANES. Information from the CDC report is presented hereafter under the heading "NHANES 1999-2000." To date, this report has been released twice. Data from the first report are updated in the larger, second report. The second report represents the U.S. population over a 2-year period, 1999-2000. Two years of data provide more stable estimates for the total population and are necessary for adequate sample sizes for some subgroup analysis. Future reports will be released every 2 years and will cover data for a 2-year period (e.g., 2001-2002, 2003-2004, 200S-2006). National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) The goal of NHEXAS was to better understand the complete picture of human exposure to toxic chemicals by looking at humans' many exposures to all types of toxic chemicals. NHEXAS was a multiday, multimedia study that examined chemical concentrations in indoor air, outdoor air, dust, soil, food, beverages, drinking water, and tap water. For some contaminants, body burden measurements were obtained from samples of blood, hair, or urine. Phase 1 of NHEXAS consisted of demonstration and scoping studies in Maryland; Phoenix, Arizona; and EPA Region 5 using probability- based sampling designs. Although the study was conducted in three different regions of the U.S., it was not designed to be nationally representative. The Region 5 study was conducted in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and measured metals and VOCs. The Arizona study measured metals, pesticides, and VOCs. The target population for the NHEXAS-MD study consisted of the non-institutionalized permanent residents of house- holds in the city of Baltimore or four counties in Maryland. Samples from select environmental and biological media, as well as question- naire data, were collected in NHEXAS-MD. The three NHEXAS studies are identified in this section as NHEXAS-AZ, NHEXAS- Region 5, or NHEXAS-MD, to indicate where they were performed. Autopsy Data Autopsies can provide important information about deaths resulting from known or suspected environmental or occupational hazards. For example, one of the earliest indications of the rise in lung cancer deaths came from reports that lung cancers were being identified with increasing frequency in autopsies (Hanzlick, 1998). The value of an autopsy database for body burden and epidemiologic studies has been recognized; however, few such studies have been conducted. This is partly because autopsies are Chapter H - tiuman Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-43 ------- ; i '.'.,,.. J_ - :.:,•' \| El/As Draft Report on the Environment 2003 \| Technical Docqnp\|\|t performed on a non-random sample of deaths and because environmental contaminant levels are typically not measured during an autopsy (Moore, etal., 1996). Also, autopsies are performed on only a small percentage of the U.S. population. In 1980, autopsies were performed in approximately 17 percent of deaths in the U.S. By 1985, the percentage had declined to 14 percent. While nearly all deaths due to homicide and other medico-legal causes were autopsied, autopsies were performed in only 12 percent of all deaths due to natural causes (CDC, 1998a). Difficulties in accessing autopsy data can limit their usefulness as well. Prior to 1995, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) collected data from death certificates indicating whether an autopsy was performed. Since that time, however, such information is no longer available from the NCHS national mortality statistics databases (Hanzlick, 1998). Tissue Registry Data Human tissues are stored for study in many forms including solid organs, organ sections, histology slides, cells, and DMA. Tissue registries are maintained for medical education and biological research, but few studies have been conducted to identify trends in environmental contaminants in tissues using tissue registries. Tissue registry samples and information are not population-based, and at present there is no central database containing information about tissue samples (Eiseman and Haga, 1999). EPA has conducted one of the most extensive tissue studies. From 1976 to 1987, the EPA conducted the National Human Adipose Tissue Survey (NHATS). NHATS was a national survey that collected adipose tissue samples to monitor exposure to toxic compounds among the general population. Pathologists and - medical examiners from 47 metropolitan areas collected samples from autopsies and elected surgeries (Crinnion, 2000; Orban, et al., 1994). Even though the study was a significant biomonitoring effort, data from NHATS are not presented in this report because nesver data sources are available. 14.4.3 What is the leVef of !expsij(re [to heavy metals? j \| j I Heavy metals; are important environmental pollutants because they are related to several adverse health effecjts when ingested or ; inhaled. Five metals have been selected fojr in-depth presentation in this section: chromium, lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium. These metals are known to be related to severe Adverse health effects and are relatively common in household, workj and school environments. Exhibit 4-32 presents EPA regulatory standards and guidelines for these five metals. Indicators are available for lead, arsenic, mercury, • and cadmium and are discussed on the following pages. At present, no indicator is available for chromium, but it is discussed bejow because human health may be adversely Affected by chromium iri the environment. (For additional information on heavy metals in the: environment, see Chapter 1, Cleaner Air.): (_nromium ' I " Chromium is a naturally occurring element found in rocks, animals, plants, soil, and in volcanic dust and gase^. Chromium is present in the environment in several different forms!, but primarily in two valence states: trivalent chromium (III) anid hexavalent chromium (VI). Chromium (111) is an essential nutrient and is much less toxic than chromium (VI), which is generally produced by industrial processes. Chromium (III) and chromium (VI) are used for chrome plating, dyes and pigments, leather tanning, and wood preserving (ATSDR, 2001). In air, chromium compounds are present rnostly as fine dust particles that eventually settle over land and water. Chromium can strongly attach to soil and only a small amount cap dissolve in water and move deeper in the soil to underground \vater. Fish do not accumu- late much chromium in their bodies from Water (ATSDR, 2001). People can be exposed to chromium by eating food containing chromium (III); breathing contaminated! workplace air or experiencing skin contact during use in the workplace; Idrinking contaminated well water; or living near uncontrolled hazardous waste sites containing ; chromium or near industries that use chromium (ATSDR, 2001). Although studies have been conducted trjat measure the amount of chromium in drinking water, ground water, soil, and air, there,are no studies that measure the body burden 'of;chromium in human tissue. I 4.44 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends LJiapt^r 4 - "Human Health ------- Chromium III is an essential nutrient that helps the body use sugar, protein, and fat. An intake of 50-200 JJg of chromium (III) per day is recommended for adults. On average, adults in the U.S. take in an estimated 60-80 (Jg of chromium per day in food. Therefore, many people's diets may not provide enough chromium (III). Without chromium III in the diet, the body loses its ability to use sugars, proteins, and fat properly, which may result in weight loss or decreased growth, improper function of the nervous system, and a diabetic-like condition. Therefore, chromium (III) compounds have been used as dietary supplements and are beneficial if taken in recommended (but not excessive) dosages (ATSDR, 2000). Chronic- high exposures to chromium (III), however, may affect the skin, liver, or kidneys (ACGIH, 1991; Rom, 1992). In general, chromium (VI) is more toxic than chromium III. Breathing in high levels (greater than 2 (Jg/m^) of chromium (VI), such as in a compound known as chromic acid or chromium (VI) trioxide, can irritate the nose, causing symptoms such as runny nose, sneezing, itching, nosebleeds, ulcers, and holes in the nasal septum. These effects have primarily occurred in factory workers who make or use chromium (VI) for several months to many years. Long-term exposure to chromium (VI) has been associated with lung cancer in workers exposed to levels in air that were 100 to 1,000 times higher than those found in the natural environment. Lung cancer may occur long after exposure to chromium VI has ended (ATSDR, 2000). No biomonitoring data are readily available for chromium. Interest is developing in examining chromium as an emerging environmental pollutant. : United States federal standards and criteria for five heavy metals "^ f o -f , * fT. MCLs are regulatory standards developed pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking ~ Water Act (SDWA). & 2r A groundwater cleanup level is most often the MCL (per the Comprehensive - Erwronmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA] [also known as Superfund] and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] guidance) for the particular contaminant Groundwater cleanup levels are established by EPA and S?D^" a"se-by-«se basis for Superfund site clean-ups and corrective actions at KCKA solid and hazardous waste management. &-Thjs Standard is a quarterly average. Lead is a criteria air pollutant (under the Clean ; Air Act) and therefore has a health-based standard _4 This heavy metal is not a criteria air pollutant and thus there is not a health-based ' -standard. Air pollution standards for this heavy metal are technology-based •-standards, not health-based standards. For example, the emission standard for _ _ arsenic is that which is achieya,ble wi,t,h the best available technology (BAT) for ± treating arsenic air emissions.Jn addition, the BAT for arsenic emissions varies \|T across industry sectors and thus emission standards for arsenic also vary across te-^ Industry sectors ,„ ,,..,._„,,. ^Source: EPA Current Drinking Water Standards. 2002; EPA EPA Handbook of groundwater Poliaesfor RCRA Corrective Action 2000; EPA. National Air Quality and jyyitssions Trends Report 1999. 2001. ^ _ w_ „ _ Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-45 ------- , — __,_.___. : • , , \| ! i I : : EfAs Draft Rlport 66 the Environment 2J3C)$ • lechnic^ ;''" I " ' ,,:•.' i • i JE, Blood lead level - Category 1 Lead is a naturally occurring metal found in small amounts in rock and soil. Lead has been used industrially in the production of gasoline, ceramic products, paints, and solder. Lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust from paint are the primary sources of lead exposure in the home. The body burden of lead can be measured as the amount of lead in blood or the amount of lead in urine. The health effects of lead are discussed in Section 4.1 of this chapter. What the Data Show NHANES 1999-2000. The mean blood lead levels for adults are illustrated in Exhibit 4-33. The mean blood lead level for all males in the survey was 2.0 micrograms per deciliter (pg/dL) and 1.4 ug/dL for all females. The mean blood lead level for non-Hispanic African Americans was 1.9 pg/dL The mean blood lead level for Mexican Americans was 1.8 ug/dL (CDC, 2001 c). NHANES Illl (1988-1994). Blood lead jevels of people were surveyed in two separate phases of NHANES 111. The data collect- ed during Phase 2 (1991 through 1994)1 indicated that the U.S. population's; exposure to lead was decreasing. NHEXAS-Region 5. Blood lead levels fqr 165 participants were obtained during NHEXAS-Region 5. Lead levels in blood were detectable for about 94 percent of the population; most of the individuals had lead levels well below lOJpg/dL. The mean blood lead level of the participants was 2.18 M&/dL (Clayton, et al., 1999). ! • ! i Data Source ; : i i NHANES 1999-2000, National Center for Health Statistics. (See Appendix B, page B-33, for more information.) pr i i Exhibit 4-33: Geometric mean and selectee] percentiles ol ! "" iorthe United States population, aged* 1 year and o lead concentrations Vm \|jg/dL) of tota :or the United States population, aged I year and older, by selected demographic groups, lixlational Health and Nutnt.on Exanunabon Survey WANES), 1999-2000 <: >aclv-""" t , ».». J rtifci»a Selected Percentiles Geometric Mean 1	------- Urine arsenic level - C-ategory 2 Arsenic occurs in rock, soil, water, air, plants, and animals. Exposure occurs when arsenic is further released into the environ- ment through erosion, volcanic action, forest fires, or human _ actions. Human activities involve its use in wood preservatives, dyes, paints, paper production, and cement manufacturing. Arsenic mining is also a source of human exposure (EPA, 2001 a). Inorganic arsenic has been recognized as a human poison since ancient times, and large oral doses (above 60,000 ppb in food or water) can produce death. Lower levels of inorganic arsenic (ranging from about 300 to 30,000 ppb in food, water, or Pharmaceuticals) may cause symptoms such as stomach ache, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Inorganic arsenic is a multi-site human carcinogen. Populations with exposures above several hundred ppb are reported to have increased risks of skin, bladder, and lung cancer. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) has determined that inorganic arsenic is a known carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (1ARC) had determined that inorganic arsenic is carcinogenic to humans. Both the EPA and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) have classified inorganic arsenic as a known human carcinogen (ATSDR, 2001). A large number of adverse noncarcinogenic effects have been reported in humans. The most prominent are changes in the skin, (e.g., hyperpigmentation and keratoses). Other effects that have been reported include alterations in gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hematological, pulmonary, neurological, immunological, and reproductive developmental function (NRC, 1999). Children who are exposed to arsenic may have many of the same effects as adults, including irritation of the stomach and intestines, blood vessel damage, skin changes, and reduced nerve function. Thus, all health effects observed in adults are of potential concern in children (ATSDR, 2001). What the Data Show NHEXAS-Region 5. Arsenic levels in urine were measured for approximately 202 participants during NHEXAS-Region 5. The mean urine arsenic level was 29.32 micrograms per liter (fJg/L), while the median urine arsenic level was 3.65 \|Jg/L. The mean level is much higher than the median level, indicating that the distribution is highly skewed to the higher values (Clayton, et al., 1999). MHANES. Future NHANES studies will include arsenic. Therefore, MHANES will serve as the biomonitoring data source for arsenic. When NHANES becomes the indicator data source for arsenic, the indicator will become a Category 1 indicator. Data Source MHEXAS, Environmental Protection Agency. (See Appendix B, page B-33, for more information.) Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-47 ------- EPAs Draft Report on trie Environrrient i(3t)^ 1 : i • • • Blood mercury level - (Category Mercury is a naturally occurring metal that is widespread and per- . sistent in the environment. It is found in elemental form and in various organic compounds and complexes. Methylmercury (one organic form of mercury) can accumulate up the food chain in aquatic systems and lead to high concentrations of methylmer- cury in predatory fish. Consumption of contaminated fish is the major source of human exposure to methylmercury in the U.S. ' (NRQ 2000). Methylmercury is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and readily enters the brain, where it accumulates and is slowly converted to inorganic mercury. A spectrum of adverse health effects has been observed following methylmercury exposure, With the severity depending largely on the magnitude of the dose. The most severe effects reported in humans were seen following high-dose poisoning episodes in Japan and Iraq. The fetus is considered much more sensitive than the adult Prenatal exposures interfere with the growth and migration of neurons and have the potential to cause irreversible damage to the developing central nervous system. Infants exposed in utero during the Japan and Iraqi episodes were born with severe disabilities, such as mental retardation, seizure disorders, cerebral palsy, blindness, and deafness. Chronic low-dose prenatal methylmercury exposure from maternal consumption offish has been associated with more subtle end points of neurotoxicity (e.g., IQ deficits, abnormal muscle tone, decrements in motor function, attention and visuospatial performance) (NRC, 2000). The human health effects of mercury are diverse and depend upon the forms of mercury encountered and the severity and length of exposure. Large acute exposures to elemental mercury vapor can result in lung damage. Lower dose or chronic inhalation may affect the nervous system, resulting in symptoms such as weakness, fatigue, weight loss, gastrointestinal prob- lems, and behavioral and personality changes. Organic mercury is more toxic than inorganic and elemental mercury (CDC, 2001 c). Health effects of organic mercury include vision changes, $ensory changes in the limbs, cognitive.disturbances, dermatitis,; and muscle deterioration.; The developing nervous system of the fetus and infants is suscep- ! tible to the effects of methylmercury (CDC, 2003). What the Data Show \ • i I : NHANES 1 999-2000. The blood mercpry level reported in '' NHANES is total blood mercury, including both organic and inorganic mercury. Mercury levels were measured in blood and urine during NHANES 1999-2000 for 70S children aged 1 -5 years, and 1,709 adult females aged 16-49. The mean blood ; mercury level for males and females aged 1 -5 years was 0.34 ! micrograms per liter (Mg/j-), and the rriea'n blood mercury level for : adult females was 1.02 [Jg/L. • ! I ; ; NHEXAS-Region 5. Mercury concentrations in human hair were measured for 182 participants during NHlEXAS-Region 5. The mean mercury level in hair, annualized fof seasonally, was 287 ppb. More people in older age categories have high levels of mercury in their hair. This increase in mefcury level was found not , to be an effect of income level (Pellizari, jst al., 1999). Data Source NHANES 1999-2000, National Center fpr Health Statistics. \ (See Appendix B, page B-33, for more information.) Selected PerceniiU Age Group and Sex Mates/Females 1-5 years Mates Females Females 16-49 years Sample Size , Geometric Mean; , 10th - W M r^y^-r otirce CDC Second National Report on Human Exposure to EnmonmentaffKelnicals 200: 4-48 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends C-napter 4 - T~]umcin Health ------- ';. ;y«:"";-'' •'•:r .. : ''' V- ''-..:• A- rV.'.". • .~\-J-'''.~' "'.'V.,:";'• '-j.--1- * ;.;..'.• =;.: '. ;;';>;,-';"* "'••'-.-"'- •-' •--' .!'(-"-';-'•-.•'"•--'"• v.:'•-/:.-""-•-= -'•-• -•»-"• 1 V-.->vV.-^/>-"-[':-'i'+S-^'.4:^'t^fI^>,.:c'V^i:t:^'-Al:.-^Ki;^i- rt.!1--^1?;^:;^';.^- -...-i"-^ -'••. • •.'••';:.-^Sf"-—. !^>#fes3^^^^ ^^s^i^«a£^te Dlooa cadmium level - Category 1 ^ Elemental cadmium .is a metal that is usually found in nature combined with other elements such as oxygen, chlorine, or sulfur. . Cadmium enters the environment from the weathering of rocks and minerals that contain cadmium. Exposure to cadmium can occur in occupations such as mining or electroplating, where cadmium is used or produced. Cadmium exposure can also occur from exposure to cigarette smoke (CDC, 2001 c). Cadmium and its compounds are toxic. Once absorbed into the human body, cadmium can remain for decades. Exposure to cadmium for many years may result in cadmium accumulation in the kidneys and serious kidney damage. Chronic ingestion of cadmium has resulted in osteomalacia, a bone disorder similar to rickets. Acute airborne exposure, as occurs from welding on cadmium-alloy metals, can result in swelling (edema) and scarring (fibrosis) of the lungs (CDC, 2003). "" ~M^^™»>«^^ What the Data Show NHANES 1 999-2000. This survey measured blood cadmium levels in people 1 year and older, and urine cadmium levels in a sample of people 6 years and older. Recent advances in analytical chemistry have made it possible to measure cadmium in very small amounts in blood and urine. Finding a measurable amount of cadmium in the blood or urine does not mean that the level of cadmium causes an adverse health effect (CDC, 2001 c). The blood cadmium biomonitoring measurements are similar among males and females as well as among the racial or ethnic groups sampled. Exhibit 4-35 shows that blood levels were higher among people 20 years of age or older than for people younger than 20 years of age (CDC, 2001 c). The mean urine cadmium level was 0.3 ug/L (CDC, 2001 c). Data Source NHANES 1999-2000, National Center for Health Statistics/ (See Appendix B, page B-34, for more information.) p1 ^ " Exhibit 4-35. Geometric mean and selected percentiles of blood cadmium concentrations (in ug/L) ] Ifr k>r ^e United States population, aged I year and older, Ly selected demographic groups, ffcrrr National HealtK and Nutrition E^minj^njuryey (NHANES), 1999-2000 1 ' ' " ' : J Selected Percentiles B^^HI ij . 1 Sample Size Geometric Meap 10th 25th 50th 75th onth H^^^^ll f. Total, Age 1 and Older 7,970 0.4 ^rn ,- , , ^i^M3^"^ "^.^fr-in ft* ^, !?,«,• ,P - $ Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-49 ------- .,., 4.4.4 What is the level of exposure to cotinine? Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a dynamic, complex mixture of more than 4,000 chemicals found in both vapor and particle phases. Many of these chemicals are known toxic or carcinogenic agents (ALA, et al., 1994). The EPA has classified ETS as a known human carcinogen and estimates that it is'responsible for approxi- : mately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year, among non-smokers in the U.S. (EPA, NCEA, December 1992). , Cotinine is a major metabolic product of ijiicotine and is currently '• regarded as the best biomarker for exposure of active smokers and non-smokers to ETS. Measuring cotinine is preferred over measuring' nicotine because, although both are specific for exposure to tobac- co, cotinine remains in the body much (or ger than nicotine. IndiclS Blood cotinine level - C_ategory Cotinine can be measured in blood, urine, saliva, and hair. Non-smokers exposed to ETS have cotinine levels of less than 1 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL), with heavy exposure to ETS producing levels in the 1 to 15 ng/mL range. Active smokers almost always have levels higher than 15 ng/mL (CDC, 2001 c). What the Data Show NHANES 1999-2000. Exhibit 4-36 presents data for the U.S. non-smoking population aged 3 years and older. Males have higher levels than females, and people aged 20 years and older have lower levels than those younger than 20 years of age. Levels for non-Hispanic African Americans are higher than for other ethnic groups (CDC, 2001 c). NHANES III (1988-1991). As part of NHANES III, CDC determined that the median level of cotin ne among non-smokers in the U.S. as 0.20 ng/mL (Pirkle, et al., 1996, in CDC, 2001 c). Results from NHANES 1999-2000 shoy jthat the median cotinine level has decreased to less than 0.050 ng^mL—more than a 75 percent decrease from NHANES 111 to NHJANES 1999-2000 (CDC, 2001 c). NHANES 111 (1988-1991) provided the first evidence from a national study that serum cotinine levels are higher among Black smokers than among White or Mexican American smokers at all levels of cigarette smoking (Caraballo, etal., 1998). Data Source NHANES 1999-2000, National Center tor Health Statistics. (See Appendix B, page B-34, for more information.) ESt U-36 Selected percentiles of serum cotinine concentrations (in ng/mU \| f 4ge'd 3 years and older. National HealtK and Nutrition Examination , ' ,' !H;heUnited3tate non smoking, population,^ Ley (NHAKlB), 1999-2000 '** I ' " . i i j ' ' Selected; Percentiles Mill ' I \ Sample Size M ] ! ! 10th 25th 50th " 75th: j jW M ii I HBBB^iMBi^B^Bi^BI Total, Age 3 years and Older Sex Male Female Race/Ethnicity Black, non-Hispanic* Mexican American White, non-Hispanic" Age Croup 3-11 years 12-19 years 204- years ^^m^^m^^m^^m^mm 5,999 3,210 1,333 2,242 1,949 1,174 1,773 3,052 ------- l-!!fci*E«^«i^%^ "•-''1'"i* :""VK '-"••-'•^i^i^i-»*.£>^>..4^^iW^^"^;:f\^.;,Iv..^:!ik\: v: . 4.4.5 What is the level of exposure to volatile organic compounds? In addition to the health effects attributed to VOCs themselves, VOCs are also chemical compounds that contribute significantly to the formation of ground-level ozone (smog) when released to the air. Exposure to ground-level ozone can damage lung tissue and cause serious respiratory illness. (For additional information on VOCs in the environment, see Chapter 1, Cleaner Air.) Blood VOC levels - Category Biomonitoring data for volatile compounds are difficult to obtain because these compounds do not persist for very long in the body. For this reason, biomonitoring data are indicative of recent exposure only. Only relatively older sources of data, NHEXAS and NHANES III, are available for the body burden of VOCs. What the Data Show NHEXAS-Region 5. Blood levels of four VOCs were obtained for participants in NHEXAS-Region 5. The four compounds were benzene, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene (PERC), and trichloroethylene (TCE). The mean level of benzene measured in blood was 0.07 ug/L The mean level of chloroform was 0.07 ij/L. The mean level of PERC was 0.21 jjg/L The mean level of TCE was below the limit of detection (Clayton, et al., 1999). NHANES III (1988-1994). Blood samples were analyzed for the presence of VOCs during NHANES III. NHANES III was conducted on a nationwide probability sample of approximately 33,994 persons aged 2 months or older. Of these, an exposure questionnaire was administered and blood samples analyzed for VOCs in a convenience sample of 1,018 adult participants aged 20 to 59 years. Toluene, styrene, and benzene were present in the blood of more than 75 percent of the participants. Analysis of this and other data collected during NHANES III shows a strong association between lifetime cigarette smoking and toluene, benzene, and styrene levels (Churchill and Kaye, 2001). Data Source NHANES III (1988-1994), National Center for Health Statistics. (See Appendix B, page B-34, for more information.) 4.4.6 What is the level of exposure to pesticides? Organophosphate pesticides account for about half of the insecti- cides used in the U.S. Organophosphate pesticides are active against a broad spectrum of insects and are used on food crops as weir as in residential and commercial buildings and on ornamental plants and lawns. Exposure to these pesticides occurs primarily from ingestion of food products or from residential use (CDC, 2001 c). The mechanism of toxicity of the Organophosphate pesticides is to inhibit the enzyme that breaks down acetylcholine, which transfers nerve impulses between nerve cells or from a nerve cell to other types of cells, such as muscle cells. This leads to a buildup of acetylcholine, which overstimulates muscles, causing symptoms such as weakness and paralysis (CDC, 2001 c). (For additional information on pesticides in the environment, see Chapter 1, Cleaner Air; Chapter 2, Purer Water; and Chapter 3, Better Protected Land.) Cnapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-5 T ------- EPAs Draft feport on the Environmen ecnnica 1 Document ~3K. Urine organopnospnate levels to indicate pesticides - -?te9ory ' Pesticides biomonitoring data are obtained by measuring the chemicals that pesticides are broken down into in the body. Measurement of these pesticide metabolites reflects exposure to pesticides that has occurred predominantly in the last few days (CDC 2001 c). The reason is that these metabolites persist within the body for only a short time. Presently, national biomonitoring data are available primarily for organophosphate pesticides. Future studies may provide additional indicators for non-organophosphate pesticides, such as carbamates and persistent pesticides. What the Data Show NHANES 1999-2000. Urine levels of organophosphate pesticide metabolites were measured in a subsample of NHANES participants 6 through 59 years of age who were selected to be: representative of the U.S. population. Finding a measurable amount of one or more metabolites in urine does not mean that the level of the organophosphate causes an adverse health effect. Whether organophosphate pesticides at the levels of metabolites reported during NHANES 1J999-2000 are a cause for health concern is not known (CDC, \|2001 c). Exhibit 4-37 shows the amount of each metabolite it) urine reported in NHANES 1999-2000. ; !' '. I ! : NHEXAS-MD. Urine levels of metabolites of some common pesticides v/ere measured during NHEXA'S-MD. 1 -naphthol (1 NAP) is «i urinary metabolite of both jarbaryl and naphthalene. The mean urine level of 1 NAP measured' for 338 participants was 33.7 Lig/L 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (JTCPY) is the major metabolite in urine of the pesticides chiprpyrifos, chlorpyrifos- methyl, and triclopyr. The mean urine lejrel of TCPY measured for 346 participants was 6.8 Ljg/L Malathi0n dicarboxylic acid (MDA) is a principal metabolite of malajhion, an organophosphate pesticide used against insects. The meap urine level for MDA measured during NHEXAS-MD was below the level of detection. Atrazine mercapturate (AM) is a urinary! metabolite of atrazine, a : widely used herbicide in the U.S. The mean urine level for AM measured during NHEXAS-MD was below the level of detection ; (Macintosh, et al., 1999). I Ill l\|l\|\|lllll( illli i^ • ' I II Ill Ill Illlllll HI IPIII pita 1 Hill' ]J tJlt ^fM «a"pwp™ IT- "n^rr-™™-"" E 14-37: Geometnc mean and selectecTpercenbles of selected pestiade metabolS urine concentetions "' ' ' j creahnine-adjusted levels for tke United States population aged 6-59 ysfe, National and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). 1999-jgOO (Data Source NHANES 1999-2000, Rational Center for Health Statistics. (See Appendix 6, page B-35, for more information.) Dimtlhjtphosphate pg/L of urine pg/goftreatMne" Olmcthylthiophosphale (ig/1. of urine ug/gofc«atln![»% \|)£/l of urine ps/goferealinine* Dtethylphosplttte pg/L of urine Hg/gofcreatinine' Dicthylthiophosplute gg/L of urine pj/goferealinir.c" 4-52 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends Copter 4 - Human Health ------- ^ 2003 4.4.7 What is the level of exposure to persistent organic pollutants? Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are manmade organic chemicals that remain in the environment for long periods of time. Some POPs are toxic; others are not. Toxic POPs are of a special concern because they often remain toxic for decades orlonger. The more persistent a toxic chemical is, the greater the probability for human exposure over time. POPs have been linked to adverse health effects such as cancer, nervous system damage, reproductive disorders, and disruption of the immune system in both human and animals. POPs released in one part of the world can travel to regions far from their place of origin, because they circulate globally long after their release into the atmosphere, oceans, and other pathways (EPA, 2001 b). Under the United Nations Environment Program, the international community has identified 12 chemicals as primary POPs. These chemicals include certain insecticides such as dichlorodiphenyl- trichloroethane (DDT) and chlordane, which were once commonly used to control pests, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were used in hundreds of commercial applications for electrical, heat transfer, and hydraulic equipment, and in plasticizers in paints, plastics, and rubber products. The 12 chemicals targeted by EPA as POPs are the pesticides aldrin, chlordane, DDT, mirex, toxaphene, dieldrin, endrin, and heptachlor; hexachlorobenzene, an industrial chemical; PCBs; polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins); and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans (furans) (EPA, 2001 b). The following discussion of human exposure to POPs is derived from the Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, published in.January 2003 by the CDC National Center for Environmental Health (CDC, 2003). Four of the 12 POPs are not addressed by the CDC report and are therefore not addressed specifically in this chapter. These four chemicals are aldrin, toxaphene, dieldrin, and endrin. The remaining POPs were not evaluated for indicators at this time but EPA anticipates that these chemicals will become indicators in the future. Cnlordane and Heptacnlor In 1988, EPA banned the use and production of chlordane in the U.S. Chlordane is an organochlorine pesticide that was applied in and around buildings to eliminate termites and was also used as an agricultural and lawn pesticide. The technical grade of chlordane consists of a group of related chemicals, including heptachlor, c/s-chlordane, trans-chlordane, and trans-nonachlor. Note that heptachlor was also used individually as a pesticide separate from chlordane. However, pesticide applications were mostly made with technical grade chlordane and therefore chlordane is the main form of heptachlor exposure. Within the body, chlordane is metabolized to oxychlordane and heptachlor is metabolized to heptachlor epoxide. Human exposure to chlordane and heptachlor is determined by measuring the blood serum concentrations of oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, and heptachlor epoxide. However, generally recognized guidelines for serum levels of these metabolites have not been established. The NHANES 1999-2000 mean levels of oxychlordane and heptachlor epoxide in the overall population were below the lipid- adjusted level of detection, which averaged 7.4 ng/g of lipid. The NHANES II (1976-1980) 9Sth percentile level was about twice the NHANES 1999-2000 level for oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor. DDT . DDT was initially used by the military during the 1940s to control mosquitoes that carried vector-borne diseases such as malaria. EPA banned the use of DDT in the U.S. in 1973. DDT, however, is still produced and used in other countries. For the general population, food is the most common pathway of exposure. Diets that involve large amounts of Great Lakes fish will increase an individual's exposure to DDT. Food intake of DDT has decreased since the 1950s; however, food imported to the U.S. may have DDT contamination, especially food imported from tropical regions where DDT is used in the greatest quantities. Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) (more persistent than DDT) is a major DDT metabolite that can be produced in people or in the environment. DDT in the human body reflects either a relatively recent exposure or a cumulative past exposure over time. A high DDT-to-DDE ratio may indicate a recent exposure, and a low DDT-to-DDE ratio may indicate an exposure in the more distant past. The NHANES 1999-2000 95th percentile levels (lipid-adjusted serum) for DDT and DDE in the overall population range from 5-fold to 15-fold lower than levels detected in a non-random subsample of NHANES II (1976-1980). These decreases in the U.S. levels are consistent with the decreased use and manufacture of these chemi- cals. Also, within NHANES 1999-2000, the group aged 12 to 19 years had DDE levels 2-fold lower than the group 20 years and older. Hexacnlorobenzene (HCfi) Hexachlorobenzene is a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic pollu- tant (EPA, 2003b). It was commonly used as a pesticide until 1965, as a fungicide to protect wheat seeds, and for a variety of industrial purposes, including rubber, aluminum, and dye production and wood preservation (EPA, 2003c). In 1984, EPA canceled its registered use. There currently are no commercial uses of HCB in the U.S. (EPA, Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-53 ------- EPAs Draft Report on the Envirdnment J003 • flechnicai DocurnHt 2003c); however, HCB is still formed as a by-product during the , manufacture of other chemicals (mainly solvents) and pesticides. Human exposure to HCB can occur through work in or proximity to chemical manufacturing sites where it is formed as a by-product or to waste facilities where it is disposed. People also can be exposed by consuming foods tainted with hexachlorobenzene (EPA, 2003 c). EPA has set the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for hexachlorobenzene in drinking water at 1 part per billion. If HCB levels exceed this level, the water supplier must notify the public (EPA, 2002g). HCB has been found to potentially cause skin lesions and nerve and : liver damage when people are exposed at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods (EPA, 2002g). Lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL can damage the liver and kidneys and cause reproductive effects, benign tumors of endocrine glands, and cancer (EPA, 2002g). Epidemiologic studies of persons orally exposed to HCB have not shown an increased cancer incidence. However, EPA has classified HCB as a probable human carcinogen (Group B2) based on animal ' studies that have reported cancer of the liver, thyroid, and kidney from oral HCB exposure. Very few inhalation data are available (EPA, 2003c). Generally recognized guidelines for HCB serum levels are not available. HCB was detected in 0.6 percent of people during the 1999-2000 NHANES study. Rnding detectable amounts does not mean that those levels produce adverse health effects. HCB has a residence time of approximately IS years in body fat. fCBs PCBs are chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbon chemicals that were once used as electrical insulating and heat exchange fluids. Within the U.S., peak production occurred in the early 1970s and production within the U.S. was banned in 1979. Concern over these chemicals remains high because they are still released into the environment Sources of exposure for the general population include release of PCBs from waste sites and from fires involving transformers and capacitors; ingestion of foods containing PCBs due to contamination of animal feeds; migration from packaging materials; and accumulation in the fatty tissues of livestock. PCBs are found at higher concentrations in fatty foods. In occupational settings, workers can be exposed to PCBs from remediation activities at hazardous waste sites and from the repair of transformers, capacitors, and hydraulic systems (CDC, 2003a). . : The Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have developed criteria for allowable levels of PCBs in foods and the workplace. EPA hgs established criteria for water and for the storage and removal of PCB-contammated wastes. Overall, there are three categories of at least 25 different PCB '. compounds (termed congeners) as determined by molecular ; structure. Congeners are closely related ;chemical compounds. The• three categories are coplanar PCBs, mor\|o-ortho substituted PCBs, and other PCBs. The significance of these categories is that coplanar and mono-ortho substituted PCBs have health effects similar to dioxins. Overall, the human health effects of PCBs include liver disorders, elevated lipids, and gastrointestinal cancers (CDC, 2003a). ; I i • The detection of serum PCBs can reflect either recent or past exposures to PCBs. Those PCBs with'higher degrees of chlorination persist in the human body from several \|months to years after exposure. In the NHANES 1999-2000 kubsample, the frequency of detection of the eight mono-ortho substituted PCBs ranged from 2 percent to 47 percent. Finding detectable amounts does not \| mean that those levels result in adverse! health effects. (For : additional information on PCBs in the environment, see Chapter 2, Purer Water; Chapter 3, Better Protected Land; and Chapter 5, Ecological Condition.) : Pol/chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins i(Dioxins) and Polycrilorinated Dibenzo-p-rUrans (flirans) ; i • Dioxins and furans are similar classes of] chlorinated aromatic chemicals usually generated as pollutants or byproducts. They have no commercial or natural use. Processes that result in their generation include the incineration of Waste, the production of pulp and paper, and the synthesis of variousjmanmade chemicals. Releases from industrial sources have decreased ty approximately 80 percent since the 1980s. The largest releases of dioxins and furans today are the open burning of household and municipal trash, landfill fires, and agricultural and forest fires. In the environment, dioxins and furans occur as a mixture of about 20 congen chemical compounds). irs (i.e., closely related Human exposure occurs primarily through foods that are contaminated with dioxins and furans. Food contamination occurs due to the accumulation of these chem high-fat foods, such as dairy products, icals in the food chain and in eggs, animal fate, and some types offish. People have also been exposed through industrial accidents, the burning of PCBs, and through the spraying of contaminated herbicides such as Agent; Orange. Workplace exposures are rare and generally recognized standards for external exposure have not been established. '. i i Human health effects associated with dioxins and furans are wide- ranging. Given that the exposure of the general population occurs as exposure 1» a mixture of congeners, this effects of individual congeners, are difficult to determine. Overall, associated dioxin and I : 4-54 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends CJiapter H - Human liealfcn ------- ii':.:ipjj>^ • l-lTM:Urart 1\ep<5rt brTtht triv!ra\|tmtnt2QQ3. furan health effects include liver disorders, fetal injury, porphyria, elevated lipid levels, chloracne, hormonal changes, neurologic damage, and immunogic changes. The dioxin cogener termed TCDD is the most toxic form of dioxin and it is classified as a known human carcinogen. It is estimated that human serum lipid-based levels of overall dioxins and furans have decreased by 80 percent since the 1980s and the low NHANES 1999-2000 values support that estimation. The levels detected via NHANES 1999-2000 are far below those associated with occupational and unintentional exposures that resulted in human health effects. Further, the NHANES 1999-2000 subsample reveals that the more highly chlorinated dioxin and furan cogeners are the main contributors to the human body burden. The higher concentrations in human tissues of these cogeners are due to their greater presence in the food chain, resistance to metabolic breakdown, and greater solubility in body fat. Half-lives for all the dioxin and furan cogeners range from 3 to 19 years and TCDD is estimated to be 7 years. 4.4.8 What are the trends in exposure to environmental pollutants for children? Children may be affected by environmental pollutants quite differently than adults, both because children may be more highly exposed to pollutants and because they may be more vulnerable to the toxic effects of pollutants. Children generally eat more food, clrink more water, and breathe more air relative to their size than do adults, and consequently may be exposed to relatively higher amounts of pollutants. Also, unlike adults, children's normal activities, such as putting their hands in their months or playing on the ground, create greater opportunities for exposures to pollutants. In addition, environmental pollutants may affect children disproportionately because their organ systems are still developing and therefore may be more susceptible (EPA, December 2000). This section presents three environmental pollutants that represent exposures of concern to children: lead, mercury, and cotinine. Indicaffir' Blood lead level in children - Category 1 Infants, children, and fetuses are more vulnerable to the effects of lead because the blood-brain barrier is not fully developed (Nadakavukaren, 2000). Thus, a smaller amount of lead will have a greater effect in children than in adults. In addition, ingested lead is more readily absorbed into a child's bloodstream. Children absorb 40 percent of ingested lead into the bloodstream, while adults absorb only 10 percent. Because of lead's adverse effects on cognitive development, CDC has defined an elevated bloojd lead level as equal to or greater than 10 (jg/dL for children under 6 years of age (CDC, 2001 c). What the Data Show In NHANES III (1988-1994), the mean blood lead levels for chil- dren ages 1 to S declined from 3.6 (Jg/dL in Phase 1 (1988 to 1991) to 2.7 ug/dL in Phase 2 (1991 to 1994). Over the same time interval, the percentage of children aged 1 to 5 years with elevated blood lead levels decreased from 8.6 percent to 4.4 per- cent (Pirkle, 1998). In NHANES 1999-2000, the geometric medi- an blood lead level for children 1 to 5 years old is 2.2 yg/dL. The . median blood lead level for children 6 to 11 years old is 1.5 ug/dL (see exhibit 4-8 in this chapter). Data Source NHANES 1999-2000, National Center for Health Statistics. (See Appendix B, page B-35, for more information.) Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-55 ------- EPAs Draft feport on the Environment 2Q(}3 echnica 1 Dbcumjmt Blood mercury level in children - Category Children may be more highly exposed to mercury and may be more vulnerable to its toxic effects. The health effects of mercury are diverse and can include developmental and neurological effects in children. What the Data Show Extremely limited information has been available about children's exposure to mercury and how it relates to levels in adults. Exhibit 4-38 shows that the geometric mean of blood mercury levels among U.S. children measured in NHANES 1999-2000 was 0.34 1/g/L The geometric mean of blood mercury levels of women of childbearing age was 1.02 ug/L Levels among women of child- bearing age are particularly important because they reflect levels of mercury to which the fetus is exposed j(NRC, 2000). During a toxicological review of mercury levels, the; National Research Council estimated a benchmark dose, whjch was an estimate of a methylmercury exposure to the fetus, associated with an increase in abnormal scores on cognitive functionjtests among children. The lower 95 percent confidence bound Jon the benchmark dose was 58 ug/L (NRC, 2000). To account fit 1-38: Geometric mean and selected" percentiles of total blood mercury c \|^^ Sample Size ChtUrcn, aged 1-5 years, males and females 70S 0.34 ------- 4.4.Q Pollutants for Which Biomonitoring Data Are Not Available • , As mentioned above, biomonitoring is an emerging field. More biomonitoring indicators are available now than a few years ago. Still, there are many environmental pollutants for which biomonitoring techniques are not available or feasible. These include radiation, air pollutants (except for lead), biological pollutants, and disinfection by-products. Biomonitoring efforts have begun recently for disinfec- tion by-products; however, at this time data are not sufficient to develop indicators for these pollutants. All these pollutants are of concern because exposure is widespread. For these pollutants, exposure assessments currently rely primarily on ambient data. What is the leve\|l of exposure to radiation? Radiation is energy given off by atoms in the form of particles or electromagnetic rays. There are actually many different types of electromagnetic radiation that have a range of energy levels. They form the electromagnetic spectrum and include radio and micro waves, heat, light, and x-rays (EPA, 2002w). Radiation that has enough energy to move atoms in a molecule around or cause them to vibrate, but not enough to change them chemically, is referred to as "non-ionizing radiation." Examples of this kind of radiation are sound waves, visible light, and microwaves (EPA, 2002y). Non-ionizing radiation can be used for some common tasks, -such as using microwave radiation for telecommunications and heating food, infrared radiation for producing warmth, and radio waves for broadcasting (EPA, 2002y). Non-ionizing radiation has relatively long wavelengths and low frequencies, in the range of 1 million to 10 billion Hertz (EPA, 2002y). Radiation that has enough energy to actually break chemical bonds or strip electrons away from atoms is called "ionizing radiation (EPA, 2002x)." Radioactive materials that decay spontaneously produce ionizing radiation. Any living tissue in the human body can be damaged by ionizing radiation. The body attempts to repair the damage, but sometimes the damage is too severe or widespread, or mistakes are made in the natural repair process. The most common forms of ionizing radiation are alpha and beta particles, or gamma and X-rays (EPA, 2002x). Ionizing radiation has very short wavelengths, and very high frequencies, in the range of 100 billion billion Hertz (EPA, 2002y). This is the type of radiation that people usually think of as 'radiation.' Ionizing radiation can be used to generate electric power, to kill cancer cells, and in many manufacturing processes (EPA, 2002y). Exnifait tt-39 EPA map of ra ------- raft port Mi the Envircihfcnt #$$ ecnnica pathway occurs when people breathe radioactive materials into the lungs. The chief concerns are radioactively contaminated dust, smoke, or gaseous radionuclides such as radon (EPA, 2002z). Radon is a colorless, tasteless, and odorless gas that comes from the decay of uranium found in nearly all soils. Levels of radon vary throughout the country. Radon usually moves upward from the ground and migrates into homes and other buildings through cracks and other holes in their foundations. The buildings trap radon inside, where it accumulates and may become a health hazard if the building is not properly ventilated (EPA, June 2000; EPA, 2002b). No biomonitoring data are feasible for national estimates of exposure to radon. Data for average national indoor and outdoor radon levels ; are available, but unlike biomonitoring data, these data do not represent the amount of radon found in human tissue. Rather, they are the levels of radon measured in the air. Radon levels vary throughout the U.S. Exhibit 4-39 shows the distribution of radon levels throughout the country (EPA, 2003d). Based on a national residential radon survey completed in 1991, the average indoor radon level is 1.3 picocuries per liter in the U.S. The average outdoor level is about 0.4 picocuries per liter (EPA, 2002b). Radiation exposure by the ingestion pathway occurs when someone swallows radioactive materials. For example, exposure by ingestion can occur when drinking water becomes radioactively contaminated, or when food is grown in contaminated soil. Alpha and beta emitting radionuclides are of most concern for ingested radioactive materials. They release large amounts of energy directly to tissue, causing DMA and other cell damage (EPA, 2002z). The third pathway of concern is direct or external exposure from radioactive material. The concern about exposure to different kinds of radiation varies by the particular type of particle or wave that is being emitted. Alpha particles cannot penetrate the outer layer of skin, but open wounds may pose a risk. Beta particles can burn the skin in some cases, or damage eyes. Greatest concern is about gamma radiation. Different radionuclides emit gamma rays of different strength, but gamma rays can travel long distances and penetrate entirely through the body. Gamma rays can be slowed by dense material (shielding), such as lead, and can be stopped if the material is thick enough. Examples of shielding are containers; protective clothing, such as a lead apron; and soil covering buried radioactive materials (EPA, 2002z). Radiation can occur from man-made sources such as x-ray machines; or from natural sources such as the sun and outer space, and from some radioactive materials such as uranium in soil (CDC, 2003). About 80 percent of human exposure to radiation is from naturally occurring forms of radiation. The remaining 20 percent of exposure is to manmade radiation sources, primarily medical x-rays (CDC, 2003). Radiation doses that people receive are measured in units called "rem (CDC, 2003)." Most people receive about 300 mrem every year from natural background sources of radiation, primarily radon. Health physicists generally agree on limitihg a person's exposure : beyond background radiation to about 100 millirem (mrem) per year from all sources. Exceptions are occupational, medical or accidental exposures. (Medical X-rays generally deliver less than 10 mrem). EPA and other regulatory agencies generally limit exposures from specific sources to the public to levels well underllOO mrem. This is far below the exposure levels that cause acute health effects (EPA, 2002x). For additional information on radiationln' the environment, see Chapter 1 , Cleaner Air. What is the level of <^posure to j^ir pollutants? ! \| Criteria air pollutants are common air pojlutants comprised :of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfuj- dioxide, lead, and particulate matter. The health effects associated with criteria air ; pollutants are discussed in Chapter 1, Cleaner Air, Section 1.1.3. Ozone is the result of a chemical reactiori in the atmosphere between VOCs and nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen dirajide comes from the burning of gasoline, natural gas, coal, and oil. Cars are an important source of nitrogen dioxide. 1 Carbon monoxide comes from the burning of gasoline, natural gas, coal, and oil. Carbon monoxide reduces {he ability of blood to bring oxygen to body cells and tissues. Carborji monoxide may be particularly hazardous to people who have heart or circulatory problems. . \| . Particulate matter (PM) can be emitted directly into the atmosphere, such as dust from roads or elemental car,bon (soot) from wood combustion. PM can also be formed in t(ie atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions such as sulfur dioxide; and nitrogen oxides, which come from power plants, industrial facilities, automobiles, and other types of coijnbustion sources. j ; ' , The primary source of sulfur dioxide is the burning of coal and oil, ' especially high-sulfur coal from the eastern U.S., and industrial processes (paper, metals). The primary source of lead in ambient air was leaded gasoline, which has been phased out in the U.S. Other ' sources of lead include paint, smelters, And the manufacture of lead storage batteries. Major health effects associated with lead are discussed in Section 4.1. j ' Except for lead, biomonitoring methods'are not available or feasible for the remaining criteria air pollutants. ambient air pollutant levels are available Data for average national (see Chapter 1, Cleaner Air). Research on actual intake measures of a r pollutants and their rela- tionship to :ambient levels as measured by monitoring networks is ; under way. Many other studies have fou id links between air 4-S8 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- pollutants and disease, as noted in the discussion of diseases and their relationships to environmental pollutants (see Section 4.1). What is the level of exposure to biological pollutants? Biological p'ollutants are or were living organisms. In addition to arthropod-borne, foodborne, or waterborne disease discussed previously, other biological agents can promote poor indoor air quality and may be a major cause of days lost from work or school and of doctor and hospital visits. Some can even damage surfaces. inside and outside the residence. Some common indoor biological pollutants include: animal dander (minute scales from hair, feathers, or skin); dust mite and cockroach parts, fungi (molds); infectious agents (bacteria or viruses); and pollen. Everyone is exposed to biological pollutants. The effects on one's health, however, depend upon the type and amount of biological pollution and the individual person. Some people do not experience health reactions from certain biological pollutants, while others may experience one or more of the following reactions: allergic, infectious, or toxic. Except for the spread of infections indoors, allergic reactions may be the most common health problem with indoor air quality in homes. They are often connected with animal dander (mostly from cats and dogs), with 'house dust mites (microscopic animals living in household dust), and with pollen. Allergic reactions can range from mildly uncomfortable to life-threatening, as in a severe asthma attack. Health experts are especially concerned about people with asthma, who have very sensitive airways that can react to various irritants, making breathing difficult. Infectious diseases caused by bacteria and viruses, such as flu, measles, chicken pox, and tuberculosis, may be spread indoors. Most infectious diseases pass from person to person through physical contact Crowded conditions with poor air circulation can promote this spread. Some bacteria and viruses thrive in buildings and circulate through indoor ventilation systems. (For additional information on indoor air pollution, see Chapter 1, Cleaner Air.) As with air pollutants and radiation, biomonitoring methods are not available or feasible for many of the biological pollutants discussed 'in this section. What is the level of exposure to disinfection by-products? Disinfection by-products (DBFs) are chemicals that form in drinking water when disinfectants are added during the drinking water treatment process. Disinfectants are added to drinking water to kill bacteria and other microbes that cause disease. DBFs are formed when the disinfectants react with organic matter (primarily from leaf and vegetation decay) that is found naturally in drinking water sources such as rivers and lakes (EPA, 2002c). The most common drinking water disinfectant is chlorine. Other lesser-used disinfectants include chloramines, chlorine dioxide, ozone, and ultraviolet light. More than 200 million people within the U.S. drink disinfected water (EPA, June 2001 a). Hundreds of different DBPs—most of which result from chlorine- have been identified in drinking water, and occurrence data have been reasonably established for over 30 DBPs (EPA, ORD, November 1997). The two types of DBPs that are typically measured by drinking water utilities are trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic ' acids (HAs). DBP levels vary throughout the country because the levels are dependent on several factors, including amount of organic matter in the drinking water source, amount of rainfall in the area, season of the year, water temperature, type of disinfectant used, water treatment plant configuration, and size of trie water system distribution system (EPA, 1999). Current information on DBP exposures draws on monitoring results from drinking water systems. Data for average national levels of THMs in treated drinking water are available. Water monitoring for DBPs is of limited value in classifying or identifying individual exposures to DBPs. Individual exposures are influenced by route of exposure (ingestion, inhalation, dermal absorption), individual habits relating to water use or consumption, time and spatial distribution of DBPs in the water system, and seasonal variables that affect the precursors to DBPs (e.g., rainfall, temperature). The complex nature of exposure to DBPs will require a better understanding of the chain of events as illustrated in Exhibit 4-1. 4.4.10 Endocrine Disrupters An Emerging Issue An endocrine disruptor is defined as an exogenous agent that alters the function of the endocrine system and consequently causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny or (sub)populations (IPCS, 2002). A number of pharmaceuticals, pesticides, commercial chemicals and environmental contaminants are known to disrupt the endocrine system across a wide range of species—invertebrates, fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals. Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-59 ------- EMs Drcffi Rlporgfl thef :rwiB!npnt'2:a\|S There is little information on the magnitude and pattern of human exposures to endocrine disrupters. The limited exposure data that exist are primarily for various environmental media, such as chemical concentrations in air, food, and water. Often these data are limited by geographical regions and cannot be extrapolated to national trends. More relevant measures of human exposure, such as chemical con- centrations in human blood, breast milk, and human tissue, are rare. Often these data are available only for high exposure areas and pop- ulations. As chemicals suspected of contributing to endocrine dis- ruption in humans are identified, it will be necessary to obtain high- quality exposure data to perform human risk assessments. Each major state of the science report on endocrine disrupters has acknowledged the critical need for research to increase our under- standing of human exposures and related health outcomes. '• The human health issue regarding exposure to endocrine disrupters primarily relates to: (1) adverse effects observed in fish and wildlife, (2) the increased incidence of specific endocrine-related adverse human health outcomes/diseases, and (3) observations of endocrine disruption in well-conducted experiments involving laboratory animals. These chemicals can affect the endocrine system in several ways including interfering with hormone synthesis and release from the endocrine gland, competing with the hormone for the binding \ sites on transport proteins in the blood, binding to the receptor to . either block hormone action or mimic it, and producing changes in hormone metabolism and elimination (IPCS, 2002). There are a few clear examples of adverse human health effects fol- lowing high exposures to environmental chemicals (e.g., accidental releases or poisoning incidents). Analysis of the human data by itself has not provided firm evidence of direct causal associations between low level exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and adverse human health outcomes. Of particular interest is exposure during very early development, both in utero and postnatally. Sexual differentiation, growth, and development are under hormonal control. Many of these early processes are unique to this time period and disruptions of carefully timed processes may lead to irreversible adverse human health outcomes. Interest has focused on: (1) adverse effects on reproductive and sexual development and function, (2) altered immune system, nervous system, and thyroid development and func- tion, and (3) cancers of various endocrine-sensitive tissues including the testes, breast, and prostate. Additional research is needed to determine whether linkages exist between these adverse human health outcomes/diseases and exposure to suspected endocrine disrupters. However, this research is challenging as the manifestation : of the condition is frequently not observed until years after exposure, has occurred and the measured concentration of the chemicals in the affected adult may be very different from in utero, neonatal, or pre-pubertal exposures/concentrations that may have given rise to , the adverse outcome. 4.5 A Environmental Burden ssessing o fDi isease Many factors may cause or influence djsejase in humans. These factors include heredity, social factors, dietary factors, and environ-i mental factors (e.g., chemical pollutants, infectious microorganisms,' and radiation). The extent to which enyiranmental factors influence overall disease is not entirely understopd. Disease burden, global burden of disease, and environmental bu'den of disease are concepts used to express the burden of disease or society: \|\| Disease burden is the effect on sociey of both disease-related mortality and disease-related morbidity (Kay, 2000; WHO, 2002). It is assessed by several health measures, including mortality rates, morbidity rates, and the number of days in the hospital. Historically, disease burden has been i ivestigated by analyzing disease outcomes, such as cancer, rath er than analyzing risk factors trjat may cause cancer or disease in general. For example, it is easier to compare cancer incidence between two countries than to compare risk factors of cancer; iqnfcing radiation may be the major risk factor for cancer in country A, while dioxin may be the major risk factor in country B. j ; \|\| Global burden of disease (GBD) assesses the disease burden on a worldwide basis and then apportions that burden to various causes, such as genetic, behavioral, and environmental. I I , - ! Di Environnental burden of disease (EBD) measures that portion of the GBD which is due solely to environmental risk factors. , EBD provides a method for summarizmgkhe environmental health of population:;. The summary health data collected from EBD measure- ments help identify environmental risk factors with significant public health implications. EBD data can also b'e used to help prioritize funding allocations for health and environmental research, assist in: environmental policy development, justify environmental advocacy, assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions, and monitor the progress of a population's health (Prilss, et al., 2001). More impor- tant, EBD pirovides a way to normalize risk factors, allowing cpmpara- ble health evaluations between populations. Two approaches are commonly jsed to determine the degree of disease burden that \| stems from ^environmental risk factors: : , • The outcome-based approach determines the degree to which, specific environmental risk factors caijse a disease relative to other environmental risk factors. , ; 4-60 4.5 Assessing the Environmental Burden of Disease : : Chapiter 4 - Human,Health ------- • The exposure-based approach assesses the adverse health out- comes resulting from dose-response relationships between risk factors and associated disease outcomes (Priiss, et al., 2001). This section summarizes estimates, in different studies, of the environmental burden of disease. World Health Organization Evaluation In 1998, WHO estimated that 23 percent of GBD is due to environ- mental hazards, including occupational exposures (WRI, et al., 1998). In 1999, WHO researchers and researchers from the University of California reported that an estimated 25 to 30 percent of the GBD was attributable to the environment (Smith, et al., 1999). In 2000, WHO introduced a new methodology for evaluating changes to EBD, termed comparative risk assessment (CRA). CRA measures the GBD due to risk factors. WHO is currently developing CRA guidelines to help countries and smaller population groups, such as villages and towns, measure their respective EBD (Kay, 2000). CRA does not have one standard unit, however, and it incorporates other methodologies used to assess EBD. Because of this variability in assessment methodologies, comparing EBD for different countries can be difficult. Further, because EBD has not been quantified extensively in the U.S., this country's level of EBD cannot be easily compared with that of the rest of the world. Doll and Teto Estimates Richard Doll and Richard Peto quantified the environmental contribu- tion to disease in their 1981 landmark study The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today. In that study, they concluded that pollutants in air, water, and food contributed from 2 to 5 percent to cancer mortality (Doll and Peto, 1981). They quantified the portion of cancer deaths that were attributable to various environmental causes, excluding tobacco smoke (Exhibit 4-40). Thirty percent of cancer was ascribed to tobacco use. Other Estimates Other studies of EBD have investigated specific environmental risk factors and disease outcomes. For example, Wynder and Gori concluded in 1972 that environmental factors caused 12 percent of all cancer cases for men and 14 percent for women in the U.S. (Doll and Peto, 1981). Why EBD Estimates Differ EBD estimates are affected by the definition of "environment" that is used in making the determination (Smith, et al., 1999), as well as the measurement unit used, such as reporting mortality as a percentage of the population. For example, some researchers include factors such as stress or injury as environmental causes of disease, while others include stress and injury as social causes of disease. The quantity of disease burden (such as disease outcome or risk factors) measured in EBD studies also produces variation in EBD estimates. These differences can be attributed to the different ways that risk factors are categorized, or to differences in the amount of disease burden attributed to a particular source. cancer < Brer f- •lcco-jy,2Jl£l Sly'Si!" tf"5 If^fe J"he,Ee ts fiot a distinction between l\|g«T(pnmental tobacco smofee and mainstream smoke P°!kRJ,ctl!s! ^Oflgsstiard Peto JJi^Cguse^of Cancer Quamtative Estimates i "f Avoidable Risks of Cancer in theJJmted States Tgday 1981, > Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.5 Assessing the Environmental Burden of Disease 4-61 ------- EPAsDrift 'octirM 4.6 Challenges and Data (naps This chapter described key indicators for health and exposure. Many exposure indicators presented were measured by biomonitor- ing. Where biomonitoring data are not available, ambient exposure measures serve to describe human exposure to key environmental pollutants. Areas where strong associations have been demonstrated between environmental exposures and health outcomes were highlighted. However, in many areas those associations have not yet been demonstrated. The success of environmental decisions in improving public health can be measured on a variety of levels: M National level (e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Healthy People 2010 initiative). • Geographic/regional level (e.g., East Coast versus West Coast, CDC's state health reports). • Community level (e.g., air and water quality monitoring). • Individual level (e.g., screening programs for blood lead in children). Many indicators may be used at a number or all of these levels. This report has focused on describing indicators and impacts at a national level. Future versions of this report may utilize indicators to evaluate success in reducing environmental health exposure and outcomes at some of the other levels as well. Use of Health Outcome Measures to Evaluate Environmental Tolicy Decisions or Interventions Mortality data were chosen as one of the major disease indicators because these are collected nationwide in every state, county, and community. These mortality data constitute a comprehensive data- base, since every death is presumed to be reported. This information has been collected for more than the past SO years and has been used to document the success of major public health programs. For example, treatment of drinking water through filtration or chlorina-. tion eliminated diarrhea diseases as a major cause of death in the 20th century. More recently, anti-smoking campaigns aimed at men are believed to be responsible for the sudden downward trend in deaths due to lung cancer. In fact, an analysis of the key indicators of health for the country confirm that the health of the U.S. population is improving. The U.S. population is living longer (life expectancy) and death rates for major causes of death (cancer, cardiovascular disease) are declining. Except for those rare diseases that have a short survival period and 100 percent death rate, death represents only a small fraction of the true number pf cases for a disease in the population (see Section 4.2). '• ; Better information and insight into the health of the U.S. population can be obtained from evaluating incidence data (new cases of illness) or prevalence data (all existing cases of illness). At this time, no com- prehensive nationwide systems for collecting incidence or prevalence data on disease are in place. The majority of morbidity data reported in this chapter are available either from national surveys that sample the U.S. and are.assumed to be representative of the nation, or from data (e.g., birth defects and cancer registries) collected by the state- based centers around the country. The ; ctual picture of health may differ from that suggested by the data, i s in the case of chjldhood : asthma prevalence that has been rising fas described in Section 4.3.4). CDC has launched an initiative tj> improve the nation's health tracking system. CDC recently awarded grants to state and local health depjirtments to begin developing a national environmental health tracking network and to develop Capacity in monitoring envii ronmental health at the state and local levels (). Several emerging areas of health conce •n (e.g., Parkinson's disease, diabetes) and emerging areas of enviro imental exposure (e.g., endocrine disrupters) were recognized these areaij, either the link between en n this chapter. In many of ironmental exposures and the disease has not been established or no systematic surveillance or established indicators currently eXis include many of the diseases and expo ;. Future reports may well . ;ures identified as emerging issues and may establish associated indicators. Major efforts to ', address diabetes, asthma, and obesity also present a very ; promising opportunity to incorporate research on the role of environmental exposures into such plaijis. Use of Exposure Measures to Evaluate Environmental Tolicy Decisions or Interventions : : Most exposure indicators described in this chapter were biomonitor- ing indicators. Ambient exposure measures were described for a number of areas where, at present, bionjionitoring data are not available (e.g., for certain air pollutants where there are no markers in blood or urine). . ; . The NHANES data provide examples where biomonitoring data have reflected a public health benefit from EI^A actions. For example, the decline in blood lead levels confirms that the removal of lead from, gasoline, water, and paint has successfu ly reduced exposures. ! Similarly, the decline in urinary cotinifie levels demonstrates that : efforts to reduce smoking have led to public health improvements. However, interpretation of many of tHe pther exposure indicators is difficult at this time. Either not enough is known about the exposure levels in the population, or data gathering at a national level has just begun. It will take time for a stable reference base to emerge. . 4-62 4.6 Challenges and Data Gaps Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- Efforts to .establish a national reference base are under way through the work of CDC's National Center for Environmental Health, which is developing the National Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Report. The first report was released in 2001 () and a second one was released in January 2003 with data on 116 chemicals (). CDC is committed to expanding this database, and its recent Federal Register notice called for nominations of chemicals to consider for inclusion in the third report, to be published in 2005. The report will fill a critical need to describe exposure. Use of the report indicators for explanatory or predictive functions will require an understanding of pathways and sources that may have contributed to the exposure and the exposure's relationships to health effects. With this additional understanding the report ultimately could be used to guide exposure reduction programs. Monitoring Environmental Health Status at trie Community Level Except for mortality data, many communities must look to their . own local public health officials to monitor the health status of their community. This is true for a number of reasons, including: • Current health surveys have limited application at the community level and often require extrapolation from a larger population (state or national). • Current disease reporting systems, whether national sample or reporting systems- (e.g., National Notifiable Diseases Reporting System), can rarely provide an answer for a specific community. • Biomonitoring surveys that apply to specific communities are extremely rare. For example, blood lead screening programs, while common across the country, do not report in a systematic fashion to a centralized location for compilation and analysis of the data. Until such systems are developed, communities will continue to rely on environmental monitoring programs to tell them about their exposure to air or water pollution. EPA is pursuing a number of activities to increase the capacity of information providers (e.g., states) and users (e.g., communities) to share information. This' effort includes working closely with other federal agencies, such as CDC, to build compatible systems for linking health and environmental data bases. One potential outcome of such partnerships is an opportunity to revisit and refine current sampling designs such that future data collection efforts would provide better information for smaller units (community level) and would ensure better temporal and spatial congruence between environmental, biomonitoring, and surveillance programs. future Challenges For EPA to make better use of more direct indicators of public health outcomes, the science underlying the Agency's key public health • functions (describe, explain, predict, evaluate) will need to be strengthened. EPA will continue to work on providing a better under- standing of the components of the source-dose-health continuum (Exhibit 4-1). Key among them will be establishing the necessary degree of predictive validity between indicators of each component (e.g., exposure versus dose). Such an understanding is critical to defining the degree to which one indicator can be successfully used as a surrogate for another. However, this may not be conducive to widespread use in surveys or may be difficult to ascertain in smaller populations (e.g., at a community level). EPA also will continue to build collaborations with CDC and other federal agencies responsible for collecting health surveillance and human exposure data. Such partnerships are essential to any effort to describe the status and trends of exposure and disease in the U.S. with the eventual goal of every U.S.,citizen understanding what the status is for his or her family and community. An important initiative along these lines is the interagency effort to develop the National Children's Study, in which EPA is a collaborator. The Children's Health Act of 2000 authorized the National Institutes of Child Health and Disease and a consortium of federal agencies "to conduct a national longitudinal study of environmental influences on children's health and development." The study will investigate the interaction of biologic, genetic, social, and environmental factors to better understand their role(s) in children's health. EPA will also seek to develop and evaluate methodologies for understanding the contribution of other risk factors to a given health condition in comparison to the environmental exposure (i.e., partitioning out the risk attributable to the environmental exposure[s] of concern). Such measures will assist in prioritizing intervention/prevention programs and will allow the benefits and cost of environmental management to be placed in the context of the larger public health picture. Other issues of emerging, or emerged, concern include: • Susceptible populations. This chapter identified children as a susceptible population and described indicators relating specifical- ly to them. EPA also recently announced an initiative to define the environmental risks associated with the ever-increasing aging pop- ulation () to be undertaken in partnership with other federal agencies and the many alliances for the aging. Many of the indicators in this report are particularly relevant to the elderly (e.g., cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and they are, or can be, reported by age group. As other susceptible populations ' are identified, EPA will need to continue working with its federal partners to see that the data are collected and analyzed to track those populations. Chapter 14 - Human Health 4.6 Challenges and Data Gaps 4-63 ------- • Aggregate and cumulative risks. Individuals are not exposed to single chemicals, but rather to multiple pollutants and other stressors through multiple pathways and routes over the course of a day. The reality of aggregate and cumulative exposures further complicates attempts to attribute risk to a single environmental agent EPA has begun to look at this issue, stimulated in part by mandates under the Food Quality Protection Act. The recently released Cumulative Risk Guidance report (EPA, 2003e) lays the groundwork for taking on this challenge and will help target the research to better understand the nature and impact of such "composite" exposures, especially as related to targeting regulatory and health prevention strategies. Finally, the health and exposure indicators described in this chapter are only a portion of the story on the state of the environment. These indicators should be viewed in conjunction with the other indicators identified in the companion chapters on ecological condition, land, air, and water. As presented in Exhibit 4-1, that integration is vital to fully developing the understanding envisioned by the cascade of events from source to effects. 4-64 4.6 Challenges and Data Gaps Chapter 4 - Human Health ------- ------- Indicators selected and included in this chapter were assigned to one of two catego • Category 1 - The indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by period. The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are charact management systems, and quality assurance procedures. national level data cpverage for more than one time Sized by sound collection ^ethodologies, data Category 2 - The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data t state regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for more the indicator have been measured (e.g., data has been collected for birds, but comparable across the areas covered, and are characterized by sound collectiqri qualify assurance procedures. re available only for part of the nation (e.g., multi- IJian one time period, or not all the parameters of iot for plants or insects). The supporting data are methodologies, data management systems, and ------- 5.0 Introduction As described in Chapter 4, Human Health, EPA is moving in the . direction of measuring outcomes that reflect the actualimpacts that result from environmental pollution. This chapter applies that approach to ecosystems. Previous chapters examined impacts on air, water, and land—all elements of the environment that EPA seeks to protect. This chapter links the state of the nation's air, water, land, and living organisms into a broad framework termed "ecological condition"—the sum total of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the environment, and of the resulting processes and interactions among them.1 Understanding ecological condition is crucial, because humans depend on ecosystems for food, fiber, flood • control, and countless other critical "services" they provide to society (Daily, 1997). Many Americans also attribute deep, significance and important intangible benefits to ecosystems and their diverse flora and fauna. Ecological condition reflects the result of a complex array of factors, including natural disturbances, invasions of new species, resource management, planning and zoning, and pollution. EPA has statutory authority to regulate only a few of these factors, but it exerts policy leadership across a broad spectrum of public and private activities, including review of significant federal projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These efforts reflect the EPA's important role as one of many federal, tribal, state, and local govern- ment and private partners in protecting the nation's environment. This chapter asks questions about our current understanding of the ecological condition of: • Forests: • Farmlands • Grasslands and shrublands • Urban and suburban areas • Fresh waters • Coasts and oceans • The entire nation2 Exhibit 5-1 is a depiction of the events that link environmental changes to ecological outcomes. "Stressors," indicated by arrows, rep- resent factors such as insect outbreaks or pollutants affecting the system. These act directly on one or more of the "essential ecological attributes" shown in the circles in the center of the diagram. (These attributes are described in more detail below.) Each of these attributes can, in turn, act on and be acted on by others. The web of arrows among the indicators illustrates some of the possible interactions. Effects on ecological attributes can be direct or indirect. This diagram • illustrates the fact that ecological processes have important feedbacks on the chemical and physical structure of the environment in which these changes occur. The overall changes in the attributes result in altered structure and function of the ecosystem, which in turn lead to outcomes (good or bad) about which society is concerned. Exhibit 5-1 shows that monitoring only stressors or monitoring single ecosystem attributes-such as living things-in isolation cannot convey a full and accurate picture of ecological condition. Assessments of ecological condition must incorporate measures of different characteristics, potentially at different times and in differ- ent places within a system. EPA can build on decades of monitoring stressors to develop and appropriately monitor multidimensional and better-linked ecological condition indicators. This chapter presents initial work toward identifying indicators that can help to answer the question "What is the ecological condition of the U.S.?" and it can help elucidate the sequence of events shown in Exhibit 5-1. The chapter is organized into nine sections that describe: n The framework used in this report to identify indicators to assess ecological condition and outcomes (Section 5.1). m The ecological condition of forests (Section 5.2), farmlands (Section 5.3), grasslands and shrublands (Section 5.4), urban and suburban areas (Section 5.5), fresh waters (Section 5.6), coasts and oceans (Section 5.7), and the entire nation (Section 5.8). M The key challenges and data gaps for developing adequate indicators of ecological condition (Section 5.9). , Because ecological condition depends critically on the physical and chemical characteristics of land, air, and water, this chapter draws on indicators from Chapters 1 through 3 of this report, as shown in Exhibit 5-2. Those chapters should be consulted for the data sources for those indicators. Many of the indicators were drawn from The H. John Heinz 111 Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment (The Heinz Center) report, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States, 2002, which also presents more detail on data sources, as does Appendix B of this report. The key data sources reflect the fact that monitoring ecological con- dition is a multi-organizational task. Organizations in addition to EPA that are responsible for collecting the data to support indicators in this chapter include: • The U.S. Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) • National Aeronautics and Space Administration • The U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, and Natural Resource Conservation Service) • The U.S. Department of Interior (U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) • NatureServe, a private foundation TThe term ecosystem is used in its broadest sense as any interacting sys- tem of physical, chemical, and biological components and the associated flows of energy, material, and information (Odum, 1971). - Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 2This seventh category refers to the overall condition of the complex, interconnected mosaic of different ecosystem types across the entire nation. 5.0 Introduction 5-3 ------- _ txnioit 5-1: tcological condition paradigm Together, the six ecological attributes constitute "ecological condition Stressors (shown as ) affect ecological attributes directly and al (interaction)among the attributes ( \| ) p indirectly through feedback Programs such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program and the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) have a long history, because they measure aspects of the environment that are critical to multi-billion dollar industries (e.g., timber, crops, etc.). Programs with a strictly "ecological" focus (e.g., the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Monitoring [FHM] Program, the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment Program [NAWQA], the multi-agency Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium [MRLC], and EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program [EMAP]) are newer on the scene, and most have produced only Category 2 indicators as this report goes to press. ' ! Like Chapter 4, Human Health, this chapter is not intended to be ; exhaustive. Rather, it provides a snapshot,\|at the national level, of [ current U.S. ecological condition indicatorjs and status based on key : data sources with sufficiently robust desigri, quality assurance, and maturity. , ', i 5-4 5.0 Introduction C-napter 5 -' Zoological Condition ------- Exhibit 5-2: Ecological C-ondition - Questions and Indicators Forests - " • -.-v-. " -;•;• i;--';: ••-..-: '••-:•" .'!;•- i:/.. -.-•','-•-: !'~'.!>; ' :',.;-'. ':£;•" .. '..-' '.: '•• '.;• ;•'-. -•-".'-" •:-.-. ..-.'••- - •!-•!" -' -' :. .'"' M '.. .•".'••,':.' .: V":" -" '.. \|.\| : •'- -'•'•:' - ". :' --•--•. ' •- •'-•• -'•:. '- • :'.'•' ' • •"• •'• '•' •'•'. ••'•'.".'• .-.'''- '* ••;':"<- ; : •'•'••• ;---•-••- >~'<..:- . . ;."• •-.• •.••'•.;::•' . ;,;o;!^;4^y^ What is the ecological condition of forests? Extent of forest area, ownership, and management Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen Changing stream flows Extent of area by forest type Forest age class Forest pattern and fragmentation At-risk native forest species Populations of representative forest species Forest disturbance: fire, insects, and disease Tree condition Ozone injury to trees Carbon storage Soil compaction Soil erosion Processes beyond the range of historic variation 7 2 2 7 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 5.7.4 2.2.4 Ji 1.2.2 ' 2.2.4.a 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 L, Farmlands What is the ecological condition of farmlands?" Extent of agricultural land uses The farmland landscape Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water Phosphorus in farmland, forested and urban streams Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields Sediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelands Pesticide leaching potential Soil quality index Soil erosion 7 7 2 2 2 - 2 2 2 2 2 3.7.2 3.7.2 2.2.4.fc 2.2.4.b 2.2.4.C 3.2.4 .. 3.7.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 Grasslands ana SnruDlancIs 1 . - ••:-.•,•".••,• --:•«!-/•- ..-.. •: \|2uestiorY .•: ssiipaEaassssi^BBSE^ indicator KtemS™JHSfpaMW^ What is the ecological condition of grasslands and shrublands? Extent of grasslands and shrublands Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in grasslands and shrublands At-risk native grassland and shrubland species Population trends of invasive and native non-invasive bird species 7 2 2 1 3.7.3 2.2.4.0 5.4 5.4 : Italicized indicators are presented in other chapters. CJiapter 5 - ecological C-ondition 5.0 Introduction 5-5 ------- (T 51" ' l ' fri \| Uroan and Suburban Lands . , ;;"- ™ ; "~f: jQj^g^:;:;:3L:» £ f What is the ecological condition of urban ^ and suburban areas? f (. f xtent of urban and suburban lands tnbient concentrations of ozone: 8-hour and 7 -hour ' 'titrate in farmland, forested and urban streams, and ground water '• hosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams 'hemical contamination in Urban streams and ground water atches of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland in urban/suburban areas \ t ^ f fS ' I t> / t Fresn Waters :" \ " i 1 1 3.7.7 2 2 j_2 j 2 2 7.J.7.b 2.2.4.b 2.2.4.b 2.2.4.C 5.5 h 1 . T" ,, ~: i&kfon ::=i: pip ' ; i f i :: :: : : 41: ^^^^^[l^^^'^^^^^^^j^^^^l^^i^^^ What is the ecological condition of fresh waters? Wetland extent and change ' :\|: ' 1 2-2'2 1 Altered fresh water ecosystems Contaminants in fresh water fish ; ! Phosphorus in large rivers ; : Lake Trophic State Index Chemical contamination in streams and ground water ! Acid sensitivity in takes and streams Changing stream flows • ; " • Sedimentation index . Extent of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs ; At-risk native fresh water species : Non-native fresh water species ' Animal deaths and deformities < At-risk fresh water plant communities ; •> Fish Index of Biotic Integrity in streams Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index for streams C-oasts and Oceans "h ; \ i What is the ecological condition of coasts and oceans? Chlorophyll concentration's Water clarify in coastal waters "' [ Total nitrogen in coastal waters Total phosphorus in coastal waters Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters . J Total organic carbon in sediments Sediment contamination of coastal waters Sediment toxicity in estuaries ' Extent of estuaries and coastline ! . . ; Coastal living habitats ; • ' Shoreline types Benthic Community Index i ; Rsh diversity ! Submerged aquatic vegetation ' Rsh abnormalities : Unusual marine mortalities iote: Italicized indicators are presented in other chapters. E ^ ! 2 : 2 i 2 i 2 '2 \ 2 \ 1 • 2 1 j 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.2.1 2.5.1 2.2.4.b 2.2.7 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.a 2.2.4.0 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 . 5.6 5.6 2 2 i 2 ! 2, ! 2 2 ' . "2 2 i . 1 1 2 2 i 2 2 2 2 2 2.2.3 2.2.3 2.2.4.fc 2.2.4.fc 2.2.3 2.2.3 : 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C . 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 . 5.7 5.7 5.7 f » i T - A- ^ i L 5-6 5.0 Introduction Chapter 5 - Zoological C-onditi' on ------- Tne Entire Nation •\- ;-,^-:< j'^^/'-S:^ What is the ecological condition of the entire nation? Ecosystem extent At-risk native species Bird Community Index Terrestrial Plant Growth Index Movement of nitrogen Chemical contamination 2 2 2 T •\ 2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 \|f Npte: Italicized indicators are presented in other chapters. 5.1 Links Between jtressors and Ecological Outcome: A framework for AAeasuring tcological Condition The primary reasons to monitor ecological condition are similar to those for monitoring air, water, and land; • To establish baselines against which to assess the current and future condition. • To provide a warning that action may be required. • To track the outcomes of policies and programs, and adapt them as necessary. Measuring ecological condition is not as straightforward as monitoring water or air to determine whether temperatures or concentrations of pollutants exceed a legal standard, however. Ecosystems are dynamic assemblages, of organisms that have more or less continuously adapted to a variety of natural stresses over shorter (e.g., fire, windstorms) and longer (climate variations) periods of time, taking on new and different characteristics. This makes determination of the condition of a "natu- ral" system difficult (Ehrenfeld, 1992). In addition, people have altered natural ecosystems to increase their productivity of food, timber, fish, and game, and to provide the infrastructure needed to support a mod- ern society. How should the ecological condition of these altered ecosystems be measured, and against what reference points? Several recent reports by experts in the field have provided advice to guide current and future efforts. The National Research Council (NRC) report, Ecological Indicators for the Nation (NRC, 2000), provides an introduction to recent national efforts to measure ecological condition and a thoughtful discussion of the rationale for choosing indicators. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) also proposed a Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition (EPA, SAB, 2002). The framework identifies six "essential ecological attributes" (EEAs) of ecosystems: 81 Landscape condition ' • Biotic condition m Chemical and physical characteristics si Ecological processes Bl Hydrology and geomorphology Bl Natural disturbance regimes The EEAs, along with reporting categories and examples of associated indicators, are displayed in Exhibit 5-3. Neither report identifies specific methodologies, network designs, or actual datasets corresponding to the examples. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment (The Heinz Center) led a nationwide effort by government, academia, and the private sector to develop a report entitled Jhe State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States (The Heinz Center, 2002). According to the introduction, the report "provides a prescription for 'taking the pulse' of the lands and waters. It identifies what should be measured, counted, and reported, so that decision-makers and the public can understand the changes that are occurring in the American landscape." The Heinz Center report identified 103 specific indicators, of which 33 were judged by the authors to have adequate data for national reporting. The Heinz Center report provides an important core of indicators for this chapter. The Heinz Center report uses a somewhat different cat- egorization of indicators than the Category 1 and 2 designations, and indicators identified by The Heinz Center that have inadequate data or need further development have not been included here. The Heinz Center indicators in this chapter are organized around the SAB framework, but given the similarities among the NRC, SAB, and Heinz Center approaches, this choice does not affect the final result. This chapter also includes, in addition to The Heinz Center national indica- tors, some Category 2 indicators from regional monitoring studies that Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.1 Links Between Stressors and Ecological Outcome 5-7 ------- Exhibit 5-3: Essential ecological attributes ar Landscape Condition ] • Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Types • Landscape Composition • Landscape Pattern and Structure Biotic Condition ' ' :' I Ecosystems and Communities - Community Extent - Community Composition - Trophic Structure - Community Dynamics - Physical Structure [ Species and Populations - Population Size - Genetic Diversity - Population Structure - Population Dynamics - Habitat Suitability \| Organism Condition • Physiological Status - Symptoms of Disease or Trauma ^Chemical and Physical Characteristics Jigger;'TCfc Soil, and Sediment) ^' _^ • Nutrient Concentrations - Nitrogen - Phosphorous - Other Nutrients • Trace Inorganic and Organic Chemicals - Metals - Other Trace Elements - Organic Compounds • Other Chemical Parameters -pH - Dissolved Oxygen - Salinity - Organic Matter ; - Other • Physical Parameters ; reporting categories rrfljp^/Ceornorpjjojogy_ I Energy Flow - Primary Production - Net Ecosystem Production - Growth Efficiency \| Material Flow - Organic Carbon Cycling - N and P Cycling - Other Nutrient Cycling Surface and Ground Water Flows - Pattern of Soqrc£ Flows - Hydrodynamics j ' - Pattern of Gro'urtd Water Flows ; - Salinity Patterhs j - Water Storage . • Dynamic Structural Characteristics - Channel/Shoreline Morphology, Complexity - Extent/Distribution of Connected Floodplain - Aquatic Physical Habitat Complexity • Sediment and Material Transport - Sediment Supply/Movement - Particle Size Distribution Patterns - Other Material Fjlux itural Distu I Frequency \| Intensity \| Extent I Duration Source: EPA, Science Advisory Board. A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition. June 2002. show promise for implementation on a national scale. Regardless of whether the indicators are Category 1 or 2, all indicators were drawn directly from scientifically defensible studies published in peer- reviewed reports and journals. ', One of the most critical data quality objectives of monitoring for EPA is representativeness, the degree to which monitoring data accurately ; and precisely represent the variations of a characteristic over an entire population (e.g., all streams or forests)3. Sampling design4 approaches the problem of representativeness and the effects of sampling and measurement error on environmental management policies and deci- sions. Sampling designs fall into two main categories, probability designs and judgmental designs. Probability designs apply sampling theory, so that any sampling unit (e.g., a stream of a stand of trees in a forest) has a known probability of selection. This important attribute allows the characteristics of the entire population of streams or forest stands to be estimated with known uncertainty, ensures that the results are reproducible within that uncertainty, and enables one to calculate the probability of decision-error based on the uncertainty in the data. Probability designs do not provide information on the precise condi- tions at any location where measurements are not made, or of the populations during times when measurements are not made,5 or of populations not included in the sampling jdesign. ' i : Judgmental (designs rely on expert knowledge or judgment: to select , sampling units. They can be easier and jess expensive to implement than probability sampling. Monitoring sites selected at random can be difficult or even impossible to access, ahd'some monitoring programs1 require sites that are easy to access repeatedly, or remote sites from which to search for faint signals such as climate change or long-range transport of pollutants. The accuracy of the results of judgment designs depends on the quality of the professional judgment, but in the best of cases quantitative estimates or uncertainty cannot be made. In this report, Category 1 indicators were required to be based on indicators collected using probability c esigns or "wall-to-wall" coverage by remote sensing, unless a stro ig case could be made that the data were representative of the popul ation being sampled. This chapter follows The Heinz Center (2CJ02) in reporting on six major ecosystem types.6 With a few exceptions, Environmental and natural resource monitoring programs currently! are structured to track the . condition of individual natural resources! (ig., trees, crops, soil, water, or air) represented by the first six ecosystem [types. Though some of this Hike the U.S. Census, which strives to collect data on every person in the U.S., an ecological census could attempt to collect data on every plant, animal, stream, etc. This is generally impossible or cost-prohibitive, except for: data collected on land cover or other features of the environment that can be measured by satellite. 4Olsen, et al., 1999, and Yoccoz, et aj., £0.01, provide useful .discus- : sions of sampling oriented toward ecological hionitoring. 5For example, if estuaries are sampled ojnly in the fall, the sample reveals nothing about estuaries in the spring or winter. 5-8 15.1 Links Between Stressors and Ecological Outcome L-napter 3 - tcology ------- monitoring takes place on a national level, it still focuses on discrete resources or ecosystem types. For this reason, most available indicators can help answer questions about the condition of individual ecosystem types, but cannot track the overall ecological condition of an area comprising different interconnected and interacting ecosystem types. Therefore, this chapter includes a seventh category representing indicators potentially suitable for the entire nation. A few indicators are available to help provide a more holistic assess- ment of ecological condition at the national level. For example, large or migratory organisms (e.g., bears or neotropical birds, respectively) depend on many ecosystem types over large areas for their continued survival. As another example, all of the terrestrial ecosystems types may contribute nitrogen, carbon, or sediment to streams and rivers in watersheds. Even the arrangement of ecosystems in the landscape and the composition of patterns of land cover and land use have been identified as critical components in the way ecosystems function (Forman and Godron, 1986; Naiman and Turner, 2000; Winter, 2001; EPA, SAB, 2002). Section 5.8 corresponds approximately to the core national indicators in The Heinz Center report Ideally, the indicators in this chapter would be presented in a way that spoke to the success of our efforts to protect and restore the ecological condition of the types of ecosystems considered in this chapter. Trends in biotic condition and ecological functions and in the physical, chemical, hydrological, landscape, and disturbance regimes of each ecosystem would provide keys to stories involving acid rain, or landscape fragmentation, or changing climate. The resulting "stories" would establish baselines, provide warnings, and track the effectiveness of management actions by EPA and its part- ners, as envisioned by the NRC (2000). Because so few reliable data exist on trends for any indicators at the national level, however, such a presentation is not yet possible. Instead, the chapter presents a disturbingly fragmentary picture of what little is known reliably and nationally based on Category 1 indicators. It also anticipates what could reasonably be known if monitoring of Category 2 indicators were to be expanded. Sections 5.2 through 5.8 below describe the ecological condition of the seven ecosystem types. Each section begins with an introduction that summarizes data on the indicators that appear in the previous chapters of this report on air, Water, and land. Indicators presented for the first time then are described in detail. Each section ends with a summary of what the available indicators, taken together, reveal about the ecological condition of that ecosystem type. 5.2 What is the tcologica Condition of Forests \ Forests, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (USDA) Forest Service (FS), are any lands that are at least 10 percent cov- ered by trees of any size and at least 1 acre in extent (Smith, et al., 2001). Some forested ecosystems are rich sources of biodiversity and recreational opportunities, while others are managed intensive- ly for timber production. All are important for carbon storage, hydrologic buffering, and fish and wildlife habitat. Forested ecosys- tems are under pressure in the U.S. from a number of non-native insects and pathogens and from deviations from natural fire regimes . (The Heinz Center, 2002). They also are becoming increasingly fragmented by urbanization and other human activities (Noss and Cooperrider, 1994). Under its statutory programs, EPA has particularly focused on the effects of air pollution on forest ecosystems, including the effects of acid rain on forests and forest streams. Such impacts might affect not only the health and productivity of trees, but also biodiversity in forest ecosystems (Barker and Tingey, 1992). Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must promulgate secondary standards for criteria air pollutants that present unreasonable risks to plants, animals, and visibility. EPA also has statutory authority to control the effects of forest management practices on aquatic communi- ties; safe use of herbicides and pesticides in forest systems; and significant federal activities in forested ecosystems subject to EPA's review under NEPA. Forests are possibly the best monitored of the six ecosystem types in this report. The Forest Service has long monitored standing tim- ber volume and production, as well as damage from fire and pests, in its Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program (Smith, et al., 2001). This program relies on probability sampling to ensure that the results are statistically representative, and there is complete long- term national coverage. This results in two Category 1 indicators relating to forest extent and one to biotic condition. In the early 1990s, the Forest Service in collaboration with EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) developed the Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) program to monitor additional indicators of the ecological condition of forests (see Stolte, etal., 2002), also using a probability design. Over the course of the 1990s, forests in a growing number of states were sampled in the FHM program, and many of the FHM indicators were merged into the FIA program in 1999. Although data on these indicators are now being collected in 47 states, with all 50 expected to be covered by 2005, at the time this report was being prepared, coverage was not yet sufficiently complete for these to reach Category 1 status. 6The concept of an ecosystem, while extremely useful and relevant, is a somewhat vague classification for purposes of environmental monitoring. See O'Neill, et al. (1986); Turner (1989); Suter (1993), pp. 275-308; and Knight and Landres (1998) for highly relevant discussions. Chapter 5 - tcological C-ondition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? 5-9 ------- EfAs Draft feport ofi the Environment 2005 • "Tetkrjiejal Doctimirtt i I • , i •. , i ' "! •• ;• • '•'••• r :• 'H! i i r Exhibit 5-U: Forest ndicatoC Essential Ecological 'Attribute i „ \|[f = j Extent of Ecological System/ I Habitat Types r Landscape Composition I Landscape Pattern/Structure fe!e\|icj:oiid!tion _ ' ] Ecosystems and Communities Species and Populations Organism Condition .Ecological Processes i Energy Flow Material Flow [Chemical & Physical Characteristics , Nutrient Concentrations Other Chemical Parameters Trace Organic and Inorganic Chemicals Physical Parameters Hydrology and Geomorphology h 11 •"•• .««" Si! ' i"" ,11 Surface and Ground Water Flows * Dynamic Structural Conditions ] Sediment and Material Transport Natura ! Disturbance Regimes I Frequency ] Extent Duration jr Extent of forest area,;ownership, and rmmagement Extent of area by forest type Forest age class Forest pattern and fragmentation IE At-risk native forest species Populations of representative forest species Forest disturbance: fire, insects, and disease Tree condition Ozone injury to trees • ' 'W^JS Carbon storage IE' V. Nitrate in farmlands, forested, and urban streams and ground water Wet sulfate deposition Wet nitrogen deposition Soil compaction f"" '•":•'. Ifc::-, : :- Changing streamflows Soil erosion \| fit"' ~ ' " '" - - , --„-, •:•. iM ,„ i.!,' Processes beyond the range of historic variation 1 • • • • 2 • , • • • j • : • • • • ; • • ! m m m L 1 , , „,„.,.. USDA USDA USDA USDA ; ,:!;,:,_ NatureServe NatureServe USDA USDA USDA USDA DOI EPA EPA ' USDA ! DOI USDA USDA Many of the indicators monitored by the FIA and FHM (Smith, et al., 2001) were included in the Heinz report (2002) and formed the original core of this chapter. As this chapter was being completed,, however, the Forest Service published its Final Draft National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003 (USDA, FS, 2002) under the Montreal Process. Several of the indicators contained in this 2002 report (all Category 2) were included in this chapter to demonstrate the kinds of data that will be available nationwide for a range of the forest EEAs as the FIA achieves data collection a id analysis on a national basis. Data for several of these indicators [e.g., air quality, atmos- pheric deposition, and the chemistry and biology of forest streams) are contributed by national monitoring prbgrams operated by other government amd private sector organizations. The forest indicators used in this report a grouped according to the EEAs. Some ind cators •e displayed in Exhibit 5-4, relating to the EEAs 5-10 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? C_napter 5 - tcological C-onaition ------- of forest landscape condition, the chemical and physical attributes of forest streams, and the hydrology of forest watersheds are discussed in the chapters on Cleaner Air, Purer Water, and Better Protected Land, because they also relate to questions about those media. This section briefly summarizes the data for these indicators as they relate to the ecological condition of forests. This section then intro- duces additional indicators that relate to the EEAs of forest land- scape condition, biotic condition, ecological processes, physical con- dition of forest soils, and natural disturbances in forests. The following indicators presented in the previous chapters relate to the ecological condition of forests: • The indicator Extent of Forest Area, Ownership, and Management (Chapter 3, Better Protected Land), is important for assessing trends in how forests are managed and protected. Forested ecosystems cover some 749 million acres in the U.S., or about one-third of the total land area. While approximately 25 percent lower than the pre-settlement acreage in the 1600s, the total acreage has held steady for the past century, although regional and local patterns have changed (USDA, FS, April 2001). Since the 1950s, forest land has increased by 10 million acres in the Northeast and North Central 'states, and decreased by 11 million acres in the Southeast (USDA, FS, April 2001). About 55 percent of all U.S. forests are in private ownership, with 83 percent of forests in the East being privately held (USDA, FS, 2002). About 9 percent of forest lands are managed by private industry to produce timber. Although 503 million acres of forests are classified as "timberland," the rest receive less intensive man- agement. Harvest on public lands declined nearly 50 percent from 1986 to 2 billion cubic feet per year in 2001, but increased on pri- vate land by 1 billion cubic feet per year, to 14 billion cubic feet per year during the same period (USDA, FS, 2002). About 38 per- cent of harvesting is by clearcut, mostly in the South (USDA, FS, 2002). About 76 million acres of forests are "reserved" and man- aged as national parks or wilderness areas, an almost threefold increase since 1953 (USDA, FS, 2002). Much of the protected for- est in the West is in stands more than 100 years old. H The indicator Nitrate in Farmland, Forested, and Urban Streams and Ground Water (Chapter 2, Purer Water) is important for tracking the loss of nitrate from forested watersheds, which often indicates the effects of acid rain or insect infestation. In 36 forested streams monitored by the National .Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, almost 50 percent had concentrations of nitrate less than 0.1 parts per million; 75 percent had concentra- tion of less than 0.5 ppm; and only one had a concentration of more than 1.0 ppm. By comparison, of 107 agricultural water- sheds, almost half of the streams had nitrate concentrations greater than 2.0 ppm. • According to the indicator Deposition-Wet Sulfate and Wet Nitrogen (Chapter 1, Cleaner Air), wet sulfate deposition decreased sub- stantially throughout the Midwest and Northeast between 1989- 1991 and 1999-2001 (Chapter 1, Cleaner Air). By 2001, wet sul- fate deposition had decreased by more than 8 kilograms per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr) from 30-40 kg/ha/yr in 1990 in much of the Ohio River Valley and northeastern U.S. The greatest reductions occurred in the mid-Appalachian region. Wet nitrate deposition levels remained relatively unchanged in most areas dur- ing the same period and even increased up to 3 kg/ha in the Plains, eastern North Carolina, and southern California. Using National Atmospheric Deposition Program data, a USDA report on sustainable forests observed that annual wet sulfate deposition decreased significantly between 1994 and 2000, espe- cially in the North and South Resource Planning Act (RPA) regions, where deposition was the highest. Nitrate deposition rates were lowest in the Pacific and Rocky Mountain RPAs, where approximately 84 percent of the regions experienced deposition rates of less than 4.7 kg/ha/yr (4.2 pounds per acre per year). Only 2 percent of the sites in the eastern U.S. received less than that amount (USDA, FS, 2002). I The indicator Changing Stream Flows (Chapter 2, Purer Water) addresses altered stream flow and timing, which are critical aspects of hydrology in forest streams. Low flows define the small- est area available to stream biota during the year, and high flows shape the stream channel and clear silt and debris from the stream. Some fish depend on high flows for spawning, and the tim- ing of the high and low flows also can influence many ecological processes. Changes in flow can be caused by dams, water with- drawal, and changes in land use and climate. This indicator reveals that 10 percent of predominantly forested watersheds showed decreased minimum flow rates during the period 1940 through 2000 compared to the period before 1940, while 25 percent had increased minimum flow rates (USDA, FS, 2002). Five percent of the watersheds had lower maximum flow rates, and 25 percent had higher maximum flow rates compared to the earlier period. There were no obvious trends in maximum flow rates in the decades since 1940, but minimum flow rates increased over the period. Increased flows were generally found in the East, but decreased flows were found in the West. The other 12 forest indicators in Exhibit 5-4, described on the following pages, appear for the first time in this report in this chapter. Most of these indicators are from the Final Draft National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003 (USDA, FS,2002) which became available after The Heinz Center report went to press. All are Category 2 indicators because the data are not yet available for the entire country. Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? 5-11 ------- of area oy forest type - Category i Trends in the distribution of forest types ultimately control the different types of communities that they support. The data for this indicator were collected by the FIA program, which currently updates the assessment data every 5 years. This indicator com- pares current conditions to those in 1977. What the Data Show Oak-hickory forest is the most common forest type in the U.S., covering 132 million acres—an increase of 18 percent since 1977 (Exhibit 5-5). Maple-beech-birch forest covers 55 million acres and has increased 42 percent since 1977. Pine forest of various types covers 115 million acres; spruce-birch forests cover 61 million acres (mostly in Alaska); and Douglas fir covers 40 million acres, mostly in the Pacific Northwest. Mixed forests (e.g., oak-pine and oak- gum-cypress) cover 64 million acres, mostly in the South (USDA, FS, 2002). In the East, longleaf-slash pine and lowland hardwoods (elm-ash- cottonwood and oak-gum-cypress) had the largest decreases in acreage (12 million and 17 million acres, respectively). In the West, hemlock-sitka spruce, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine decreased the most (by 9 million, 8 million, and 6 million acres, respectively). In both regions, "non-stocked" land, on which trees have been cut but that has not yet regrown as forest, has declined steadily. Indicator Gaps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: • Since the late 1940s, field data on species composition have been collected on a probability sample of 450,000 sites, nationwide (Smith, et al., 2001). The resulting estimates of area by forest type have an uncertainty of 3 to 10 percent per million acres of area sampled (The Heinz Center, 2002). m The data do not include information on private lands that are legally reserved from harvest, such as lands held by private groups for conservation purposes. Other forest lands are at times reserved from harvest because of administrative or other restrictions. Data on these lands would provide a more com- plete picture of U.S. forest lands. Data Source The data source for this indicator was Forest Resources of the United States, 1997, Smith, et al., 2001. (See Appendix B, page B-36, for more information.) the United States, 1963-1997 • Maple-Beech- j fej^ ! "" V '", p^^'iii^i^v^^lhortl.eafPine/- /^ iiii»^J Other Types!' : ' 'I '^^'^^^^^^^^^^ ^^i^:™, ^^rfekl 5 ."••r^if-."- M""" ;""":" •"- "1 sSource- The Heir\| CData from the US, =ftw.^ _j _-_ -«..1J^,% 5-12 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? Chapter 5 -\| Ecological Condition ------- Forest age class - Category 2 Maintaining forest cover with a wide age range and a variety of successional stages sustains habitats for a variety of forest- dependent species and provides for the sustainable yield of a range of forest products. This indicator reports the percentage of forest area, with stands in each of several age classes.7 What the Data Show In the eastern U.S., 35 percent of forests classified as "timber- lands" are more than 60 years old, and 10 percent are more than 100 years old; in the West, the corresponding numbers are 70 percent and 35 percent, respectively (Exhibit 5-6). Softwood age distributions are skewed slightly toward younger age classes due to their management for timber. Hardwoods have a more normal distribution, with a peak in the 40 to 79 year age class, reflecting maturing second and third growth forests in the East. Stands averaging 0 to 5 inches and those over 11 inches are increasing, while intermediate stands in the 6 to 10 inch range are decreasing, indicating a rise in selective harvesting in the U.S. (USDA, FS, 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Data for national parks and wilderness areas and other forested land are not available at this time, but will be in the future (The Heinz Center, 2002). Data Source The data source for this indicator was Forest Resources of the United States, 7997, Smith, et al., 2001. (See Appendix B, page B-36, for more information.) 7 Age class is defined by the mean age of the dominant or codomi- nant crowns in the upper layer of the tree canopy. txnioit 5-6: Forest age class, 1997 pt Partial Indicator Data: West (Timberlands Only) Age of Stand (yrs) II 1-19 & 20-59 • 60-99 Si 00-199 ^ • 200+ 3 Future j\|r. Partial Indicator Data: East (Timberlands Only) SQ " Age of Stand (yrs) IT 1-19 3 4C( H g\| 20-59 • 60-99 IS 100-199 • 200+ HJ Uneven-Aged 1 7f 10 Future UPTCoverage all 50 states (timberlands only) j>te "Timberlands^js^a USDA Forest Service designation for lands _ hat grow at least 20 cubic feet of wood per acre per year, which is fpufeonsidered be sufficient to support commercial harvest under current t: ^economic conditions Lands on which harvest is prohibited by statute g"' are nqt^mcluded asj^timberlands " Note also that the term ™L^ 'uneven-age" is being phased out; such stands are composed of Ji^intermmgled trees that differ considerably in age ££" Source The Heinz Center The State of the Nation's Ecosystems 2002 Data from the USDA, Forest Service Chapter 5 -. Ecological Condition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? 5-13 ------- •. ' " • ' - . ' J_ , II EFAs Draft {Uport oh the Environment 2bd)^ • Technical Document r 1 ' i . ! ! ' ! • ' '. . t ! j • I Forest pattern and fragmentation - Category 2 ^1,—i.Ji Forest pattern and fragmentation affect the plant and animal species that live in forests. Large blocks of contiguous forest sup- port interior forest species. Partial forest cover creates forest edge habitat, which supports birds and other animals that nest in forests but forage in nearby fields (Ritters, et al., 2002). Fragmentation also creates areas that concentrate airborne nutri- ents and pollutants by increasing the amount of unprotected for- est edge (Weathers, et al., 2001). This indicator captures some of these features. What the Data Show Fragmentation in forests in the U.S. is significant. Based on 1992 data (The Heinz Center, 2002), two-thirds of all points within forests were surrounded by land that was at least 90 percent forest in their "immediate neighborhood" (i.e., a radius of 250 feet) (Exhibit 5-7). However, only one-fourth of the points within forests were surrounded by land that was at least 90 percent forest within their "larger neighborhood" (i.e., to a radius of 2.5 miles) (The Heinz Center, 2002). Approximately half of the fragmentation consists of "holes" in otherwise continuous forest cover. About three-quarters of all forest land is found in or near the boundaries of these large (greater than 5,000 hectares), but heavily fragmented, forest patches (Ritters, et al., 2002). In short, most forest is near other forest, and "holes" in forest cover caused by development, agriculture, harvesting, etc., tend to be isolated from each other. ' j Indicator Gaps and Limitations Although this indicator was calculated for the conterminous .U.S., it has been categorized as a Category 2 indicator because it is only one of many potentially important fragmentation indicators. The exact impact of the amount and type of fragmentation on biotic structure and ecological processes \|is poorly known, and is likely to vary from one species and process to another (Ritters, et al., 2002). The FHM program is developing additional landscape fragmentation indicators, but the data haye not been fully evaluat- ed as this report was being finalized. Data Sources The data source for this indicator was Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report, 1991 to 1999, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2002; and Fragmentation of Continental United States Forests, Ritters, et al., 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-37, for rnore information.) • Exhibit 5-7: Forest cover and neighborhqbq size, 1 ------- At-risR native forest species - Category 2 Species richness is considered to be an important indicator of ecological condition by both the National Research Council (2000) and the Science Advisory Board (2002). Although the role of species richness in maintaining a stable ecosystem is debated, greater species richness (i.e., greater number of species) is generally accepted as desirable. Species richness could be altered by air pollution, fragmentation, and forest disturbance by fire, insects, or disease. What the Data Show Based on an assessment of 12 factors, NatureServe and its mem- ber programs in the Natural Heritage program determined that 5 percent of forest animal species are imperiled, 3.5 percent are critically imperiled, and 1.5 percent are or might be extinct (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-8). This indicator includes reports on mammals, amphibians, grasshoppers, and butterflies; too little is known about other groups, including plants, to assign risk cate- gories. NatureServe data reveal that of the 1,642 species of ter- restrial animals associated with forests, 88 percent still occupy their full historical geographic range on a state-by-state basis (USDA, FS, 2002). The Natural Heritage Program uses standard ranking criteria and definitions, making the ranks comparable across groups. This means that "imperiled" has the same basic meaning whether applied to a salamander, a moss, or a forest community. Ranking is a qualitative process, however, taking into account several factors that function as guide- lines rather than arithmetic rules. The ranker's overall knowledge of the element allows him or her to weigh each factor in relation to the others and to consider all pertinent informa- tion for a particular element. The factors con- sidered in ranking species include population size, range extent and area of occupancy, short- and long-term trends in the foregoing factors, threats, and fragility (Stein, 2002). The information gathered by Natural Heritage data centers also provides support for official designations of endangered or threat- ened species. However, because Natural Heritage lists of vulnera- ble species and official lists of endangered or threatened species have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes, and taxo- nomic coverage, they normally do not coincide completely with the official designations of "rare and endangered" species. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The data for this indicator are not from a site-based monitoring program, but rather from a census approach that focuses on the location and distribution of at-risk species. Determining whether species are naturally rare or have been depleted is currently not possible. It is not clear that trends can be quantified with any precision. Data Source The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the NatureServe Explorer Database. (See Appendix B, page B-37, for more information.) 8: f\t-risR native Forest species, by risk category, 2000 -m, i«J- -, W -SI Ififti * fS~Snf -a-^&lf H&ISBBBJil, sh 11 £ A Ji SiK, fc&i.. it f '"cmff Extinct Critically Imperiled Imperiled Vulnerable All'Rare/At Risk e: TJie Heinz Center The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002 Data from NatureServe -arid ils Natural Heritage member programs v;^.-,™-.Hi,-_ ^ 5 r ° T ^ Chapter 5 - tcological Condition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? 5-15 ------- EDA' FY il'Tr rn^^;pii«!UTiM.p«^ ^pfg3^s^'^p t_JAsUratt KeportSTT.me'':1invitronmenfc!'2Q.Q5 1 -I ' "' ' " ' ' ' J ; !! ! 1 I ' Topulations of representative species - Category 2 The abundance of species representative of particular forest types is a more sensitive and less dramatic measure of ecological condition than species richness alone. Species richness reflects the net number of species invading an area and species going extinct, whereas species abundance also includes the numbers of individuals in each species (USDA, FS, 2002). The FHM program has collected abundance data on bird and tree species. What the Data Show Between 1966 and 1979, 21 percent of bird species associated with forests experienced population declines. This figure rose to 26 percent between 1980 and 2000 (USDA, FS, 2002). Areas with the greatest population declines were along the coasts and in the Appalachians. Between 1966 and 2000, 26 percent of bird species associated with forests showed population increases. In the majority of tree species groups, the number of trees with trunk diameters greater than 1 foot increased by more than 50 percent between 1970 and 2002, indicating a more abundant community of older trees (USDA, FS, 2002) (Exhibit 5-9). Indicator Caps and Limitations Several limitations are associated with thi^ indicator: • Population data are available only for b rds and trees. Data for big game ;ire reported by the states, ,bilt generally very few systematic measures of animal population density exist. • The data from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) are based on a volunteer observer program and might jiot be statistically, reliable. j Data Sources \| The data sources for this indicator were the Breeding Bird Survey, U.S. Geologic Survey (1966-2000); and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Seryick Draft Resource • Planning and Assessment Tables, 2002; anp National Report on Sustainable Fprests-2003, Final Draft, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-38, for more information.) . , I Exhibit 5-Q: Populations of representative fore -50% H-50 to 0% n 0 to[±50%','jg >+50%;'' { \|species, i970-2C)C)2 ' iag^ :-- 8 10 12 14 1J5 l§.,2 , Coverage: 3 7 states. ( Source: USDA, Forest Service. Draft Respur.ce Planning A< j! May 3,2002 (updated August 12,2002). (Septemberg)02; ll http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801/FIADB/ipaJabler/Draft RPA ' • •' ••'••- 5-16 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? CJiapter 5 - Ecological C-onditiori ------- Forest disturbance: fire, insects, and disease - Category 1 Fires, insects, and disease often occur naturally in forests. Their impact on forest ecosystems can be influenced by their interac- tion with other variables such as management decisions, air pollutants, and variations in climate. For example, trees weakened by pollutants might be more susceptible to attack by pathogens. When ecological processes are altered beyond a critical thresh- old, significant changes to forest conditions might result. What the Data Show Wildfire acreage has declined from a peak of more than 50 million acres per year in the 1930s to 2 to 7 million acres per year, largely due to fire suppression policies (The Heinz Center, 2002).8 However, there has been a slight increase in fires in national forests in recent decades, with -8.4 million acres burned in 2000 (Exhibit 5-10). Insect damage fluctuates from year to year, mostly as a result of. population cycles of the gypsy moth and southern pine beetle, affecting between 8 and 46 million acres per year. Data for two major parasites, fusiform rust and mistletoe, are available only for the past several years, but the total acreage affected is 43 to 44 million acres (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator Caps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the following: • This indicator does not distinguish between forest fires, other wildfires, and prescribed burns. It also does not track the intensity of the fires. • Data are not available on forests affected by diseases other than those listed above. • Some insects can cause widespread damage before it is apparent from aerial surveys. -10: Forest disturbance: Fire, insects, and disease, I979-2OOO - Insects Fire (including grasslands/ shrublands) Disease Data Sources The data sources for this indicator were The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from Western National Forests: Nearby communities are increasingly threatened by catastrophic wildfires, U.S. General Accounting Office, 1999; Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report, 1991-1999, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2002; and National Fire Statistics, the National Interagency Fire Center, (See Appendix B, page B-38, for more information.) 1975 1980 1985 1990 T995 2000 2005 Insects gypsy moth, spruce budworm, southern pine beetle, mountain pine beetle, western spruce budworm (alf but the gypsy moth are native to the United States) Diseases:. .fusiform rust, dwarf mistletoe Coverage, all 50 states Note: Data are not limited to nationaLforests. Source. The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002 Data from the USDA, Forest Service Health Protection/Forest Health Monitoring Program (insects, disease) and the National Forest System (fire). 8These data include wildfires in grasslands and shrublands. (_napter 5 - tcological C-Ondition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? 5-17 ------- \|i;: riz^^jjB ndicaKr Tree condition - Category 2 Changes in tree condition reflect the sum total of factors acting on the tree, including stress due to pollutants, climate, nutrient status, soil condition, and disease. This indicator (called "dimin- ished biological components" in USDA, FS, 2002), reports on the percentage of trees in each region of the conterminous U.S. states that exhibit significant changes in three measures: mortality vol- ume, crown condition, and the area in fire Current Condition Class Z. A Resource Planning Act region (shown in Exhibit 5-11) was considered to have poor tree condition (designated as diminished biological components in the exhibit) if (1) average annual mortal- ity volume was more than 60 percent of gross annual growth vol- ume, or (2) the ZB-index, an indicator of crown condition, was increasing at a rate of 0.015 or more per year, or (5) more than half of the forest area was in fire Current Condition Class 3. Fire condition Class 3 represents a major deviation from the ecological conditions compatible with historic fire regimes and might require management activities such as harvesting and replanting to restore the historic fire regime. What the Data Show According to the data for this indicator, 20 percent of forests in the U.S. were observed to exhibit poor tree condition, 40.9 per- cent were in fair or good condition, and 38.8 percent had no or insufficient data (USDA, FS, 2002) (Exhibjit 5-11). Mortality was highest in the Pacific Northwest and northern Minnesota, and a large portion of these forests was in fire uurrent Condition Class 3, indicating that mortality might be producing a high fuel load. The South and Rocky Mountain regions hjad the smallest areas of poor tree condition, but more than half of those areas had insuffi- cient data or no data at all. ; I . Indicator Gaps and Limitations The data used to calculate this indicator \jrere available at the time for only 32 states; more than half of the South and Rocky Mountain regions had insufficient or no1 data at all. i ,,,,,,, ; ^ „ , Data Sources i The data sources for this indicator were Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report, 1991 -1999, U.SJ. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2002, and National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003, Final Draft, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,; 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-39, for more information.) Exhibit 5-11: Tree condition, 1990-1099 ^^^Im^L U Forest area having; diminished biological components that may indicate changes In fundamental ecj i::,,Pircentages baser! on forest area in conterminus 48 States. ' " 1 ij, i Source: Conklma B., et al. Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report' 1991-1999. 2002.11 ET '' ' " ^ ':::':,:;','T "'!",ii ::„?' aa:/: !',c '^'MicwKii1""'"":'!! p 5-18 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? lapter 5 - tcological Condition ------- Ozone injury to trees - Category 2 Ozone injury to trees can be diagnosed by examination of plant leaves (Skelly, et al., 1987; Bennet, et al., 1994). Foliar injury is the first visible sign of injury of plants from ozone exposure and indicates impairment of physiological processes in the leaves. What the Data Show Little or no ozone injury was reported at 97 percent of Pacific Coast sites and 100 percent of Rocky Mountain sites (Exhibit 5-12). In the North and South regions, however, 23 percent of biompnitoring sites showed at least low levels of injury, with severe levels observed at about 5 percent of the plots (USDA, FS, 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations • Any further injury to the plant (beyond injury to the leaves) requires that ozone penetrate through the stomata into the leaf interior, which is regulated by a variety of environmental processes; some plants that show foliar damage show no further damage, and some plants show damage without concurrent signs of leaf damage (EPA, ORD, July 1996). • Biomonitoring site data were available for only 32 states at the time the data for this indicator were analyzed. Data Sources The data sources for this indicator were the Forest Health Monitoring Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1991 - 2000) and National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003, Final Draft, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-39, for more information.) Ixkkit 5-12: Ozone injury to trees, 1994-2000 i -~t~ » i. & 100- North Pacific Coast Rocky Mt South little or no injury low moderate severe injury injury "fnjury ' i •*,'> " Biosite Index " Coverage: 32 states. jtSource: USDA, Forest Service. National Report on Sustainable Forests - pO'03. Final Draft. 2002. CJiapter 5 - tcological C-onciition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? 5-19 ------- Carbon storage - Category 2 M»gaB««iB CT»»ililgsiUfl As a result of photosynthesis, carbon is stored in forests for a period of time in a variety of forms before it is ultimately returned to the atmosphere through the respiration and decom- position of plants and animals. A substantial pool of carbon is stored in woody biomass (roots, trunks, and branches). Another portion eventually ends up as dead organic matter in the upper soil horizons. Carbon storage in forest biomass and forest soils is essential for stable forest ecosystems, and it reduces atmos- pheric concentrations of a carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas (see Chapter 1, Cleaner Air). What the Data Show For the period 1953 to 1996, the average annual net storage of non-soil forest carbon pools was 175 million tonnes of carbon per year (MtC/yr). The rate of storage for the last period of record (1987-1996) declined to 135 MtC/yr (Exhibit 5-13). The decrease in sequestration in the last period is thought to be due to more accurate data, increased harvests relative to growth, and better accounting of emissions from dead wood. The Northern region is sequestering the greatest amount of carbon, followed by the Rocky Mountain region. The trend of decreasing sequestration in the South is due to the increase in harvesting relative to growth. Some of the harvested carbon is sequestered in wood products (USDA, FS, 2002). Indicator Caps and Limitations Limitations of this indicator include the fc (lowing: • The data only cover forest classified as "timberland," which excludes about one-third of U.S. forest >. • Carbon stored in soil is not included, • • Several of the carbon pools are not measured, but are estimated based on inventory-to-carbon relationships developed with information from ecological studies. ; Data Sources The data sources for this indicator were the Forest Inventory and Analysis, U.S; Department of Agriculture (1979-1995); and National Report on Sustainable Forests, 2003, Final Draft, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Servicel 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-39, for more information.) Exhibit 5-13: Contribution of forest ecosystems to the totalqlobal carbon budget, 1953-1996 j\|fu«» 4 - 5 <& j> •£ 250.0 C3 Abovegrd live Z e 200.0 41 "- e \| 150.0 •3 fe § 2" 1°°-° 1 r 5 a so.o e § 0.0 Abovegrd standing dead v \^ s ^^^ H Understory • Down dead D Forest floor D Blw grd live • Blw grnd dead Years of Period Average annual net forest carbon change (Mt/yr), 1953-1996 ' Coverage: lower 4 8 states. Source: USDA, Forest Service. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 200. 1953 1963- 1977- 1987- 1962 1976 1986. .1996 . Year iNorth BSouth DRocky Mtn DF'acific Coast jage annual net forest carbon change ' r) by region, 1953-1996 A WV"«««f h it + 4 » ^" -, }nal Draft. 2002. 5-20 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests;? Chapter 5 >•'. Icological Condition ------- fflca •1>',M""r:i!'r,;-"'"'v .."•s ,:-r :.•:,•.;•,•!,:',•:;:: .'-;;• •-''"-i---; -'tf-1'^'- ."-'--':liliLL ^ -''-.^1: --^i-s' . • --'.-"-.- -"-'•' '^i''-:,->''" '••' •?--•• -L'.:^.'; joil compaction - (Category 2 This indicator measures the extent of changes to the physical properties of forested soils resulting from forest harvesting, road construction, or other human impacts that are of sufficient magni- tude to lower soil fertility or cause significant reductions in site productivity. Compaction can have a variety of negative effects on soil fertility by causing changes in both physical and chemical properties (Sutton, 1991; Fisher and Binkley, 2000). Reduction in pore space makes the soil more dense and difficult to penetrate and thus can constrain the size,, reach, and extent of root systems. Reduction in soil aeration and water movement can reduce the ability of roots to absorb water, nutrients, and oxygen, resulting in shallow rooting and stunted trees. Destruction of soil structure can limit water infiltration and increase rates of runoff and soil loss from erosion. What the Data Show Soil compaction is primarily a local phenomenon. More than 86 percent of the plots measured showed less than 5 percent of the plot area exhibitng of soil compaction (Exhibit 5-14) (USDA, FS, 2003). Only a small fraction of plots (1.6 percent) showed com- paction on more than 50 percent of the plot Indicator Gaps and Limitations Soil physical properties (e.g., bulk density) are not conventionally monitored in a way that facilitates national reporting, and the current approach relies heavily on visual inspection and the State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO)' state soil maps (USDA, FS, 2003). No measurements were made of the degree or intensity of compaction. Physical disturbances that are not readily visible from the surface might be under-reported. Therefore the national maps thus far are only indicative of the potential for soil compaction on a regional basis. The FIA program has begun monitoring actual soil physical properties at the FIA sites, to be used in conjunction with the current method, but the data were not available nationally for development of the indicator in 2002 (USDA, FS, 2003). Data Source The data sources for this indicator were the Forest Health Monitoring Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1999- 2000); and State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) state soil maps. (See Appendix B, page B-40, for more information.) Exhibit 5-14: Frequency distribution of percent of plot area exhibiting evidence of surface compaction reported on ^ Forest f-lealth Monitoring (FH?V9 frogram plots, 1999-2OOO -- 100% 3 CT 1311 Frequency "•'Cumulative percent 5 10 20 30 40 Percent Compaction 50 More Coverage: 37 states. \|;3_Source: USDA, Forest Service. National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003. 2003. CJiapter 5 - tcological (Condition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? 5-21 ------- EFAs Draft ReJDort on trie Environment StSiCpji • Tebriflidal Document Indiclior Soil oil erosion -Cab egory. Erosion is a term used to describe various mechanisms that wear away the land surface. Soil erosion is caused naturally by running water, wind, ice, and other geologic processes, but forest harvest- ing and road construction can increase erosion beyond natural levels. Erosion in excess of soil formation decreases the long-term productivity of forest systems and contributes to siltation of streams, lakes, and reservoirs. The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model is commonly used in conjunction with the STATSGO state soil maps to estimate and predict the amount of soil loss based on several factors influencing erosion (Liu, et al., 1997). What the Data Show Modeled erosion rates on undisturbed forest lands were less than 0.05 ton per acre per year, on nearly 90 percent of the measured plots, compared to 3.1 tons per acre per year in agricultural ecosystems (USDA, FS, 2003) (Exhibit 5-15). Exposed mineral soil is a substantial contributor to erosion in the regions of the country sampled, and about 65 percent of the measured forest plots showed bare soil on less than five percent of the plot. Indicator Gaps and Limitations i \ Limitations of this indicator include the following: • The modeling approach (WEPP) was. originally designed for agricultural systems. It might overestimate erosion from well- managed forest plots and underestimate erosion on plots that have been harvested and mechanically prepared. (USDA, FS, 2003). i • The erosicm indicator was calculated for! only 37 states by 2002. Data Sources I The data sources for this indicator were the Forest Health Monitoring Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1991- 2000); and State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) state soil maps. (See Appendix B, page B-40, for more information.) exhibit 5-15: frequency distribution for modeled erosion ralif on Tbrest Health * r "* * 4fct^'WW^'<* ^^f* Monitoring (FHM) Program plots (l999-.!c500> Following a 2-year (average) and 100-year s 050 1 0 Modeled Erosion Rate (tons acre . t : Coverage: 23 states, excluding Alaska and Hawaii Note: As an initial step in this analysis, model runs assume an un< 1 Source: USDA, Forest Service. 'National Report on Sustainable Foresi 5-22 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forest;;? C-napter 5 ;- tcological C^ondition ------- Processes beyond the range of historic variation - Category 2 The Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) program (USDA, FS, 2002) provided one of the few examples of an indicator that considers the essential ecological attribute of natural disturbance. The FHM pro- gram analyzed Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data on climatic events, fire frequency, and insect and disease outbreaks between 1996 and 2000. These data were compared to anecdotal data from 1800 to 1850 to determine whether recent patterns in such inci- dents were beyond the range of historic variation. The FIA data were also compared to data from between 1978 and 1995 to determine if they were beyond the range of "recent" variation. What the Data Show A number of incidents were determined to be outside the range of recent variation in natural disturbance: • El Nino during 1997 to 2000. • A 1998 ice storm in the Northeast. • Total area burned in the West during 1996, 1998, and 2000, and the total area burned nationwide in 2000. • Outbreaks of spruce beetle in 1996, spruce budworm in 1997, and southern pine beetle in 2000. Indicator Caps and Limitations Several limitations are associated with this indicator: 11 This analysis was limited by the lack of metric data (actual measurements) available to describe conditions from 1800 to 1850. • A relatively complete data set for major forest insects and diseases exists for the period 1979 to 2000, but these data are too recent for establishing a historical baseline. Data Sources The data sources for this indicator were the Forest Inventory and Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1979-1995); and National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003-Final Draft, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-41, for more information.) Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? 5-23 ------- _^_—~~,——. n..i nu-.T,- —r-riTTirri i^t\as •:i.?,;!.!.•..• s . •• •: «.•,:<• /.i' /,; • > i:' c"i: „••!I ,,i:, I':».L• •:••»!.! •::••: •;;: •:!•:w i; ••:::«< fti'..i-MMi Summary: Tne Ecological Condition of Forests The available data are not, at this point, sufficient to track the progress of EPA's programs as they relate to the ecological condition of forest ecosystems. When the FHM/FIA program indicators are measured nationwide and repeatedly, they will form an important baseline against which to monitor the response of forests and their associated fauna to air pollutants, climate change, and management practices that impact forest ecosystems. At this point, the results of the leaf injury indicator suggest that research and assessment of the actual effects of ozone on forest ecosystems should be continued. The increasing acreage of older forests stands and changes in forest stream hydrology might bear watching inasmuch as these factors alter responses of forest systems to air and water pollutants. Landscape condition The total acreage of forests has remained steady over the past century and, although the acreage of some of the types of forests have changed, none are currently at risk of being lost. Over the past SO years, the amount of non-stocked forest has decreased, while the amount of forest with older trees has increased. Forests are highly fragmented, but most forest land exists in or near the boundaries of large tracts of forest land. Biotic condition Most forest-related species continue to occupy a large portion of their original range. Eleven percent of species dependent on forest land are imperiled (5.7 percent are mammals, 2.3 percent are amphibians, and 1.4 percent are birds). Twenty-five percent of forest bird species have declined since 1975 (mostly in the Southeast), 25 percent have increased (mostly in the North), and 50 percent have stayed approximately the same. These results indicate that some forest habitats may not be supporting all the species they did. historically. Currently no reliable data exist on the condition of biota in forest streams nationally or regionally. Our understanding of the relationship between indicators and biological conservation strate- gies remains weak (Lindenmeyer, et al., 2000). According to available data, 20 percent of forests monitored in the U.S. were observed to exhibit poor tree condition, and 23 percent of biomonitoring plots in the eastern U.S. showed more than a small amount of ozone impact on plant leaves. Severe ozone damage to leaves was observed at 5 percent of the plots. Ecological Processes Annual rates of carbon storage in timberland increased over the three decades between 1953 and 1986 due to increasing age of tim- ber stands and growth of woodlots on what was once farmland. However, annual storage declined in the decade 1987 to 1996, in part because of harvesting in Southeastern forests. Chemical and physical characteristics Nitrate loss from most forests does not af ipear to be resulting in high nitrate concentrations in forest strea ns, but few streams are monitored in .areas where nitrate deposition is high (the. East), and the baseline Is too short to determine whether there are trends in the data. Hydrology and geomorphology With respect to forest streams, there has been a tendency toward VVILIl ICOWtv-i. •" iwi.-—». —— 1 • decreased minimum flow rates in 10 percent of forest streams during the period 1940 through 2000 comparejd to pre-1940, while 25 percent of forest streams had increased minimum flow rates. Five percent of the watersheds had lower! maximum flow rates and \| 25 percent had higher maximum flow ratjs. There were no obvious , trends in maximum flow rates in the decades since 1940, but there was an increase in the minimum flow rate; during that period- ; Increased flows were generally found in tie East, and decreased flows were found in the West. Soil compactibn is a problem on more than 10 percent af the plots in only 10 perce it of monitored forest land. Natural disturbance regimes A number of events were determined tc recent variation in natural disturbance, events, a seivere ice storm in the North be outside the rahge of including two El Nino ;ast, total area burned in the West during three years and the total area burned nationwide in 2000, and several tree pest outbreaks. The ecological conse- . quences of these events are undoubtedly significant, but have not been systematically analyzed. j ": • i • ! Many indicators currently being evaluated by the FlA and FHM programs are not included in this seciioln because the results were; not included in the Forest Service's rrtos}t recent report on'sustain- able forests (USDA, FS, 2002). Becai!is ------- 5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of farmlands: Agricultural practices using high-yielding crop varieties, fertilization, irrigation, and pesticides have contributed substantially to increased food production over the past 50 years (Matson, et al., 1997). These same practices also have altered the biotic interactions in farmlands, with local, regional, and global ecological consequences (Matson, et al., 1997). This report (following The Heinz Center, 2002) defines a farmland as consisting of not only of the lands used to grow crops, but also the field borders, windbreaks, small woodlots, grassland and shrubland areas, wetlands, farmsteads, small villages, and other built-up areas within or adjacent to croplands. These land covers/uses both support agricultural production and provide habi- tat for a variety of wildlife species. Farmlands include lands that grow perennial and annual crops as well as lands that are used to produce forage for livestock. This definition overlaps with other ecosystems; most notably, pastures are considered croplands, but are also con- sidered part of grassland/shrubland ecosystems. Among ecologists concerned with ecological condition, farmlands are often referred to as "agroecosystems." EPA is interested not only in the ecological condition of farmlands, but also in their effects on adjacent ecosystems. Developing and implementing agricultural prac- tices that integrate crop and livestock production with ecologically pj EsseStiaTEc^logrcaiAMKiK'^lE":3L Landscape Condition 1 - - - -'•- • ~ . . - -- -:;:- ; Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Types ^ Landscape Composition \| Landscape Structure/Pattern Biotic Condition • Ecosystems and Communities j Species and Populations •\ Organism Condition I Ecological Processes 1 Energy Flow 3 Material Flow Chemical and Physical Characteristics 1 Nutrient Concentrations . ! • ? Other Chemjcal Parameters ^ Trace Organics and Inorganics 1 • f • E Physical Parameters f .Hydrology and Ceomorphology ^ Surface and Ground Water Flows \| Dynamic Structural Conditions S Sediment and Material Transport F . Natural Disturbance Regimes 8 Frequency 1 Extent 1 Duration ^i%^;i ExhjbitS^ Extent of agricultural land uses The farmland landscape Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water Phosphorus in farmlands, forested and urban streams Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water. Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields Pesticide leaching potential Soil qualify index Soil erosion Sediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelands _ ^ _ ^^^^ _w ^u, tv_ 2^. JiBiBiS 1 • • SUfii 2 a • • • a • •-/: •••'.. : :; ;'-:-. USDA DOI DOI DOI DOI USDA USDA EPA EPA USDA Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? 5-25 ------- EPAs Draft Import on the Environment 20C\|\| • Technical Dpcumlijjt based management practices has become the key for sustainable agriculture (NRC, 1999). Some of the data on farmlands are available through the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Over the past 80 years, NASS has administered the USDA's program of collecting and publishing national and state agricultural statistics. NASS currently publishes more than 400 reports a year covering virtually every facet of U.S. agriculture—production and supplies of food and fiber, prices paid and received by farmers, farm labor and .wages, and farm aspects of the industry. These estimates are based on a statistical area sampling frame that represents the entire land mass of the U.S. The biological indicators currently measured by NASS are primarily related to crop or animal production. However, NASS does not report on indicators of ecological condition. Physical or chemical indicators usually pro- vide information relevant for agronomic production, but also can provide limited information on potential stressors to adjacent terres- trial and aquatic ecosystems such as soil erosion; nitrogen, phospho- rus and pesticide runoff; and phosphorus and nitrate concentrations in farmland streams. In 1990, EPA and the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) undertook an interagency effort to assess the ecological condition of agroecosystems as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). In 1994 and 1995, EMAP piloted a regional-scale assessment in the mid-Atlantic region (Hellkamp, et al., 2000). Some of the resulting indicators used in that pilot are included as Category 2 indicators in this report. These indicators could be measured in other regions and eventually across the nation in conjunction with the NASS annual surveys. The farmland indicators used in this report are displayed in Exhibit 5-16, grouped according to the essential ecological attrib- utes (EEAs). Some indicators relating to the EEAs of farmland landscape condition, the chemical and physical attributes of farm- land streams, and the hydrology of farmland watersheds have been presented in the previous chapters on Better Protected Land and Purer Water, because these indicators also relate to questions about those media. Below, this section briefly summarizes the data for these indicators as they relate to the ecological condition of farmlands. The section then introduces additional indicators that relate to the EEAs of physical and chemical properties of farmland soils and the hydrology and geomorphology contribut- ing to loss of soil from farmlands. Data are insufficient for nation- al reporting on indicators in three of the six categories of EEAs: biotic condition, ecological processes, and natural disturbance regimes (The Heinz Center, 2002). The following indicators presented in previous chapters relate to the ecological condition of farmlands: • According to the indicator Extent of Agricultural Land Uses (Chapter 3, Better Protected Land), croplands total 377 million acres. As of 1997, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands totaled 32;million acres, excluding Alaska (USDA, NRCS, 2000). Between 1982 and 1997, cropland decreased 10.4 percent, from about 4211 million acres to nearly 377 million acres. Of this 44-million 'acre decrease, however, 32.7 million acres are now enrolled in,the CRP, leaving an 11.3 mil(ion acre loss as a result of conversion of croplands to other land uses (USDA, NRCS, 2000). Unfortunately, there is no single, definitive, accurate estimate of ; the extent of cropland. Cropland is a flexible resource that is constantly.being taken in and out of production. In addition, estimates of the amount of land devoted to farming differ because different programs use different methoqs to acquire, define, and analyze their data. For example, The Heiinz Center report assesses; total cropland (including pasture and hayland) as covering between 430 and 500 million acres in [1997, or about a quarter of the total liind area in the U.S. (excluding Alaska). This report does not reconcile these differences, but does acknowledge that there are different estimates. \ ! I The Farmland Landscape indicator (Cha 3ter 3, Better Protected Land) describes the degree to which croplands dominate the landscape and the extent to which oth£r land uses are intermingled (The Heinz Center, 2002). Croplands comprise about half of the larger farmland ecosystems in the East and Southeast and almost three-quarters of the farmland ecosystems ; in the Midwest (The Heinz Center, 20Q2). The remainder of the farmland Ecosystems are forests in the;East, wetlands in the Southeast, and both forests and wetlands in the Midwest. In the j West, about 60 percent of farmland ecosystems are cropland, with grasslands and shrublands dominating the remainder in the western arid northern Plains areas. Forests and grasslands/shrublands are about equal1 in the farmland landscape; for the non-cropland area of the Soutr) Central region. In many areas of the U.S., other land cover typ£s are almost as prevalent as croplands land can provide habitat for non-agronomic species. ! I The indicator Nitrate in Farmland, Forested, and Urban Streams and Ground Water (Chapter 2, Purer Water) shows the loss of nitrate from agricultural watersheds, usually indicating the extent to which nitrogen fertilizer is lost or animal manure reaches streams via runoff or ground water. Sampling in areas where agriculture is the primary land use found that about 50 percent of the 52 stream sites sampled and 45 percent of the ground yater wells sampled had nitrate concentrations greater than 2 p\|W About 20 percent of the ground waiter sites and 10 percent of^tne stream sites sampled had nitrate concentrations exceeding the drinking water nitrate standard of 10 ppm. These figures are much higher than the nitrate concentrations in forest streams (The hjeinz Center, 2002). n The indicator Phosphorus in Farmland, Forested, and Urban Streams' (Chapter 2, Purer Water), shows the Icjss of phosphorus from agricultural watersheds, again usually indicating losses from fertilizer Jind animal manures. Total phosphorus concentrations in farmland .streams were reported in foui" classes in the Heinz report: < 0.1 ppm, 0.1 -0.3 ppm, 0.3-0.5 ppm, and > 0.5 pprn (The Heinz 5-26 5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? Chapter 5 - Icologica .1 Condition ------- Center, 2002). EPA has set new regional criteria for phosphorous concentration, ranging from 0.023 to 0.076 ppm, to protect streams in agricultural ecosystems from eutrophication. The criteria vary according to differences in ecoregions, soil types, climate, and land use. The Heinz Center (2002) reports that about 75 percent of farmland streams had phosphorous concentrations greater than 0.1 ppm, thus exceeding any of EPA's criteria for eutrophication. Fifteen percent had phosphorous concentrations equal to or exceeding 0.5 ppm (The Heinz Center, 2002). Average phosphorous concentrations in farmland streams were similar to phosphorous concentrations .measured in urban streams. As with nitrate concentrations, forest streams had lower phosphorous concentrations than farmland or urban streams. I The indicator Pesticides in Farmland Streams and Ground Water (Chapter 2, Purer Water), captures the extent to which chemical conditions in streams may exceed the tolerance limits for aquatic communities. All streams monitored by the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program in farmland areas had at least one pesticide at detectable 'levels throughout the year (The Heinz Center, 2002). About 75 percent of these streams had an average of five or more pesticides at detectable levels, and more than 80 percent of the streams had at least one pesticide whose concentration exceeded the applicable aquatic life guideline. About 60 percent of ground water wells sampled in agricultural areas had at least one pesticide at detectable levels. A relatively . small number of these chemicals—specifically the herbicides atrazine (and its breakdown product desethylatrazine), metalachlor, cyanazine, and alachlor—accounted for most detections. I The Potential Pesticide Runoff from Farm Fields indicator (Chapter 3, Better Protected Land) identifies the potential for movement of agricultural pesticides by surface water runoff in watersheds nationwide, based on factors known to be important determinants of pesticide loss. These factors include: 1) soil characteristics, 2) historical pesticide use, 3) chemical properties of the pesticides used, 4) annual rainfall and its relationship to runoff, and 5) major field crops grown. The indicator uses 1992 as a baseline. Watersheds with high scores (i.e., the 4th quartile of runoff estimates) have a greater risk of pesticide contamination of surface water than do those with low scores (i.e., the 1 st quartile of runoff estimates). The highest potential for pesticide runoff is projected for the central U.S., primarily in the upper and lower Mississippi River valley and the Ohio River valley. These areas are part of the "breadbasket" of the U.S., where pesticide application is highest. Many of the western watersheds have not been assessed. The hydrologic attribute indicator Sediment Runoff Potential from Croplands and Pasturelands (Chapter 3, Better Protected Land), captures the loss of valuable soil from the farmland, sediment impacts to the physical habitat of farmland streams, and transport of many pollutants to downstream lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries. This indicator combines land cover, weather patterns, and soils information in a process model thatjncorporates hydrologic cycling, weather, sedimentation, crop growth, and agricultural management to estimate the amount of sediment that could potentially be delivered to rivers and streams in each watershed. The highest potential for sediment runoff is concentrated in the central U.S., predominately associated with the upper Mississippi River valley and the Ohio River valley. Most of the western U.S. region is characterized by low runoff potential. The other three indicators in Exhibit 5-16, described on the following pages, appear for the first time in this chapter. Chapter 5 - tcological Condition 5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? 5-27 ------- Pesticide leaching potential - Category 2 Retention of pesticides in their target areas maximizes pesticide efficiency and minimizes off-site contamination (Hellkamp, et al., 2000). Pesticide leaching not only can contaminate surface and ground water, but also can have both chronic and acute toxic effects on non-target organisms, such as fish, birds, and other wildlife. This leaching potential is affected by soil properties, rain- fall and runoff, pesticide chemistry, and other factors. The indica- tor was used as part of the NASS survey approach, so it has the potential for national application. What the Data Show During the 1994-1995 period, there were about 13.5 million acres of cropland in the Mid-Atlantic region (Hellkamp et al, 2000). Although a large proportion of these 13.5 million acres had soils with properties conducive to pesticide leaching, the authors estimate that 50 percent (6.75 million acres) of the cropland received no pesticide application. Also, pesticides with moderately high to high leaching potentials were seldom applied to croplands with highly to very highly leachable soils. Consequently, only about 1 million acres (less than 10 percent of the total cropland acreage) was at moderately high to high risk for loss of pesticides from the on-farm target area (Hellkamp, et al., 2000). Indicator Gaps and Limitations The limitations of this indicator include the following: • The pesticide leaching potential indicator has only been applied in the mid^Atlantic region and has not been tested or applied in other regions. It has the potential to be applied in other areas, but it will have to be adjusted for regional differences. • Data collection occurred only during 1994 and 1995. Data Source ; : ; i • , - The data source for this indicator was the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994-1995). (See Appendix B, page B\|-fl, for more information.) 5-28 5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition ------- Soil quality index - Category 2 A Soil Quality Index (SQI) was developed and measured for agroecosystems in the mid-Atlantic region in 1994 and 1995 (Hess, et al., 2000; Hellkamp, et al., 2000). The SQI includes indicators of soil attributes, including physical (i.e., clay content, cation exchange capacity, base saturation), chemical (i.e., PH, sodium adsorption ratio, total nitrogen, total carbon, organic car- bon/clay), and biological (i.e., microbial biomass). The SQI score is an average of eight numerical ratings (McQuaid and Olson, 1998) (Hellkamp, et al., 2000). The high soil quality range begins at SQI scores of 2.4, while the range of low SQI scores is from 0.0 to 1.6. While the SQI is an indicator of the capacity of the soil to support plant growth and is related primarily to agri- cultural productivity, it can also provide information on the capacity of the site to support non-agronomic plants. This indicator was used as part of the MASS survey approach, so it has the potential for national application. What the Data Show SQI scores were obtained for the five-state mid-Atlantic region in 1994 and 1995 (Hellkamp, et al., 2000) (Exhibit 5-17). In 1994, the mean SQI score was 2.23 (CI9 = 2.17 to 2.29); in 1995, the mean SQI was 1.98 (CI = 1.73 to 2.23). The difference in SQI scores between 1994 and 1995 was due to different index calculation pro- cedures and sampling variability. SQI scores were lower in tilled soils compared with unfilled soils, such as hay fields, in both 1994 and 1995. Unfilled sites had higher microbial biomass values than con- ventional or reduced tillage sites in both years Evaluation of the individual factors related to the moderate SQI scores indicated that cation exchange capacity (1994), carbon (total 1994, organic 1995), and microbial biomass (1995) had the lowest val- ues (Hellkamp, et al., 2000). 9The confidence interval (CI) of the mean is a range of values (interval) with a known probability (confidence, in this case ,95 percent) of containing the true population mean. The 1994 measured SQI scores are only a sample Increasing the carbon content of soils might increase their capac- ity to support plant growth. Retaining or adding crop residues to the soils could increase both the carbon content and substrate for microbial activity. Crop residues can also reduce soil erosion and associated transport of nutrients and pesticides off the field. Nutrients and pesticides contribute to negative effects on aquatic receiving systems. Indicator Caps and Limitations Data are available only for the mid-Atlantic region for 2 years. The indicator has the potential to be applied in other areas, but it will have to be adjusted for regional differences. Data Source The data source for this indicator was the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994- 1995). (See Appendix B, page B-41 for more information.) "'«1 I?I,9ji?^ri-t!lage systems Anligilai^iqQ^anfJ }$95_. ; 1.5 r» nj ------- _-,-_. EFAs Draft Report gn the Environmen Inaicafell Soil oil erosion -Qb JSV :egory. 7 Sediment resulting from soil erosion and transport is the greatest pollutant in aquatic ecosystems, both by mass and volume (EPA, OW, August 2002). Soil particles also can transport sorbed nutri- ents and pesticides and carry these into aquatic systems where these constituents contribute to water quality problems. Agricultural soil erosion decreases soil quality and can reduce soil fertility, and soil movement can make normal cropping practices difficult (The Heinz Center, 2002). Soil erosion and transport can occur both by wind and by water. Soil erosion estimates were calculated using the U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic unit codes watersheds (8-digit HUCs), National Resources Inventory soils data, the Universal Soil Loss Equation (Renard, etal., 1997), and the Wind Erosion Equation (Bondy, et al., 1980; Skidmore and Woodruff, 1968). Soil parameters were obtained from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service database. Indicator Gaps and Limitations This indicator provides estimates for the initiation of soil move- ment, not sediment transport or delivery 'off farmlands, which would require additional measurements and calculations. The dis- tance the soil particles are moved might lie considerable or mini- mal and cannot be determined from soil erosion estimates. Data Sources The data sources for this indicator were the National Resources Inventory, U.S. Department of Agriculturj (1982-1997); and the State Soil Geographic Database (STATSCO), U.S. Department of Agriculture (1982-1997). (See Appendix) B, page B-42, for more information.) What the Data Show The acreage of U.S. farmland with the greatest potential for wind erosion decreased by almost 33 percent to about 63 million acres from 1982 to 1997 (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-18). This acreage represents about IS per- cent of the total cropland in the U.S. The acreage with the greatest potential for water erosion also decreased by about 33 percent to 89 million acres, which represents about 22 percent of U.S. cropland (The Heinz Center, 2002). Reductions in erosion can occur through improved tilling or management practices, taking marginal land out of production, participation in the Conservation Reserve Program, or similar activities. These reductions not only can contribute to increased soil quality, but also improved water quality in adjacent and downstream aquatic ecosystems. • ..lyyrKB^ft. Exhibit 5-18: Crop ands most prone to erosion, IQ97 ;. :"":; : :; Croplands ijj gsi prone to wind erosion , l"§97 ;/. '} . ^ "l^Ssf Each dot ec\|uals 20,000 acres of cropland that is ,most prone to erosion. X' i> _\_if UlCrpplands Kst prone to water erosion, KJK :": Coverage: lower 48 stages. "j ;, "I'S;:.™; «:3E ;w'3S irarann v Note: data coyer cropland. Each dot equals 20,000 acres of cropland that is most prone to ;:w_ajer;erosipn.^,£ ;raffi:;1an<3s,"'l:iut'hot pasture'; - ;:' mJP!BSJWlWMww^m^lltD«j4^«to»^r^i4^'-^v-v? V.1 .^-''iL'!'' " ' ^ Notion s Ecosystems. 2002. Data from the 5-30 5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? Ckapter 5 - Ecological Condition ------- Summary: The Ecological Condition of Farmlands Farmlands represent a significant portion of the landscape, but their ecological condition nationally, or even for most regions, is unknown. In a limited number of watersheds in which agricultural lands are the predominant land use, data indicate that concentrations of nitrate, phosphorus, and many contaminants are above levels of concern, but these data are not available for a representative sample of streams that could serve as a baseline for water quality management deci- sions for the entire U.S. No data for national indicators are available for three of the six essential ecological attributes, and many of the indicators for the other EEAs relate primarily to crop or livestock production. Habitat alteration and constituent loading from farm- lands represent some of the major stressors on other ecosystems (see Chapter'2, Purer Water, and Chapter 3, Better Protected Land, for discussion of specific stressors.) Landscape condition While there is no single, definitive, accurate estimate of the extent of cropland, it has been estimated to have decreased by 10.4 percent between 1982 and 199? from about 421 million acres to nearly 377 million acres. Of this 44-million acre decrease, 32.7 million acres are now enrolled in the CRP, leaving an 11.3 million acre loss as a result of conversion of croplands to other land uses. The Heinz report assesses total cropland (including pasture and hayland) as covering between 430 and 500 million acres in 1997, or about a quarter of the total land area in the U.S. (excluding Alaska). In many areas of the U.S., other land cover types within croplands are almost as prevalent as croplands themselves and can provide habitat for non-agronomic species. For example, croplands comprise only half of the larger farmland ecosystems in the East and Southeast and about three-quarters of the farmland ecosystems in the Midwest. This situ- ation suggests that much of the farmland in the country supports more biodiversity and associated ecological processes than if it were more completely monoculture. Indicators for fragmentation of farm- land landscapes by development and the shape of "natural" patches in farmland landscapes would be helpful additional indicators of landscape condition (The Heinz Center, 2002). Chemical and physical characteristics The physical and chemical characteristics of farmlands could provide information to measure national progress in controlling and manag- ing non-point source pollutant transport to receiving waters under EPA's clean water Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goal. Unfortunately, many of the indicators for physical and chemical characteristics are estimated based on land use, rather than on measurements of water quality. The National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program provides consistent and comparable information on nutrient and pesticide concentrations in streams in agricultural areas. The data show that nitrate and phosphorus con- centrations in farmland streams are generally higher than in urban and suburban streams, and that more than 80 percent of the streams sampled had at least one pesticide whose concentration exceeded guidelines for protection of aquatic life. The sites sampled do not represent a probability sample and are too few to ensure that these data are representative of farmlands nationwide. Additional stream monitoring networks are required to assess the physical and chemical characteristics of streams in agricultural areas and the effectiveness of agricultural management practices for protecting or improving stream quality. A pesticide leaching potential indicator and a so/7 quality index indicate that only 10 percent of the soils in the mid- Atlantic region were highly leachable with respect to pesticides, and that soil quality was in the "moderate" range, but the indicator has not been widely applied elsewhere. Hydrology and geomorphology Sediment Runoff results in loss of valuable soil from the farmland, sed- iment impacts to the physical habitat of farmland streams, and trans- port of many pollutants to downstream lakes, reservoirs, and estuar- ies. The highest potential for sediment runoff is concentrated in upper Mississippi River valley and the Ohio River valley. Most of the western U.S. region is characterized by low runoff potential. Between 1982 and 1997, the acreage with the greatest potential for water erosion decreased by about 33 percent to 89 million acres, which represents about 22 percent of U.S. cropland. Wind can also erode soil. The acreage of U.S. farmland with the greatest potential for wind erosion decreased by almost 33 percent to about 63 million acres from 1982 to 1997, about 15 percent of the total cropland in the U.S. There were no indicators of hydrology available for either surface or ground water associated with agricultural ecosystems. Modification or elimination of wetlands and riparian areas con- tributes to hydrologic alteration of farmlands, as does agricultural irrigation, primarily in the western states. This consumption affects not only surface water through irrigation return flows, but also ground water through depletion of aquifers. Both water quantity and quality can be affected in farmlands. No national, representative monitoring programs exist for either the quantity or quality of water in farmlands. No Category 1 or 2 indicators were available for this report for biot- ic condition, ecological processes, or natural disturbance regimes. The Heinz Center (2002) suggested that several indicators could be promising: soil biological condition, status of animal species in farm- land areas, native vegetation in areas dominated by cropland, and stream habitat quality. An indicator of ant diversity and wildlife habi- tat also was developed and tested in the mid-Atlantic region by the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program (MAIA). Data are insuf- ficient, however, to report on agroecosystems nationally for any of these indicators (Hellkamp, et al., 2000; The Heinz Center, 2002). A particular problem in farmlands is establishing appropriate reference conditions for biological structure and ecosystem function measures (The Heinz Center, 2002). Agricultural systems are highly managed ecosystems, so no natural reference exists. It would be unrealistic to expect fish and invertebrate communities in farmlands to be compa- rable to relatively undisturbed forest or grassland ecosystems. Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? 5-31 ------- 5.U What Is the Ecological Condition or Grasslands and Scrublands f Grasslands and shrublands include lands in which the dominant veg- etation is grasses or other non-woody vegetation, or where shrubs and scattered trees are typical (The Heinz Center, 2002). This ecosystem type includes chaparral, deserts, mountain shrublands, range lands, Florida grasslands, and non-cultivated pastures. Grasslands and shrublands also can be used for grazing, so some land use summaries may include them in estimates of farmlands. Grasslands and shrublands include lands revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a non-crop plant cover that is managed like native vegetation. The vast majority of grasslands and shrublands occur in the western U.S. Collectively, these ecosystems constitute over one-third of the area in the conterminous U.S. Environmental issues associated with grassland and shrubland ecosystems include introduction of non-native and invasive species, desertification, ground water depletion, and overgrazing. Several fed- eral agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, National Park Service) have responsibility for the majority of publicly owned grasslands and shrublands. Ecological indicators used in this report for grassland and shrubland ecosystems are listed in Exhibit 5-19. The Heinz report serves as the primary source of information for this ecological resource (The Heinz Center, 2002). The following indicators presented in previous chap- ters relate to the ecological condition of grasslands and shrublands: • The Extent of Grasslands and Shrublands indicator (Chapter 3, Better Protected Land) reveals that grasslands and shrublands occupy about 861 million acres or just over one-third of the land area in the conterminous U.S. states. Alaska contains about 205 million acres of grasslands and shrublands. • Number/Duration of Dry Stream Flow Periods in Grasslands and Shrublands (Chapter 2, Purer Water) is ajn important indicator of the hydrology of grasslands and shrublahds. This indicator shows that the percentage of no-flow periods jias decreased in all grassland and shrubland regions of the West (The Heinz Center, 2002). The percentage of no-flow periods was similar in 1950 and 1960 and then decreased in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The 1980s was- a relatively wet period and experienced some of the smallest percentages of no-flow period^ over the 50-year period on record. W duration of zero-flow periods also decreased during the'period from the 1970s throijgh the 1990s, compared to the 1950s and 1960s (The Heinz Center, 2002). • ' ! \ The two biotic structure indicators in Exhibit 5-19, described on the following pages, appear for the first time jn this chapter: At-Risk Native Species and Population Trends of Invasive and Native, Non-inva- sive Birds. I 5-32 5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? Chapter! 4 - Ecological Condition ------- lecnn nrca b/oGuraent - Exhibit 5-19= Grasslands and snruDiands indicators Landscape Composition Landscape Structure/Pattern Biotic Condition Ecosystems and Communities At-risk native grassland and shrubland species Population trends in invasive and native non-invasive bird species NatureServe DOI Species and Populations Organism Condition Ecological Processes Energy Flow Material Flow 1— Chemical and Physical Characteristics Nutrient Concentrations Other Chemical Parameters Trace Organics and Inorganics Physical Parameters t Hydrology and Geomorphology Surface and Ground Water Flows Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in grasslands/shrublands DOI Dynamic Structural Conditions Sediment and Material Transport Natural Disturbance Regimes Frequency Extent Duration Chapter 5 - tcological (Condition 5.4 What Is the Ecological Condition of Grasslands and Shrublands? 5-33 ------- £^^ ^isten^^ife At-risR native grassland and snrubland species - C-ategpry 2 i Native species contribute substantially to the goods and services provided by grasslands and shrublands. These species have evolved in and adapted to the reange of environmental conditions that has occurred in grassland and shrubland ecosystems over thousands of years. While species extinction is a natural geologic phenomenon, the extinction of species has increased over the past 100 years (Vitousek, et al., 1997), and many ecologists believe that ecosystem function and resilience is related to biodi- versity (Naeem, et al,, 1999), so that preserving biodiversity is critical for sustainable ecosystems. Whether or not this is always the case10 many people believe that more species is preferable to fewer species. What the Data Show About 3.5 percent of native grassland and shrubland animal species are critically imperiled, 6 percent are imperiled, and 0.5 percent are or might be extinct (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-20). When vulnerable species (7 percent) are counted, I: I1! I • txnibit 5-2O: 7\t-risk native grassland e nd snrubland species, by risk category, 20f)0 about 17 percent of grassland and shrubland animal species are considered "at risk." • : i Indicator Gaps and Limitations The data for this indicator are not from aisije-based monitoring pro- gram, but rather from a census approach that focuses on the loca- tion and distribution of at-risk species. Determining whether species are naturally rare or have been depleted is currently not possible. It is not clear that trends can be quantified with any precision. Data Source \| i The data source for this indicator was Thk State of the Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from NatureServe Explorer database. (See Appendix B, page Ei-42, for more information.) ' ™j->lt { iff 1 "I i 1 Partial Indicator Data: Grassland and "D ;; c 25 ,=!i ::: (j O. •F :1\|IOI!!&' 20- = ' "' 1C. ^S -T-I I -J c ro 10- H tftj 2000 Extinct Critically Imperiled Imperiled Vulnerable All At-Risk \ J Future '" j. Coverage: all 50 states. \| Source: The Heinz Center. The State dfthe Nation's E&jsystems. 2002. Is Data from NatureServe and its Natural Heritage member ' ' '•' ams. f t t ,, f I * ,1 J a \j* ft L A4tu«lK '"An ongoing debate exists within the scientific community on the importance of species diversity in sustaining ecosystem function (Tilman and Downing. 1994; Crime, 1997; Hodgson, et al., 1998; Wardle, et al., 2000) 5-34 5.4 What Is the Ecological Condition of Grasslands and Shrublands? Chapter 5 - Ecological Conditi dition ------- topulation trends of invasive and native, non-invasive birds - Category 1 Bird species are mobile and can respond quickly to environmental change (The Heinz Center, 2002). The Heinz report uses an indi- cator of population trends in invasive and non-invasive birds to determine if invasive bird species are increasing more than other bird populations (The Heinz Center, 2002). Invasive species are defined as non-native species (species that are not native to North America or that are now found outside their historic range) that spread aggressively. Some invasive bird species increase when the landscape becomes more fragmented or stress on the ecologi- cal system increases. The invasive species considered for grassland and shrublands are believed to be indicative of agricultural conver- sion, landscape fragmentation due to suburban and rural develop- ment, and the spread of exotic vegetation (The Heinz Center, 2002). Native, non-invasive species are considered to reflect rela- tively intact, high-quality native grasslands and shrublands (The Heinz Center, 2002). What the Data Show Since the late 1960s, invasive and non-invasive bird species increased in similar proportions until the period 1996 to 2000, when invasive species increased significantly (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-21). This increase might represent a short-term fluctuation in bird populations, or it could be a sign of changing ecosystem condition. Continued monitoring of bird populations and indicators in other essential ecological attributes is required to evaluate these changes. Indicator Caps and Limitations The limitations of this indicator include the following: • The calculation method could mask increases or decreases in particular species. The two groups of birds contain species that differ in their habitats, relative abundance, and range, and bird populations normally fluctuate from year to year. If half the species in one of the groups were to increase and the other half to decrease over a given period, no consistent change would appear for that group (The Heinz Center, 2002). • The recent period of change is too short to provide an indication of a possible increasing trend in invasive bird species. Data Source The data source for this indicator was the Breeding Bird Survey, U.S. Geological Service (1966-2000). (See Appendix B, page B-42, for more information.) If" txnibit 5-21: Topulation tiends of invasive and native, non-invasive birds, 1966-2OOO TOO 80 feo 60 40 20 O Tl * « rilli i Native, non-invasive Invasive t1966- 1971- 1976- 1981- 1986- 1991- 1996- 1970 1975 1980 1985, 1990 1995" 2000 \|g5verage:^elected grassland and shrubland areas. gpoprce: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. Data from the ', Breeding Bird Survey; analysis by W. Mark Roberts. Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.4 What Is the Ecological Condition of Grasslands and Shrublands? 5-35 ------- '! fr irrs ;ni^^^^^^^^^^^ ill" mftsil Urait Report ;Q^^ BlimlMllillillllllBlllilllilllllllllliiiBllillllllillli BilBBBIBB ••••liilllllliilftiliilliliii •••••••iMiiiBiiii""'i"»^i»«ii«iiiBlliiil'HPiiHEmm"m"i"Lffili"™i Summary: The Ecological Condition of Grasslands and jnrublanas Grassland and shrubland ecosystems are at risk from the introduc- tion of non-native and invasive species, desertification, ground water depletion, and overgrazing. Few ecological indicators are currently being measured at a national or regional scale, and this situation is unlikely to change in the near future, so the overall ecological condi- tion of the nation's grasslands and shrublands is and will remain effectively unknown. Landscape condition The extent of grasslands and shrublands can be estimated from National Land Cover Database (NLCD) information. Grasslands and shrublands occupy about 861 million acres or just over one- third of the land area in the conterminous U.S. Alaska contains about 205 million acres of grasslands and shrublands. This is a diverse group of ecosystems, however, ranging from Florida grasslands to the Mohave desert, and land use information is not readily available for all of them. Biotic condition At-risk native species and population trends in invasive and non-inva- sive birds are two indicators that can provide information on the sta- tus of, and change in, biotic condition. About 3.5 percent of native grassland and shrubland animal species are critically imperiled, 6 percent are imperiled, and 0.5 percent are or might be extinct. When vulnerable species (7 percent) are counted, about 17 percent of grassland and shrubland animal species are considered "at risk." However, there is no context in which to interpret the at-risk native species data. The proportion of species that would naturally be rare is unknown. Invasive species are believed to be indicative of agricul- tural conversion, landscape fragmentation due to suburban and rural development, and the spread of exotic vegetation, whereas native, non-invasive species are considered to reflect relatively intact, high- quality native grasslands and shrublands. Until recently, invasive and non-invasive bird species have changed in similar proportions, but from 1996 to 2000, invasive species increased significantly. This might be a short-term fluctuation in bird populations, or it could be a sign of changing ecosystem condition. Information on stream biota in grasslands and shrublands are needed to be able to assess the condition of grassland and shrubland streams, especially as it may be affected by grazing. Hydrology and geomorphology Periods of no !flow can certainly be stressfiil to aquatic communities of grasslands and shrublands, and may ind cate harm to the vegeta- tion during drought periods. The Number/Duration of Dry Stream Flow Periods indicator has decreased in all grassland and shrubtand regions! of the West. The percentage of no-flow periods was similar in 1950 > and 1960 and then decreased in the 19^0s, 1980s, and 1990s. The \| duration of zero-flow periods also decreased during the period from the 1970s through the 1990s, compared to the 1950s and 1960s. ', Currently, dry stream flow periods are nbtj monitored nationally. i • '. There were no Category 1 or 2 indicators available for this report for ecological processes, physical and chemical c laracteristics, or natural disturbance regimes for grasslands and shrublands. 5-36 5.4 What Is the Ecological Condition of Grasslands and Shrublands? Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition ------- 5.5 What Is the Ecological Condition of Urban and juouroan Areas? Urban and suburban ecosystems are areas where the majority of the land is devoted to or dominated by buildings, houses, roads, con- crete, grassy lawns, or other elements of human use and construc- tion (The Heinz Center, 2002). Urban ecosystems are highly built-up and paved over, resulting in more rapid changes in temperature, runoff, and other variables than in more natural ecosystems. Plant and animal life is heavily influenced by species introduced in horti- culture and as pets, and native plant species might be more or less completely removed from large areas and replaced by lawns, gardens, and ornamentals (WRI, 2000). These areas generally show high lev- els of many air and water pollutants because of the concentration of pollutant sources in small areas. Nonetheless, substantial biodiversity Exhibit 5-22: Urban and suburban ind • essential ecological AttriDute . ~+~-^=~- j Landscape Condition f . — •• • ' -nrr,,. ,.nnrlf»rT . ., S Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Type Landscape Composition Landscape Structure/Pattern f Biotic Condition s: Ecosystems and Communities E Species and Populations I Organism Condition S Ecological Processes m - E: Energy flow £ Material Flow : Chemical and Physical Characteristics i: Nutrient Concentrations i! \| Other Chemical Parameters \| Trace Organics and Inorganics . Physical Parameters 1 Hydrology and Geomorphology t Surface and Ground Water Flows' 1 Dynamic Structural Conditions : Sediment and Material Transport Natural Disturbance Regimes A Frequency ? Extent 5 Duration •••••••••••••ill i ,., ,„,,,„,,, ,_„.,..„. •feiiiiiiiiiiiSiS^ 'H " i" Extent of urban and suburban lands Patches of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland in urban/suburban areas Nitrate in farmland, forested and urban streams and ground water Phosphorus in farmland, forested and urban streams Chemical contamination in urban streams and ground water Ambient concentrations of ozone, 8-hour and 1 -hour 1 • HI 'J:ijj»!jfc* 2 • • • • \|^M\|E^W^liHg USDA DOI DOI DOI DOI EPA Giapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.5 What Is the Ecological Condition of Urban and Suburban Areas? 5-37 ------- EiVKs Draft feJDbrt dri the Envirofjrrfent 2^^g can remain in these systems; for example, a 1993 survey identified 115 bird species in Washington, DC (Hadidian, et al., 1997). There is substantial interest in understanding urban and suburban ecosystems, as evidenced by two urban National Science Foundation long-term ecological research sites (Phoenix and Baltimore), a pro- fessional journal, Urban Ecosystems and a number of recent writings on the subject (Pickett, et al., 2001; Kinzig and Grove, 2001; Grimm, et al., 2002). Much of urban ecosystems research is aimed not at preserving natural ecosystems, but at "smart growth" and under- standing how to enhance ecosystem services in a highly built envi- ronment Despite the growing amount of research, the entire science of urban ecosystem ecology is not sufficiently developed to have a substantial number of ecological indicators. In addition, there may be a lack of understanding regarding what to expect when applying indi- cators typically used in less built-up land cover classes to urban and suburban ecosystems. The Heinz report lists eight indicators for urban and suburban ecosystems, only two of which have adequate data for national reporting. Indicators for urban and suburban ecosystems used in this report are listed in Exhibit S-22, grouped according to essential ecological attributes. Extent and chemical and physical condition data are the most widely available. There were no indicators for biotic condition, ecological processes, hydrology and geomorphology, or natural dis- turbance regimes for urban and suburban ecosystems suitable for national or even regional reporting (The Heinz Center, 2002). This section summarizes data related to urban and suburban ecosys- tems for five indicators, most of them relating to pollutant concen- trations, that appear in earlier chapters. The section then introduces one indicator that appears for the first time in this report—Patches of Forest, Grassland, Shrubland, and Wetland in Urban/Suburban Areas—which relates to the landscape essential ecological attribute. The following indicators presented in previous chapters relate to the ecological condition of urban and suburban areas: m The indicator Extent of Urban and Suburban Lands (Chapter 3, Better Protected Land) was assessed using the National Land Cover Database and estimating the proportion of the area in 1,000 foot pixels that fell into one of four developed land cover types: low-intensity residential; high-intensity residential; commercial-industrial-transportation; or urban and recreational grasses (The Heinz Center, 2002). In 1992, urban and suburban areas occupied about 32 million acres in the conterminous U.S. or about 1.7 percent of the total land area (The Heinz Center, 2002). As with the estimate of the extent of farmlands, urban and suburban areas are defined differently by different organizations, sometimes using different data sources, thus affecting the area estimates. For example, the Extent of Developed Lands indicator in Chapter 3, Better Protected Land is based on USDA National Resources Inventory delineation of developed lands, which is about 98 million acres in the conterminous U.S., or about 4.3 percent of the total land area of the li.si, not including Alaska (see Chapter 3, Better Protected Land).; The indicator Ambient Concentrations ofQzone, 8-hour and 1-hour (Chapter 1J Cleaner Air) revealed that irj 1999, about 55 percent of the urban and suburban monitoring stations had high ozone concentrations on 4 or more days, and jhat the percentage fluctuated between 35 percent and 60 percent during the 1990s (The Heinz'Center, 2002). The number\|of sites with 10 days or- more of high ozone fluctuated between J20 and 30 percent of the sites, with no apparent trend, but the njimber of sites v/ith high , ozone on 25 days or more decreased from about 10 percent to around 5 percent over the decade. Fluctuations are caused in part by changes in the weather. As noted in {he section on forests, biomonitoring plots frequently reveal at least some ozone damage to tree leaves. j I The indicator Nitrate in Farmland, Forested, and Urban Streams and Ground Water (Chapter 2, Purer Water), 21 streams in which the predominant \i shows that 40 percent of nd use was urban and suburban had nitrate concentrations above 1.0 ppm; 25 percent had concentrations below 0.5 ppm; and 3 percent had concentrations below 0.1 ppm (The Heinz Center, 2002). Concentrations of nitrate in these urban streams were generally lower than those of agricultural watersheds, but higher than those in forested watersheds. I The indicator Phosphorus in Farmland, Forested, and Urban Streams (Chapter 2, Purer Water) showed that two-thirds of 21 urban ; streams sampled had phosphorus concentrations of at least 0.1 ppm, a level usually associated with excess algal growth (The Heinz Center, 2002). About 10 percent of the urban streams had concentrations of at least 0.5 ppm. , I According to the indicator Chemical Contamination in Streams and • Ground Water (Chapter 2, Purer Water}, 85 percent of 21 urban streams sampled had an average of ab(j>ut five detectable contaminants throughout the year (Th\|e Heinz Center, 2002). All of the streams had at least one chemicjal that exceeded guidelines 'for the protection of aquatic life. For rtjany urban and suburban streams, the nutrient and contaminant signature is similar to the signatures; from agroecosystems (The Heinz Center, 2002; Wickhanvetal., 2002). ' The following indicator, Patches of Forest, ^Grassland, Shrubland, and . Wetland in Urban/Suburban Areas, provides data on landscape condi- tion in urbaii and suburban areas. . . 5-38 5.5 What Is the Ecological Condition of Urban and Suburban Areas? Chapter 5 • Ecological Condition ------- Fatcnes of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland in urban /suburban areas - Category 2 Patches of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland in urban/sub- urban areas provide habitat for birds, amphibians, and small mam- mals. They also increase water infiltration and reduce temperature by evapotranspiration. Patches of urban and suburban vegetation generally reduce particulate matter, and they can increase or decrease ozone concentrations, relative to built surfaces (Nowak, et al., 2000). According to The Heinz Center (2002), the size of patches of undeveloped land in urban and suburban areas is important, with smaller patches generally considered to provide poorer quality habitat. Recent studies have indicated a significant loss of forest patch coverage in Atlanta and Baltimore in the last several decades (American Forests, 2001, 2002). What the Data Show Around half of the undeveloped land in urban and suburban areas occurs in patches smaller than 10 acres (Exhibit 5-23). Urban and suburban areas in the Northeast have the largest percentage of large (1,000 to 10,000 acres) patches of undeveloped land. Patches of undeveloped land larger than 10,000 acres occur only in urban and suburban areas of the West. Indicator Gaps and Limitations Several limitations are associated with this indicator: • Natural patches may extend beyond the boundary of the "urban and suburban area" land use class, which would cause the size of the patches to be undere'stimated. • Very small patches are difficult to distinguish if they are mixed with developed classes, which also leads to underestimates. • Remote sensing cannot distinguish between land that has always been "non-urban" and patches, such as landfills, that have reverted to grasslands or forest. • Patch size is not the only factor that contributes to habitat quality (The Heinz Center, 2002). Data Source The data source for this indicator was the National Land Cover Database, Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium (1990s). (See Appendix B, page B-43, for more information.) txnibit 5-23: Fatcnes of forest, grassland, snrubland, and wetland in urban and suburban areas, 1992 fct-o. 100 80 60 40 ^20 0 , „ _ Northeast South Midwest Coverage: lower 48 states Less than 10 acres 10 to 100 acres 100 to 1,000 acres ; 1,000 to 10,000 acres : . Greater than 10,000 acres West Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. Data from Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, and the USCS Earth Resources Observations Systems Data Center. Cnapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.5 What Is the Ecological Condition of Urban and Suburban Areas? 5-39 ------- Summary: The Ecological Condition of Urban and Suburban Ecosysten ems Urban and suburban systems have been the subject of increasing ecological interest, but their overall condition, nationally or even regionally, is virtually unknown. Landscape condition Within the technical limitations of using remote sensing data to define urban and suburban ecosystems and the landscape patches they contain, The Heinz Center (2002) has established a baseline against which to judge current trends in urbanization. In 1992, urban and suburban areas occupied about 32 million acres in the contermi- nous U.S. or about 1.7 percent of the total land area, but different organizations, sometimes using different data sources, produce dif- ferent estimates. For example, USDA National Resources Inventory delineation of developed lands, estimates there to be about 98 million acres in the conterminous U.S., or about 4.3 percent of the total land area of the U.S., not including Alaska (see Chapter 3, Better Protected Land), However, there is currently no firm plan in place to collect the remote sensing data in the future to allow trends to be calculated. Although the land use indicators identified provide some useful information on extent, they do not address the actual condition of those lands. Given the concentration of the human population in developed areas of the country, a better understanding of the interaction among humans and their developed environment could help improve human health and the effects of developed lands on ecological condition. Chemical and physical characteristics Chemical data from the NAWQA program used to develop the stream quality indicator in this report and the Heinz report (2002) include only 21 urban streams across the entire U.S. Nitrate and phosphorus concentrations in these streams were intermediate between farmlands and forest streams, but all of them had at least one chemical that exceeded guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Given the numerous factors that can affect these systems, 21 streams are not likely to be an adequate baseline against which to track the progress of environmental protection activities, including stormwater management, controls on non-point source pollution from lawns, golf courses, and septic systems, with any statistical cer- tainty. An indicator of the extent of impervious surfaces might be useful for inferring non-point source pollution impacts. There were no Category 1 or 2 indicators available for this for biotic condition, ecological processes, or natural disturbance regimes. The Heinz Center (2002) identified several indicators that could be promising but for which there are not even regional data: • An indicator that would report on the percentage of urban and suburban areas in which <25 percent, 25 to 50 percent, 50 to 75 percent, and >75 percent of the original species had been lost or displaced. i An indicator that would report on the nbmber of nuisance species in urban and suburban areas (e.g., white-tailed deer, kudzu). • Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and N/ acroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) indicators in urba i/suburban streams. • An indicator that would report on the c average of stream bank- vegetation. i The lack of mational biotic indicators for uhban fresh water systems makes it particularly difficult to measure national progress in main- taining balanced communities in urban streams. : I A particular problem in urban and suburban systems is establishing appropriate reference conditions for biplo'gical structure and ecosys- tem function measures (The Heinz Centen 2002). For example, expecting fish and invertebrate communities in urban streams to be typical of relatively undisturbed forest or grassland ecosystems would be unrealistic. Data are insufficient bn both the current status of species and the original species presenj: to calculate the number of native species lost. As another example! an indicator tracking national trends in urban stream buffers would be particularly helpful to states tracking the effectiveness of watershed management pro- grams. However, a decision would be needed on a threshold for buffer strips of adequate width to protect stream channels, and fur- • ther development of satellite measurements would be needed before such an indicator could be used for national reporting. A potentially'useful hydrology/geomorph ------- 5.6 What Is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? Fresh waters include wetlands, lakes.and-reservoirs, and streams and rivers. Wetlands are areas where saturation with water is the domi- nant factor determining the types of plant and animal communities. Wetlands vary widely because of differences in soils, topography, cli- mate, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and other factors. Two general categories of wetlands are recognized: coastal (tidal) wet- lands and inland (non-tidal) wetlands. Wetlands have been threat- ened by outright loss and conversion from one type to another, but programs.designed to restore or enhance wetlands, such as the' Wetlands Reserve Program, as well as state, local, and private initia- tives on agricultural lands, have resulted in reduced losses (see Chapter 2, Purer Water). The U.S. contains more than 3.7 million miles of streams and rivers \|\|^----:--^^^ of a" these strea"i mites are found in small, head- S^ivV^^V,^^ licators ^Landscape Condition Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Types Wetland extent and change Landscape Composition Altered fresh water ecosystems Landscape Structure/Pattern Biotic Condition Ecosystems and Communities Non-native fresh water fish species Animal deaths and deformities water plant communities Fish Index of Biotic Integrity in streams oinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index for streams Species and Populations At-risk native fresh water species \|j Organism Condition = Contaminants in fresh water fish cologicaf Processes ar and Physical Characteristics 3 Nutrient Concentrations Phosphorus in large rivers Lake Trophic State Index Trace Organic and Inorganic Chemicals Chemical contamination in streams Other Chemical Parameters Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams Physical Parameters nd Ground Wate Structural C Oiapter 5- Ecological Condition S.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? 5-4T -------An error occurred while trying to OCR this image. ------- J?^ 11,076 Northeast lakes sampled as part of the EPA EMAP during summers from 1991 to 1994 using the Lake Trophic State Index. It was found that 37.9 percent (±8.4 percent)12 of the lakes were oligotrophic (TP<10 ppb), 40.1 percent (±. 9.7 percent) were mesotrophic (1060 ppb) (Peterson, et al., 1998). i The indicator Chemical Contamination in Streams and Ground Water (Chapter 2, Purer Water), revealed that all the streams sampled by the NAWQA program had one or more contaminants at detectable levels throughout the year, and 85 percent had five or more (The Heinz Center, 2002).13 Three-fourths of the streams tested had one or more contaminants that exceeded aquatic life guidelines. One- . fourth of the streams exceeded the standards for four or more contaminants. Nearly all of the stream sediments tested had an average of five or more contaminants (PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], other industrial chemicals and trace elements) at detectable levels, and half had one or more contaminants that exceeded aquatic life guidelines. Half of the fish tested had at least five contaminants (PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, and trace elements) at detectable levels, and approximately the same number had one or more contaminants at levels that exceeded the aquatic life guidelines (The Heinz Center, 2002).14 The indicator Acid Sensitivity in Lakes and Streams (Chapter 2, Purer Water) is affected by the natural buffering capacity of the soil and the rate of acid deposition from the atmosphere. The National Surface Water Survey (NSWS) (Landers, et al., 1988; Linthurst, et al., 1986; Messer, et al., 1986, 1988) determined that 4.2 percent of the NSWS lakes and 2.7 percent of NSWS streams were acidic (Acid Neutralizing Capacity <0 u,eq/L) (Baker, et al., 1991). Almost 20 percent (19.1 percent) of NSWS lakes and 11.8 percent of NSWS streams were susceptible to acidic deposition (ANC< SO jieq/L) (Baker, et al., 1991 ).ls Of the acidic NSWS lakes, 75 percent were classified as acidic from acid deposition, 22 percent were organic acid dominated, and 3 percent were acidic from watershed sulfur sources. Of the acidic stream reaches, 70 percentjvere acidic from acid deposition, 29 percent were organic acid dominated, and 1 percent were acidic from watershed sulfur sources (Baker, et al., 1991). These surveys have been repeated periodically for smaller probability samples of lakes in the Northeast, the Adirondacks, and streams in the Appalachians (Stoddard, et al., 1996). More intensive monitoring also has been conducted on lakes in the Northeast, the Appalachians, and the Midwest, and on streams in the Appalachian Plateau and Blue Ridge to assess long-term acidification trends (Stoddard, et al., 1998). Based on these and wildlife habitat, disrupt patterns and timing of water flows, act as barriers to animal movement, or reduce or increase natural filtering of sediment and pollutants. The indicator Altered Fresh Water Ecosystems (Chapter 2, Purer Water), reveals that 23 percent of the banks of both rivers and streams (riparian areas) and lakes and reservoirs have either croplands or urban development in the narrow area immediately adjacent to the stream. Data on the degree to which streams and rivers are channelized, leveed, or impounded are not available. According to Dahl (2000), 78,100 acres (31,600 hectares) of forested wetlands were converted to fresh water ponds. Conversions of forested wetlands to deep water lakes, resulted from human activities by either creating new impoundments or raising the water levels on existing impoundments, thus killing the trees. The indicator Contaminants in Fresh Water Fish (Chapter 2, Purer Water) reported on contaminants in fish tissue for the entire U.S., including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, and trace elements (The Heinz Center, 2002). The presence of contaminants can be harmful to the organisms themselves, or can affect reproduction, and they can make fish unsuitable for consumption. Half of the fish tested had at least five contaminants at detectable levels, and approximately the same number had one or more contaminants at levels that exceeded the aquatic life guidelines. For Mid-Atlantic Highland streams with sufficient fish tissue for analysis (44 percent of stream miles did not have sufficient quantities offish tissue), about 4 percent of the stream miles had fish tissue mercury concentrations that exceeded wildlife criteria (EPA, ORD, Region 3, August 2000). - l For the the indicator Phosphorus in Large Rivers (Chapter 2, Purer Water), The Heinz Center (2002) reports that half of the rivers tested had total phosphorus concentrations of 100 ppb or higher. This concentration (100 ppb) is EPA's recommended goal for preventing excess algal growth in streams that do not flow directly into lakes. None of the rivers had concentrations below 20 ppb, a level generally held to be free of negative effects (EPA, OW, November 1986). Data were insufficient to report on lakes and reservoirs nationally. I The indicator Lake Jmphic State Index (Chapter 2, Purer Water) assessed the nutrient or total phosphorus (TP) concentrations in northeast lakes (Peterson, et al., 1998). Once phosphorus enters lakes, it frequently serves as the nutrient that limits the growth of nuisance blooms of phytoplankton (algae). National data on lake trophic condition are not available. However, regional patterns of lake trophic condition were assessed for a target population of 12 Concentrations in parentheses represent the 95 percent confidence interval. 13 Nitrate, ammonium, and trace metals were not'included in the occur- rence analysis, because they occur naturally (Heinz(The HeinzCenterHeinz Center, 2002, p.50). 14Additional information on chemical contamination in all waters of the U.S. is provided in the technical notes, pp. 210-214, of the Heinz report (2002). 15There were regional differences in these percentages: only 0.1 per- cent of NSWS lakes in the West and Florida were sensitive, but 22.7 percent of Northern Appalachian streams were sensitive. CJiapter 5 - tcological C_ondition 5.6 What .is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? 5-43 ------- affitSiWSHKiJB %^&JIF&* 'cnflica 'QcuiTK programs, EPA estimated that in three regions, one-quarter to one-third of lakes and streams previously affected by acid rain were no longer acidic, although they were still highly sensitive to future changes in deposition (EPA, ORD, January 2003). Specifically: • Eight percent of lakes in the Adirondacks are currently acidic, down from 13 percent in the early 1990s. m Less than 2 percent of lakes in the Upper Midwest are currently acidic, down from 3 percent in the early 1980s. • Nine percent of the stream length in the Northern Appalachian Plateau region is currently acidic, down from 12 percent in the early 1990s. Lakes in New England registered insignificant decreases in acidity, and streams in the Ridge and Blue Ridge regions of Virginia were unchanged. The Ridge and Blue Ridge regions are expected to show a lag time in their recovery due to the nature of their soils, and immediate responses to decreasing deposition were neither seen nor expected. The NSWS has not been repeated nationwide, so no data exist to assess trends in surface water acidification in other sensitive areas of the country. I The indicator Changing Stream Flows is one of two indicators presented in Chapter 2, Purer Water that are associated with fresh water hydrology and geomorphology and relate to the ecological condition of fresh water. Changes in stream flow can result in significant effects on fish habitat and chemical concentrations in streams. According to The Heinz Center (2002), the percentage of streams and rivers with major changes in the high or low flows or timing of those flows increased slightly from the 1970s to the 1990s, but the number with high flows well above the high flows between 1930 and 1949 increased by approximately 30 percent in the 1990s. The earlier 1930 through 1949 period included some droughts, but much of it also preqeded widespread dam- building and irrigation projects. \| • The greatest stressor to mid-Atlantic streams, and many other streams throughout the U.S., is altered instream habitat (EPA, ORD, Region 3, August 2000). A Sedimentation Index (Chapter 2, [ Purer Water) was developed for Mid-Atl antic Highland streams to ' assess the quality of instream habitat fc r supporting aquatic ; communities (Kaufmann, et al., 1999). The amount of fine sediments pn the bottom of each strearp was compared with expectations based on each stream's ab'ility to transport fine sediments downstream (a function of the slope, depth and complexity of the stream). When the amount of fine sediments exceeds expectations, it suggests that the supply of sediments from the watershed to the stream is greater than what the stream can naturally process. Streams with levels of fine particles at least 10 percent below the predicted value Were rated to be in "good" condition relative to the sedimentation Icriteria. Those with levels from 10 percent below to 20 percent above the predicted value were rated "fair." Those with levels more than 20 percent above regional mean expectations were rated fpoor." Based on the Sedimentation Index, about 35 percent of the stream miles had good instream habitat, 40 percent had [fair instream habitat, and 25 percent of the stream miles had popr instream habitat (EPA, ORD, Region 3, August 2000). i ! • j Several indicators presented for the first time in this report are described below. They include a Category 1 indicator related to ] landscape condition and six Category 2 indicators relating to biotic ; condition. There were no indicators for ecological processes or natu- ral disturbance regimes. 5-44 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition ------- Indicator! txtent of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs - Category I This indicator reports the area of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs in the conterminous U.S., excluding the Great Lakes. Over the long term, changes in this indicator reflect the effects of climate on water levels in existing lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, and of reser- voir construction, destruction, and management.. What the Data Show The Heinz Center (2002) reports that, excluding the Great Lakes, the conterminous U.S. contains 21 million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. The number of ponds (small water bodies usually less than 20 acres and 6 feet deep) increased by 100 percent'since the 1950s (Exhibit 5-25). For unknown reasons, the rate of lake and reservoir creation declined 43 percent from the 1970s to 1980s; deep water lakes and reservoirs showed a modest but statistically unreliable increase between the 1980s and 1990s (Dahl, 2000). Indicator Caps and Limitations The USGS National Hydrography Dataset identifies a considerably larger area of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds at least 6 acres in size (26.8 million acres), and the cause of the discrepancy is unknown (The Heinz Center, 2002). Data Source The data source for this indicator was the National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1970-2000). (See Appendix B, page B-43 for more information.) ft™ Exhibit 5-25: Extent of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs, 195Os-1990s &_ — " • - - • • •b 12 Lakes and Reservoirs Ponds '- o 1950 1960 1970 1980 19,90 2000 „ Coverage: lower 48 states. flMote: Lake area does not include the Great Lakes, which Jcover about 60.2 million acres within the United States. "%V ^ f ^ "" I lource: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. )ata from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory. Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? 5-45 ------- Ef!As Draft Report on the Environment 20t);3 • Technical DpcumeM I r ". " ' , !'l .: I. .. !'• •...'..'. . .; •' '• :,•: '!.:• : ( [: At-risk fresh water native species - C-ategory 2 The U.S. was sufficiently concerned about preserving species to enact the Endangered Species Act in 1973 to provide legal pro- tection for species that were endangered or threatened. Many of these species depend on lakes, streams, and adjoining wetlands for their continued existence. It is impossible to monitor all fresh- water species, but this indicator reports on species offish, amphibians, reptiles, aquatic mammals, butterflies, mussels, snails, crayfish, fresh water shrimp, dragonflies, damselflies, mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies that are at various degrees of risk of extinction (The Heinz Center, 2002). What the Data Show According to The Heinz Center (2002), approximately 13 per- cent of native fresh water species are critically imperiled, 8 per- cent are imperiled, 11 percent are vulnerable, and 4 percent are or might be extinct (Exhibit 5-26). Critically imperiled species are typically found at no more than five places, and may have suffered steep declines or very high risk. Vulnerable species may be found in 20 to 80 locations and shown widespread declines or moderate levels of risk (Stein, 2002). Mussels and fish are particularly at risk. Hawaii and the Southeast have significantly higher percentages of at-risk species than other regions, but this condition may be partially the result of Hawaii and parts of the Southeast having a higher number of naturally rare species (The Heinz Center, 2002). '• Indicator Gaps and Limitations The data underlying this indicator are notifrom a site-based moni- toring program, but rather from a census approach that focuses on the location and distribution of at-risk species. The data do not distinguish species that are naturally rare from species that have becomelrare because of human actiohs, making it difficult to distinguish actual trends in this indicator, i Data Source The data source for this indicator was The Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, usjnj State of the Nation's ; data from NatureServe Explorer database. (See Appendix B, page B-43, for more information.) i • Tssx '^--"^^TS Exnioit 5-26: At-risk native fresn water speciesLpy risk factor, 2000 H iKfeHY^^Ms«^,fe««!ii» m .=ri "nn H 100, Partial Indicator Data: Fresh water Aniir c 5 Extinct • Critically ' Imperiled Imperiled Vulnerable AllAt-Risk ^Coverage: all 50 states. "H 111 in'i«" F"rw iimn i nl Tli <, T^fctj. ft i ^s t slJEWfc^ % s( Uaif." v t -Source: The Heinz Center. Tne State of the Nationis Ecosystems. 2002. Data from NatureServe and its Natural Heritage member programs. I iBtem , 1% i ^AiVf i, I 5-46 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? C_napter 5 - (ecological (Condition ------- ^ indicator INon-native Fresh water fish species - Category 2 This indicator reports on the percentage of watersheds with dif- ferent numbers of non-native species with established breeding populations (The Heinz Center, 2002). Non-native species include species not native to North America and species that are native to this continent but are now found outside their historic range. Such species, once introduced from some other location, often lack predators or parasites that kept them in check in their native habitats, and expand to cause a degree of ecological and economic disruption. Some non-native species are introduced intentionally (e.g., rainbow trout). What the Data Show Data are currently available nationally only for fish: of 350 water- sheds (6-digit HUCs) in the U.S., only five have no non-native fish (The Heinz Center, 2002). Sixty percent have 1 to 10 non-native species, and two watersheds have 41 to SO non-native fish species (Exhibit 5-27). Indicator Gaps and Limitations The data are not from a site-based monitoring program; they rely for the most part (90 percent) on the published literature and (10 percent) direct reporting by governmental and private biologists. New discoveries are not always reported (The Heinz Center, 2002). Data Source The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the Non-indigenous Aquatic Species, database. (See Appendix B, page B-44, for more information.) txnioit 5-27: i^lon-native fresn water fisn species, 2OOO ^Coverage: lower 48 states. * Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. JData frqrn the U.S. Geological Survey. Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? 5-47 ------- icnn ca InaicritoT Animal deaths and deformities - Category 2 Unusual mortality events (e.g., fish kills) or deformities (e.g., frog deformities) can have economic consequences, and they are also seen as evidence that something is wrong (e.g., a contaminant is present, or the oiganisms are under stress from some other source). Although data are collected on die-offs of mammals, fish, and amphibians, and on amphibian deformities, data are insuffi- cient for national reporting (The Heinz Center, 2002). This indi- cator reports on unusual mortality events for waterfowl only. What the Data Show From 1995 to 1999, approximately 500 incidents of unusual waterfowl mortality were reported (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-28). In slightly more than 20 percent of the incidents, more than 1,000 birds died, and in 15 of the incidents, more than 10,000 birds died. The total number of die-offs reported from 1995 to 1999 was 20 percent lower than the numbers reported in two earlier periods (1985 to 1989 and 1990 to 1994) (The Heinz Center, 2002). A larger number of events were reported in the Pacific and Midwest regions; fewer were reported in the Southwest and Southeast. Indicator Caps and Limitations : i The data are not from a defined site-basec) monitoring program, but are provided by various sources such as state and federal per- sonnel, diagnostic laboratories, wildlife refuges, and published reports, as they are discovered or reported (The Heinz Center, 2002). This makes it hard to distinguish r£al trends from trends in reporting. Data Source The data sou-ce for this indicator was The^State of the Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the National Wildlife Health Center database, i (See Appendix B, page B-44, for more information.) Exhibit 5-28: Animal deaths and defornrfeties, 1985-1999 Partial Indicator Data: Waterfowl Morta <100 100 to 1,000 1,000 to 10,000 >10,000 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 i ' ^ ite& Coverage: all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands Source: The Heinz Center. The State o^the Nation's EJOTsysfems? 2002. Data from the U.S. Geological Survey. 5-48 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? Chapter 5 - 'Icological Condition ------- /\t-risR Fresh water plant communities - C-ategory 2 The Heinz report employs an indicator of the threat of elimination of wetland and riparian area plant communities. This indicator uses an expert assessment conducted by NatureServe (Stein, 2002) of factors such as the remaining number and condition of the community, the remaining acreage, and the severity of threats to the community type. What the Data Show According to this indicator, 12 percent of the 1,560 wet\|and com- munities ranked are critically imperiled, 24 percent are imperiled, and 25 percent are vulnerable (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-29). Indicator Gaps and Limitations The Heinz report states that data are not adequate for national reporting (The Heinz Center, 2002). The report concludes that technical challenges in classifying riparian communities prevent national estimates for stream bank plant communities. In addition, interpreting the data is complicated because some species are naturally rare, and the total number of species for any ecosystem is unknown. Data Source The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from NatureServe Explorer database. (See Appendix B, page B-44, for more information.) hxniDit 5-29: /\t-risk Fresh water plant communities, 200O ; on Riparian Communities Partial Indicator Data: Wetlands r- - Critically Imperiled Imperiled Vulnerable Total At-Risk . 2000 Future Coverage: excludes Alaska. — - " ~ - Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. Data from NatureServe and jts Natural Heritage member programs. CJiapter 5 - tcological C-ondition 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? 5-49 ------- EFAs Draft "Report on trie Environment 20(}$ • Technical Docum^hp risn Index or Diotic Integrity in streams - Category 2 Rsh communities integrate the effects of the physical, chemical, and biological stressors in the environment. The Heinz Center (2002) listed the status of fresh water animal communities as an indicator in need of development. Karr, et al. (1986,1997) devel- oped a Rsh Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) that incorporates species richness, trophic composition, reproductive composition, and abundance and individual health offish communities in streams. This index, modified by McCormick, et al. (2001), was applied to a regional survey of streams in the mid-Atlantic states, and provides an example of an indicator that could be applied nationally. A sample of reference sites that represented the best conditions observable today in the mid-Atlantic region (e.g., sites free of influences from mine drainage, nutrients, habitat degradation) provided a frame of reference for ranking the condition of streams overall. The IBI scores calculated for the reference sites ranged from 57 to 98. The 25th percentile of this distribution (IBI=72) was used to distinguish sites that were in good condition from those in fair condition. The first percentile value (IBI=57) separat- ed sites in fair condition from those in poor condition. A statisti- cal way to describe this setting of thresholds is to say that any IBI score of less than 57 in a sampled stream is 99 per- cent certain to be below the range of values seen in refer- ence sites (McCormick, et al., 2001). What the Data Show Rsh were collected at probability sites that represent about 90,000 miles of streams in the mid-Atlantic. The fish IBI indicated that 27 percent of the streams were in good con- dition and 14 percent were in poor condition in the Mid- Atlantic Highlands (see Exhibit 5-30). About 38 percent of the streams were scored in fair condition. No fish were caught in about 21 percent of the streams. The estimates of stream condition have a confidence interval of about ±.8 percent (McCormick, et al., 2001). Indicator Caps and Limitations i The limitations of this indicator include the following: • Condition cannot be assessed in stream\|s where no fish were caught. Poor condition cannot be inferred from no fish caught, because some streams were likely too srfiall to support a fishery. Data were insufficient to indicate if the stream had poor quality or simply no fish (EPA, ORD, Region 3, August 2000). The data are available only for a limited [geographic region, and no repeated sampling is available to estimate trends. Data Source The data source for this indicator was the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency, August 2000, using data from the Mid-Atlantic .Integrated Assessment. (See Appendix B, page B-45, for more information.) lsSSs1i^i:¥S;!;J:!i)SS! -.--,••- - •',-• ^ t floes ' npj; indicate; poor condition. Sptrje streams ''' " em of an InaexajBiow Integrity fa? 1 ^i'-i' ,,''^^'1''^ .^-PP.t f?^' S::;:T,> ;:- Mitt-Atlantic HiMa, Upn-;!- •' .u't?1™;1!! ;u;.i'l.i7'"-i;finii» ir;."»«i ,N' "-'w-?",t\ 5-50 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? Cnapter 5 - Ecological Condition ------- AAacroinverteorate Diotic Integrity Index for streams - Category 2 Like fish, macroinvertebrate communities integrate physical, chemi- cal, and biological stressors, but because many of them are more sedentary than fish and occupy different ecological niches, they provide a complementary picture of ecological condition. A Macroinvertebrate,Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) was developed for mid-Atlantic streams by Klemm, et al. (2002, 2003). The MBII incorporates taxa richness, assemblage composition, pollution tol- erance (includes all maroinvertebrates, not just insects), and func- tional feeding groups (Klemm, et al., 2002). Similar to the approach used to separate the Rsh IBI scores (McCormick, et al., 2001), the 25th percentile of the reference site MBII scores was used to distinguish sites in good condition-from those in fair con- dition. The first percentile was used to separate sites in fair condi- tion from those in poor condition (McCormick, et al., 2001). What the Data Show The MBII scores indicated that 17 percent of the streams in the mid-Atlantic were in good condition, 57 percent were in fair con- dition, and 26 percent were in poor condition (Exhibit 5-31). Indicator Gaps and Limitations The data are available only for a limited geographic region, and no repeated sampling is available to estimate trends. Data Source The data source for this indicator was Development and Evaluation of a Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) for Regionally Assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams. 2003, Klemm, et al., using data from the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment. (See Appendix B, page B-45, for more information.) £-~ Exhibit 5-31: JSS-- 4 " * * ki ~ " I AAacroinvertetrate Diotic Integrity Index (AAfill), 5?I Mid-Atlantic Highlands, 1993-1996 tCoverage: Mid-Atlantic Highlands jjp>ource: Klemm, D.J., et al. Development and Evaluation of a Macroinvertebrate Biotic if integrity Index (MBII) for Regionally Assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams. 2003. vj&+-m Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? 5-51 ------- ' Summary: me Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters Fresh water systems are under pressure from point and non-point pollution, atmospheric deposition, altered habitat, and invasive species. A review of Exhibit 5-24, however, indicates that there are virtually no Category 1 indicators or monitoring programs that pro- vide a national picture of the ecological condition of fresh waters. No national condition data are available on ecological processes, not are there any nationally or regionally reported indicators of natural disturbance regimes. Landscape condition The National Wetlands Inventory provides unbiased statistical esti- mates of the extent of wetlands, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs in the conterminous U.S. at decadal scales since the 1970s. There is no similar effort for the extent of streams (losses can occur because of mining, damming, water withdrawal, or climate change). Chapter 2, Purer Water, estimates that the U.S. has more than 3.7 million miles of streams and rivers (EPA, OW, June 2000a, 2000b). About 60 percent of all these stream miles are found in small, headwater streams. The Heinz Center reports, however, that because there is no agreed-upon system to classify streams (e.g., by discharge, drainage area, or stream order), there are no national data sets for reporting on stream size. Blotlc condition At this time, no national condition data are available on lake, wet- land, or stream biota. The USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program has collected data on the biota in rivers and streams in the network, but no analysis has been performed on the data at a national level (USGS, 2002; ). Surveys of stream benthos arid fish communities have been conducted for the mid-Atlantic region that provide unbiased estimates of the condition of 90 percent of the streams in the region. Both surveys showed only 17 percent (±8 percent) of the streams to be in good condition, but there is no indication of whether they are the same streams or of the likely cause(s) of impairment. No fish were caught in 16 percent of the streams, so their condition could not be judged based on this criterion. Similar regional studies have been conducted in the western states, but the data have not yet been reported. There are no nationally or regionally representative data on the aquatic communities of lakes. Based on NatureServe data, 36 percent of aquatic biota in several categories are either extinct or at some risk of extinction, but because this database relies on voluntary reporting, future trends might not be discernable with statistical reliability. NAWQA collected contaminant data from fish tissue in 223 streams, and almost half showed concentrations that exceeded aquatic life guidelines for at least one contaminant. However, these data have not been related to the condition of the fish communities in the corresponding streams, so ecological condition cannot be determined. There are no specific plans to re-sample in any of these programs, and so there is no assurance that trend data will be available in the future. Chemical ami physical characteristics Better data are available for chemical and physical characteristics of streams, less for lakes, and none for wetlarjds. The NAWQA program reports data on total phosphorus concentrations in more than l 140 large rivers nationwide, but there are no corresponding national data on either lake or reservoir concentrations (where algal blooms are likely to develop), nor on the correspo iding biological communi- ties. Reliable regional estimates have been made of total phosphorus concentrators in 11,076 lakes in the Northeast states. These esti- ', mates showed with a high degree of confic ence that fewer than 22 percent of the lakes were estimated to be sutrophic or hypertrophic. While a relationship exists between totalpiosphorus concentrations ; and algal biotnass or productivity (Carlson, 1977), lake-to-lake varia- tion is considerable, so none .of these datz truly express the known ecological condition of these lakes or riyets with respect to eutrophi- cation. Nitrate is not often a limiting nutrient in fresh waters, so it provides little ecological information on'fnbsh waters themselves (although it does provide useful informatipn on the watershed, as discussed in 1:he sections on forests and farmlands). ! , • • • •••• i 4 The NAWQA program reports on contaminants in stream waters '• from 109 streams, and sediments from 55:8 stream sites across the ; U.S. At least half of the streams had concentrations that exceeded wildlife criteria, but there are as yet no an alyses relating these to the condition of fish or invertebrate communities in the streams natural- ly. Incorporation of water quality data monitored by the states could improve the coverage, if care is given to' representative sampling and comparable methods and indicators. ' [ \ A national survey in the 1980s provided estimates of the sensitivity of all lakes arid all streams in the eastern U.S. to acidic deposition (Landers, et al., 1988; Kaufmann, et al., 1?91). Periodic resurveys and intensive sampling of representative lakes and streams have allowed EPA to conclude that, because of Deductions in sulfate emis- sions under its acid rain regulations, one-quarter to one-third of lakes and streams in three regions affected by acid rain are no longer acidic (EPA, ORD, Region 3, August 2000). Corresponding biologi- cal community data exist only for streams; in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. I • " ; '! Hydrology and geomorphology ! There are nationally reported data on onjy one hydrologic/geomor-: phological indicator: changing stream flo\j/. This indicator is reported on all rivers and streams for which the retord of data is adequate, and it shows that high flows have increased during the past decade. There are nci corresponding data to indidate why, however, nor are there data on any accompanying change iin the fish communities, so ecological condition cannot be assessed ^vith any reliability. I 5-52 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters? C-napter 5 - Zoological Condition ------- There were no Category 1 or 2 indicators available for ecological processes or natural disturbance regimes for fresh waters. Limnologists have long measured primary productivity in lakes, and nutrient spiral- ing and leaf-pack decomposition in streams, but no systematic data were available in the form of an indicator for this report. Phenomena involved in natural disturbance regimes in fresh waters include hydrology (e.g., low-flow frequencies, floods), time of ice-out in lakes, and fires and other factors that affect watersheds. 5,7 What Is the tcological (Condition of C^oasts and Oceans: The coasts and oceans of the United States extend from the shoreline out approximately 200 miles into the open ocean. The indicators in this report, however, focus on estuaries and coastal waters within 25 miles of the coast. Coastal ecosystems are pro- ductive and diverse, and include estuaries, coastal wetlands, coral reefs, mangrove forests, and upwelling areas. Critical coastal habi- tats provide spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food for finfish, shellfish, birds, and other wildlife. Coastal areas are also sinks for pollutants transported through surface water, ground water, and atmospheric deposition. Coastal areas are among the most developed areas in the nation. Coastal areas comprise 17 percent of total conterminous U.S. land area, yet these areas are home to 53 percent of the U.S. human population. The coastal population is increasing by about 3,600 people per day, giving rise to a projected total increase of 27 million people between 2000 and 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). Coastal areas also contribute significantly to the U.S. economy. Almost 31 percent of the Gross National Product is produced in coastal counties (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). Almost 85 percent of commercially harvested fish depend on estuaries and adjacent coastal waters at some stage in their life cycle (NRC, 1997). About 180 million people use coastal beaches each year (Cunningham and Walker, 1996). Estuaries supply water, receive dis- charge from municipal and industrial sources, and support agricul- ture, commercial and sport fisheries, and recreational uses such as swimming, and boating. National estuarine and coastal monitoring programs have been in place for 15 to 20 years. A number of agencies and programs pro- vide information on the condition of coastal waters and wetlands, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Status and Trends Program, National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and National Marine Fisheries Service National Habitat Program; EPA's National Estuary Program and Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; and the Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory and Coastal Program. In 2000, EPA, NOAA and USGS, in cooperation with all 24 U.S. coastal states, initiated the National Coastal Assessment (also known as Coastal 2000 or C2000). Using a compatible, probabilistic design and a common set of survey indicators, each state conducted Chapter 5 - tcological Condition 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? 5-53 ------- F~n A' I~>v r ::il'ri!il: t'11' I .p-.:'.;. i'i'^Y-:,ww:''^^nym&i\' tlr\s [Draft -Report on the tnvirdnmepit 2QQI 1" • • ; : ,<• . :• . IVV : 1 :, MHIMMMMM 1 '" Exnioit 5-32: Coasts and oceans indicators f 1 i:: ; 1 fe- i I- r 8" I" •= 5" i>. \|:r 1" f F r . ;„; i illl. ! ,. :, i- ;„ -. f: ':' g__g_j IgjUjg,^ j SBijBl^'il^^^^S \ Landscape Condition Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Types Landscape Composition Landscape Structure/Pattern Biotlc Condition Ecosystems and Communities Species and Populations Organism Condition Ecological Processes Enenjy Flow Material Flow ^.Stmical aod^Physical Characteristics Nutrient Concentrations Other Chemical Parameters Trace Organics and Inorganics Physical Parameters Hydrology and Gconioi phology Surface and Ground Water Flows Dynamic Structural Conditions Sediment and Material Transport Natural Disturbance Regimes Frequency Extent Duration iiii^^ ' V . ~if ; . lL , ,.. Extent of estuaries and coastline Coastal living habitats Shoreline types M ' ' ' -" ii 1. ,. Benthic Community Index Fish diversity Submerged aquatic vegetation Chlorophyll concentrations Rsh abnormalities Unusual marine mortalities : ji i lla-^ '. r, f .-. Total nitrogen in coastal waters Total phosphorous in coastal waters Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters ; Total organic carbon in sediments Sediment contamination of coastal waters Sediment toxicity in estuaries Water clarity in coastal waters ,; ;,.,.... .»,,.. ' If ' -^" Jj. , .. _ , __^ , I • I S\|\| a • n H M H n H n a n • H • H • .,- ;-,.-', IBiiRIII EPA DOI DOC EPA . EPA EPA EPA EPA DOC EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA Note; MAlA indicators included pending completion of peer review i 5-54 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? • Chapter 5 -' Icological Condition ------- ^P^ the survey and independently assessed the condition of their coastal resources. These estimates currently are being aggregated to assess the condition of the nation's coastal waters. While the first complete assessment of the nation's coastal waters will be available in 2003, a preliminary assessment of selected estuarine systems was published in 2001 (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). Exhibit 5-32 lists the ecological indicators of coastal condition used in this report. Eight indicators are discussed in Chapter 2, Purer Water. The indicator Chlorophyll Concentrations deals with biotic structure of phytoplankton communities, and the rest are associated with the chemical and physical characteristics of coastal ecosystems. These eight indicators are summarized below. The section then pres- ents nine indicators that appear for the first time in this report. Two involve the coastal landscape, and the rest involve the biotic struc- ture of coastal ecosystems. There are no indicators of ecological processes, hydrology and geomorphology, or natural disturbance regimes with data suitable for national or regional reporting. The following indicators presented in previous chapters relate to the ecological condition of coasts and oceans: • The indicator Chlorophyll Concentrations is a measure of the abundance of phytoplankton. Excessive growth of phytoplankton, as measured by chlorophyll concentrations, can ' lead to degraded water quality, such as noxious odors, decreased water clarity, andoxygen depletion. Excess phytoplankton growth is usually associated with increased nutrient inputs (e.g., watershed or atmospheric transport, upwelling) or a decline in filtering organisms such as clams, mussels, or oysters (The Heinz Center, 2002). Average seasonal ocean chlorophyll concentrations (within 25 miles of the coast) ranged from 0.1 to 6.5 ppb (The Heinz Center, 2002). The highest ocean chlorophyll concentrations (4.8 to 6.5 ppb) were in the Gulf of Mexico with the lowest concentrations in Hawaiian waters (0.1 ppb). Southern California had the next lowest chlorophyll concentrations, between 1.1 and 1.5 ppb. Other ocean waters (e.g., north, mid-, and south Atlantic, and Pacific Northwest) had chlorophyll concentrations ranging from 2 to 4.5 ppb. Estuarine chlorophyll concentrations were not available for national reporting in the Heinz report, but chlorophyll concentrations in the mid-Atlantic estuaries ranged from 0.7 to 95 ppb in 1997 and 1998 (EPA, ORD, May 2003). EPA established three categories: good <15 ppb; fair 15-30 ppb; and poor >30 ppb. The lower threshold of 15 ppb chlorophyll is equal to the restoration goal recommended for the survival of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the Chesapeake Bay (Batiuk, et al., 2000). About 33 percent of the mid-Atlantic estuarine area had chlorophyll concentrations, exceeding 15 ppb. The Delaware Estuary showed a wide range of chlorophyll concentrations, from low in the Delaware Bay (<15 ppb) to intermediate in the Delaware River (15 to 30 ppb) to very high (>80 ppb) in the Salem River. The western tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay were consistently high in chlorophyll, with more than 25 percent of the area showing >30 ppb chlorophyll •concentrations. Chlorophyll concentrations in the coastal bays were generally low (< 15 ppb), even though nutrients were elevated, because of increased turbidity and low light penetration. • The Water Clarity in Coastal Waters (Chapter 2, Purer Water) indicator is important for maintaining productive systems in good condition and is affected by chlorophyll concentrations. Light penetration is important for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), which serves as food, nursery, shelter, and refugia habitat (areas that provide protection from predators) for aquatic organisms. EMAP measured water clarity using a light penetrometer, which recorded the amount of surface light that penetrated to a depth of 1 meter (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). Water clarity was considered poor if less than 10 percent of surface radiation penetrated to 1 meter. Water clarity was considered fair if there was between 10 and 25 percent penetration, and clarity was considered good if there was greater than 25 percent penetration. Data were collected for all conterminous estuaries in the U.S. The 10 percent light penetration at 1 meter is required to support SAV, which is an ecological endpoint in several estuarine ecosystems. Overall, 64 percent of the nation's estuarine area had light penetration of at least 25 percent at 1 meter (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). Only 4 percent of the nation's estuarine area had poor light penetration (less than 10 percent). • Nitrogen, and less often phosphorus, control the chlorophyll concentrations in coastal ecosystems. The indicator Total Nitrogen in Coastal Waters (Chapter 2, Purer Water), was calculated for the mid-Atlantic estuaries by summing the concentrations of total dissolved nitrogen and particulate organic nitrogen (EPA, ORD, May 2003). Assessment categories were determined based on the 25th and 75th percentiles because there are no total nitrogen (TN) criteria for estuaries. The categories are: low < 0.5 ppm N; intermediate 0.5 to 1.0 ppm N; and high > 1.0 ppm N. About 35 percent of the mid-Atlantic estuarine area had low TN concentrations, 47 percent had intermediate TN concentrations, and 18 percent had high TN concentrations. About 50 percent of the mainstem area of the Chesapeake Bay had low TN concentrations, with only about 5 percent having high TN concentrations. The coastal bays, in contrast, had about 5 percent of their area with low TN concentrations and about 35 percent with high TN concentrations. The Delaware River estuary portion of Delaware Bay had 100 percent of its area with high TN concentrations. H The indicator Total Phosphorus in Coastal Waters (Chapter 2, Purer Water) assessment categories were based on the 25th and 75th percentile concentrations measured throughout the mid- Atlantic. These categories are: low < 0.05 mg P/L; intermediate 0.05 to 0.1 mg P/L; and high > 0.1 mg P/L. Total phosphorus (TP) concentrations ranged from 0 to 0.34 mg P/L. About 58 percent of the mid-Atlantic estuarine area had low TP concentrations, 30 percent had intermediate, and 12 percent had high TP concentrations (EPA, ORD, May 2003). About 85 percent of the mainstem area of the Chesapeake Bay had low TP Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? 5-55 ------- ....... ilf ............ i^S8S^B^^Wi!i\|^if concentrations, with no areas having high TP concentrations. The coastal bays, in contrast, had no areas with low TP concentrations and about 35 percent with high TP concentrations. The Delaware River estuary portion of Delaware Bay had TOO percent of its area with high TP concentrations. Dissolved oxygen is depleted when phytoplankton in estuaries die and decompose. Data on the Dissolved Oxygen in Coastal Waters indicator (Chapter 2, Purer Water) were reported primarily for estuaries in the Virginian, Carolinian, and Louisianian Provinces16. Dissolved oxygen in these estuaries was reported as good because 80 percent of estuarine waters assessed were estimated to exhibit dissolved oxygen at concentrations greater than 5 ppm (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). Hypoxia resulting from anthropogenic activities is a relatively local occurrence in Gulf of Mexico estuaries; only 4 percent of the combined bottom areas in these estuaries is hypoxic. The occurrence of hypoxia in the shelf waters of the Gulf of Mexico is more significant. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone is the largest area of anthropogenic coastal hypoxia in the western hemisphere (CAST, 1999). Since 1993, mid-summer bottom water hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico has been larger than 3,860 square miles and in 1999, it reached over 7,700 square miles (CENR, 2000). Total Organic Carbon in Sediments (Chapter 2, Purer Water) is often an indicator of organic pollution (e.g., from decomposing phytoplankton blooms or waste disposal). Total organic carbon (TOC) values are calculated as percent carbon in dried sediments. Values ranged from 0.02 to 13 percent carbon (Paul, et al. 1999). Assessment categories for the mid-Atlantic estuaries were tentatively set at: low 1 percent; intermediate 1 to 3 percent, and high >3 percent, but they are still under evaluation. For the mid- Atlantic region, about 60 percent of the sediments had low TOC values, about 24 percent had intermediate TOC values, and 16 percent had high sediment TOC values (EPA, ORD, May 2003). Values ranged from those of Delaware Bay, with about 9S percent of its sediments having low TOC values, to those of the Chowan River in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary with 65 percent of its sediments having high TOC values (EPA, ORD, May 2003). The Chesapeake Bay mainstem had about 65 percent of its sediments with low TOC values and about 15 percent with high TOC values. The Sediment Contamination of Coastal Waters indicator (Chapter 2, Purer Water) was analyzed in estuaries primarily along the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico as 'part of the EPA EMAP Estuaries Program. Results from these a lalyses indicated that 40 percent of estuarine sediments in th ese areas were enriched in metals frorh human sources, 45 percent were enriched in PCBs, and 75 percent were enriched in pesticides (EPA, ORD, OW, ; September 2001). The highest concentrations of all three constituents were found in South Florida sediments with 53 percent, 99 percent, and 93 percent of the sediment area enriched in metals, PCBs, and pesticidels, respectively. I The EPA EMAP Estuaries Program, in conjunction with the NOAA Status and Trends Program, developed the indicator Sediment Toxicity in Estuaries (Chapter 2, Purer Water). The EMAP Estuaries Program found that about 10 percent of the sediments in the Virginian, Carolinian, Louisianian, West ndian, and Californian Province estuaries were toxic to the marine amphipod Ampelisca abdita over a 10-day period (EPA, ORE, OW, September 2001). The NOAA Status and Trends Program also used a sea urchin fertility test and a microbial test to evaluate chronic toxicity in selected estuaries. NOAA found that 4\|5 to 62 percent of the sediment samples from the selected estuaries showed chronic toxicity (EPA, ORD, OW, September 20!01). On the following pages, several indicators are introduced for the first time in this report that relate to the essehtial ecological attributes of landscape condition and biotic condition! of estuaries. 16 Provinces are biogeographical regions with distinct faunas. 5-56 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? CJnapter 5 - tcological '^.ondition ------- txtent of estuaries and coastline - Category 1 Estuarine areas provide habitat for organisms which contribute. significantly to the national economy. These areas also are under pressure from the S3 percent of the U.S. population that lives within 75 miles of the coast. Estuarine areas and coastline include brackish water bays and tidal rivers, which are influenced by the mixing of fresh water and ocean salt water in these areas. Extent estimates were provided by the coastal states as part of the EPA National Water Quality Inventory - 2000 Report (EPA, OW, August. 2000). What the Data Show EPA estimates that the U.S. and its territories have 95.9 million acres of estuarine surface area and about 58,618 miles of coast- line (EPA, OW, August 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations These data were compiled from inventories performed by the states. Differences in how each state defines estuaries are likely, so the consistency of the inventory is unknown. Data Source The data source for this indicator was the 2000 National Water Quality Inventory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-45, for more information.) Coastal living habitats - Category 2 This indicator provides the acreage of vegetative habitat such as submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), mangrove forests, and coastal 'wetlands. Vegetation not only stabilizes the habitat, but also provides food, shelter, nursery areas, and refugia for other aquatic organisms. Loss of coastal habitat is a major contributor to the loss of both economic and non-marketable aquatic species (The Heinz Center, 2002). What the Data Show The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NW!) estimates more than 5 million acres of coastal wetlands contribute to the diversity of coastal habitat (Exhibit 5-33). Wetland acreage declined about 8 percent from the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s (The Heinz Center, 2002). Out of 5 million total acres, 400,000 acres of coastal wetland were lost over this period, although the loss rate declined in the 1990s (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Data for coral reefs and seagrasses and other SAV are avail- able for many areas, but these data have not been integrat- ed to produce a national estimate. Different approaches have been used to estimate some of these coastal habitats which make make integration difficult. For example, esti- mates of the extent of SAV are noted in some regions only as presence/absence, while the area is estimated quantita- tively in other regions. Data for vegetated wetlands are available for only the East and Gulf Coasts. Data Source The data source for this indicator was Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997, Dahl, 2000, utilizing data from the National Wetlands Inventory. (See Appendix B, page B-45, for more information.) Exhibit 5-33 Coastal living habitats, IQ5Os-l990s .,, Partial Indicator Data: Coastal Vegetated Wetlands -1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Coverage Atlantic and Gulf Coasts Only prce: The Heinz Center The State of the Nation's Ecosystems 2002 ta from the U S Fish and Wildlife Service Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? 5-57 ------- I I . Indicator Shoreline types - Category 2 This indicator includes the miles of coastline in different categories, such as beaches, mud or sand flats, rock or clay cliffs, and wetlands. It also includes coastline that is protected with engineered structures such as armoring or riprap. Loss or conversion of shoreline habitat to armoring or riprap can eliminate the habitat required by various organisms for spawning, gestation, nursery area, feeding, or refugia. What the Data Show Over two-thirds of the mapped shoreline in the south Atlantic, southern California, and Pacific Northwest is coastal wetlands, with most of the coastal wetlands occurring in the South Atlantic (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-34). Three-quarters of the south Atlantic shoreline is wetlands (The Heinz Center, 2002). Beaches account for about 33 percent of the shoreline in both southern California and the Pacific Northwest. Southern California, however, has a much lower percentage of wetlands and mud or sand flats than the Pacific Northwest. Steep shorelines, mud flats, and sand flats each make up the smallest portion of the .i:_L. total in all three regions. Armored shorelines, which inclde bulk- heads and rip rap, account for about 11 percent of miles of the total coastline. : i : ! • Indicator Gaps and Limitcitions Estimates of shoreline types are not available for the entire U.S., including much of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast areas. Some of the atlases used to compile this information a -e more than 15 years old. Coastal areas are dynamic and change over time, so the accu- racy of available estimates is unknown. ! i Data Source i The data source for this indicator was the Environmental Sensitivity Index Atlases, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1984-2001). (See Appendix B, page B-46, for more information.) Exhibit 5-34: Coastal shoreline types, 2000 ipmrf"i"J""-JT -fT«"jg Partial Indicator Data: Shoreline Typ as by Region r : South Atlantic Southern California Pacific Northwest 20 ::- Percent of Total Regional Shoreline Steep Sand, Rock, Clay Mud or Sand Flats Beaches Wetlands, mangroves, etc. Armored (bulkheads or riprap) I* * r M Coverage: Pacific Northwest, Southern California, and ScCth Atlantic Regions only is • ., ., , , \|Lps t „ M j is Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems 2002 >t Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration i i ! 5-58 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? . Chapter 5 - Zoological I Condition ------- Benthic Community Index - Category 2 EMAP Estuaries Program has developed indices of benthic condi- tion for estuaries in the conterminous U.S. (Engle and Summers, 1999; Engle, et al., 1994; Van Dolah, et al., 1999; Weisberg, et al., 1997). Benthic macroinvertebrates include annelids, mollusks, and crustaceans that inhabit the bottom substrates of estuaries. These organisms play a vital role in maintaining sediment and water qual- ity, and are an important food source for bottom-feeding fish, invertebrates, ducks, and marsh birds. Measures of biodiversity and species richness, species composition, and relative abundance or productivity of functional groups are among the assemblage attributes that can be used to characterize benthic community composition and abundance. The Heinz report refers to this indi- cator as Condition of Bottom-Dwelling Organisms (The Heinz Center, 2002). Assemblages of benthic organisms are sensitive to pollutant expo- sure (Holland, et al., 1987, 1988; Rhoads, et al., 1978; Pearson and Rosenberg, 1978; Sanders, et al., 1980; Boesch and Rosenberg, 1981), and they integrate responses to disturbance and exposure over relatively long periods of time (months to years). Their sensitivity to pollutant stress is, in part, because they live in sediment that accumulates environmental contami- nants over time (Nixon, et al., 1986), and because they are rela- tively immobile. Reference sites were used to calibrate the indices similar to the approach used to calibrate fish IBI scores in fresh water ecosys- tems. The references cited above describe the approaches used for calibration and scoring in various estuarine provinces. These indices were calibrated for the respective estuarine province in which they were developed. While the development and calibra- tion process was similar among provinces, the specific thresholds reflect the estuarine conditions within that province. In general, good condition means that less than 10 percent of the coastal waters have low benthic index scores. Fair condition means that between 10 and 20 percent of the coastal waters have low benthic index scores. Poor condition means that greater than 20 percent of the coastal waters have low benthic index scores. What the Data Show Benthic community index scores have been assessed for the Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf Coastal Areas. For the Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf Coastal areas, 56 percent of the coastal waters were assessed in good condition, 22 percent in fair condi- tion, and 22 percent in poor condition based on benthic index scores (Exhibit S-3S). Associations of biological condition with specific stressors indi- cate that, of the 22 percent of coastal areas with poor benthic condition, 62 percent had sediment contamination, 11 percent had low dissolved oxygen concentrations, 7 percent had low light penetration, and 2 percent showed sediment toxicity (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). Indicator Gaps and Limitations Benthic community index scores have been assessed only for the Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf Coastal areas. Samples have been collected in all coastal areas, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories, but these data have not been assessed. A complete assessment of coastal condition is anticipated in 2003. Data Source The data source for this indicator was National Coastal Condition Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 2001, using data from the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Estuaries Program. (See Appendix B, page B-46, for more information.) !%~ Exhibit 5-35: Benthic Community Index (BCD fe-# scores for coastal waters in good, fair, or poor condition, 2000 fe- 18% No Sediment or Water Contamination 62% Sediment Contamination 11% Low Dissolved^ Oxygen Concentrations 7% Light Penetration 2% Sediment Toxicity J^lrage: Northeast Sbutrieast, and Gulf Coastal areas rlPAj O.fflfe of Rjsearc.ti.and Development and Office of Water fNational CogsinlffinJKmjtefioft September 2001 Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? 5-59 ------- r~pA' ....... any"! ..... R'lin tTT^s ...... L/rart ....... l\ MC .......... ffifflil$fflXQ6s$&^W&&9 ........ SjS ..... nr^f -^i^l r\-$$g% ..... lilltfe IndiciB risn diversity - Category 2 Fish diversity is considered to be an indicator of ecological condi- tion because fish integrate effects of environmental stress over space and time (EPA, ORD, September 1998). For this indicator, fish collected by trawling are identified, enumerated, and meas- ured, allowing assessment of native and non-native species, diver- sity, abundance, pollution-tolerant/intolerant, and size class (e.g., young-of-year and adults). This indicator provides data for the mid-Atlantic estuaries. Because fish catch data are sensitive to different sampling gear, no critical thresholds were established for the mid-Atlantic estuaries. High and low diversity were arbitrarily established as: high > 3 fish species in a standard trawl; low < 3 fish species in a standard trawl (EPA, ORD, May 2003). Data Source • ' j ' f The data source for this indicator was the ^/lid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment, MAIA-Estuaries, 1997-1998 Summary Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ma^ 2003. (See Appendix B, page B-46, for more information.) i What the Data Show In 1998, out of 110 sampling sites selected for the mid-Atlantic estuaries in 1998, fish trawls were conducted at 80 sites (the others were too shallow to trawl). The fish species count ranged from 0 to 13, with an average of 4.6 species per site (Exhibit 5-36). For the mid-Atlantic estuaries in general, more fish species were found in upper Delaware Bay, the coastal bays, and in the upper portions of tributaries. Fewer species were evi- dent in the Chesapeake Bay rnainstem and lower tributaries. Indicator Caps and Limitations The limitations of this indicator include the fol- lowing: • Fish diversity estimates are available only for the mid-Atlantic estuaries. • While fish diversity can be determined for each sampling site, currently no context exists for interpreting the condition of estuaries from fish diversity numbers because there are no criteria or thresholds for relating fish diversity estimates to estuarine condition. • Fish populations are highly mobile, so caution must be used in interpreting low diversity estimates for measurements observed at any individual site may not be representative of the condition of the estuary. Exhibit 5-36: Fish diversity in mid-Atlantic Lays, 1997-1998 p Number of Fish Species O Low Diversity. < 3 species • High Diversity > 3 species "Coverage" Ivfictf-Atfanltc oliys ^DelawaTeT Mi Source. fi>X, Office o\| Research ancf Develop] fstuar/es 1997-98, Summary Report May 20f i Atlantic Ecology DIVI ion Mid Atlantic Integrated Assessment AM/A 5-60 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? CJnapter 5 - tcological Condition ------- i:q^q:a';a.;i JuDmerged aquatic vegetation -.Category 2 Many estuarine systems contain submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), which provides habitat and refugia for fish and invertebrates, helps protect shorelines from erosion, contributes to sediment accretion, and provides food for aquatic organisms. The vegetation also stabilizes shifting sediments and adds oxygen to the water. SAV is sensitive to pollution and shading by turbid water. In the mid-Atlantic region, Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) field crews noted the presence or absence of SAV at their sampling stations as an ancillary measurement, but no attempt was made to estimate the extent of SAV. For the Chesapeake Bay, however, SAV extent is an ecological endpoint, and restoration of SAV is one of the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program (Batiuk, etal., 2000), What the Data Show Scientists estimated that historically there were about 600,000 acres of SAV in the Chesapeake Bay. A 1978 aerial survey estimated that this SAV acreage had decreased to 41,000 acres, but total acreage had increased to over 69,000 acres by 2000-(Moore, et al., 2000). Extent measures are not currently available for the rest of the nation's estuarine systems. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The limitations of this indicator include the following: • SAV estimates have been analyzed and reported only for the mid-Atlantic estuaries but not for the entire U.S. • These SAV estimates are for presence/absence only and do not indicate the density or abundance of the vegetation. More quantitative approaches using remote sensing are being used, but this information is not currently available for the entire U.S. coastline. Data Source The data sources for these indicators were Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Water Quality and Habitat-Based Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Second Technical Synthesis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, 2000; and Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment, MAIA- Estuaries, 1997-1998 Summary Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2003. (See Appendix B, page B-47, for more information.) risn abnormalities - Category 2 External abnormalities in fish can include lumps, growths, ulcers, fin rot, gill erosion, and gill discoloration. The cause of an abnor- mality is not always chemical contamination—it could also result from an injury or disease. A high incidence of such conditions could, however, indicate an environmental problem. What the Data Show The EPA EMAP Estuaries Program examined more than 100,000 fish from estuaries in the Virginian, Carolinian, Lousianian, and West Indian Province estuaries for evidence of disease, parasites, tumors and lesions on the skin, malformations of the eyes, gill abnormalities, and skeletal curvatures. Of all the fish examined, only 0.5 percent (454 fish) had external abnormalities (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). Of the fish examined, bottom-feed- ing fish had the highest incidence of disease, but this incidence was still low. There is no criterion for what constitutes a high or low number offish abnormalities. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The limitations of this indicator include the following: • Fish abnormality estimates are hot available nationally for U.S. estuaries. n Fish abnormalities can result from both natural causes such as injury and from chemical contamination, and the cause cannot be readily assessed. Data Source The data source for this indicator was National Coastal Condition Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 2001, using data from the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Estuaries Program. (See Appendix B, page B-47, for more information.) Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? 5-61 ------- IndicffQi:! Unusual marine mortalities - Category 2 —! Unusual marine mortalities are characterized by an abnormal num- ber of dead animals in locations or at times of the year that are not typical for that species. For animals such as turtles, whales, dolphins, seals, sea lions, or similar vertebrates, where small num- bers of deaths can be significant, this indicator reports the actual number of dead animals. For other more abundant animals such as fish, sea birds, and shellfish, the number of mortality events is recorded. The cause of these unusual events might include infec- tious disease, toxic algae, pollutants, or natural events. What the Data Show More than 2,500 California sea lions were involved in unusual marine mortalities in 1992, which is more than 10 times the num- ber of seals, sea lions, sea otters, or manatees lost in similar events since 1992 (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-37). The next two largest events were the deaths of 150 manatees off the Florida coast in 1996 and the deaths of 185 California sea lions in 1997 (The Heinz Center, 2002). No causes for these events were cited in the Heinz report (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator Gaps and Limitations The limitations of this indicator include the following: 1 i • This indicator represents only unusual events; it does not represent cill observed mortalities of marine organisms. i , ,, 'i M • Criteria or thresholds do not exist for assessing the importance of unusual mortalities. i • It is not pcissible to determine if the ev^nt was caused by natural phenomena such as El Nino or vjras the result of anthropogenic influences. • The data are not available on a national basis. Data Source The data source for this indicator was The, State of the Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Odeanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, Marine Mammal Health, Stranding Response Program, CRC Handbook of Marine Mammal Medicine: Health, Disease, and Rehabilitatior,, 2nd edition (Dierauf and Culland, eds., 2001). (See Appendix B, page B-47, for more information.) Exhibit 5-37: Unusual marine mortaliti<£ 1992-2001 quate tor National Keporungj Partial Indicator Data: Marine Mammals 2500r Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises Seals, Sea Lions, Sea Otters and Manatees 0 1990 1995 Coverage: all U.S. waters. 2000 i Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's EcbsyslemsT2002. Data from the National Marine Fisheries Service and Dierauf and Culland (2001). ' aiSL_ _- v, _ :>,] -I 5-62 i 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? CJiapter 5 -\| Ecological Condition ------- Summary: me Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans Coasts and oceans are subject to the same pressures as fresh waters, especially because they represent the endpoint for most fresh water drainage networks. Problems are exacerbated by the hydrology of estuaries, which tends to create conditions ideal for concentration of pollutants entering from upstream. Landscape condition The extent of this resource has been described by EPA and NOAA, and the landscape composition of much of the nation's coastline is known, providing a baseline against which to monitor future changes. As an example, 400,000 of 5,000,000 acres of coastal wetland were lost since the mid-1950s, although the loss rate declined in the 1990s (The Heinz Center, 2002). The baseline information is inade- quate, however, for coral reefs, shellfish beds, and SAV, although a survey in Chesapeake Bay indicates that the acreage of SAV there increased from 41,000 to 69,000 acres since 1978 (Moore, et al., 2000). The estuarine. landscape structure and pattern, and their contribution to ecological condition, remain inadequately measured or understood. Biotic condition The National Coastal Assessment, a joint federal and state interagency national monitoring program implemented to assess the ecological condition of the nation's estuaries, has developed regional data on several biotic condition indicators, including fish, benthic communities, and SAV. The program is also monitoring abnormalities and tissue contaminants. Results from three regions (Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf) indicate that, on average, 44 percent of the bottom community was in fair or poor condition, but this number varies among regions. Chlorophyll concentrations, which reflect the amount of phytoplankton growing in the water column, were over the recommended limit of 15 ppm (to protect SAV beds) over one-third of the estuarine area in the mid-Atlantic states. No similar estimates are yet available nationwide. Of more than 100,000 fish in random trawls from Maine to Texas, less than 0.5 percent showed visible evidence of disease, parasites, tumors or lesions of the skin, malformation of the eyes or gills, or skeletal curvature..Fish tissue contamination (other than non-toxic arsenic) was found in about 4 percent offish. Chemical and physical characteristics A number of physical and chemical indicators are being monitored in estuarine systems to help diagnose and interpret biotic condition information. Data are available only for estuaries on the Atlantic or Gulf coasts, but 18 percent of mid-Atlantic estuaries were judged to have high nitrogen concentrations (which can lead to harmful algal blooms), and 12 percent had high concentrations of phosphorus. Twenty percent of Atlantic and Gulf estuaries had low dissolved oxy- gen concentrations (<5 ppm). On average, 75 percent of the sedi- ments had elevated pesticide concentrations, and 40 percent had elevated concentrations of heavy metals, again with significant varia- tion from region to region. Ten percent of the sediments showed a positive response to toxicity tests using a marine amphipod. Only 4 percent of the estuaries had poor light penetration. There were no Category 1 or 2 indicators of ecological processes, hydrology and geomorphology, or natural disturbance regimes available for this report. The dearth of indicators for ecological processes is likely due, in part, to the fact that these indicators typically require repeated visits over several days, which makes systematic sampling in estuaries time-consuming and expensive. Procedures using remote sensing to assess ecological processes are being developed, but these are not ready for national or regional implementation. Hydrologic indicators may be similar to those for fresh water systems, but are complicated by the complex flows caused by tides and other phenomena in estuaries. An indicator of sea level change also may be useful. Storms, hurricanes, and similar disturbances are monitored globally, nationally, regionally, and locally, but this information has not been developed in the form of an indicator. Information on disturbance regimes could also be used to partition observed estuarine system responses into portions attributable to natural versus anthropogenic disturbances. Chapter 5 - tcological Condition 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? 5-63 ------- 5.8 What Is the tcological Condition of the tntire Nation: The previous sections asked questions about the ecological condi- tion of forests, coasts and oceans, fresh water ecosystems, urban and suburban areas, farmlands, and grasslands and shrublands nationally. Because ecosystems are hierarchical (O'Neill, et al., 1986) some important questions about ecological condition cannot be answered in terms of these land cover classes. Examples of large- scale issues include the following: Because EPA's; regulatory programs, both a\|lone and in combination, typically impc.ct many kinds of ecosystems^ such large-scale ques- tions are an important part of tracking the! overall effectiveness of these programs in protecting the entire nation. Exhibit 5-38 shows the indicators for the ;ntire nation used in this report. All seven of the indicators are take i from the core national ' indicators in Jhe State of the Nation's Ecosystems (The Heinz Center, '; 2002). There are indicators for four of the six essential ecological attributes with at least regional data, but no indicators on hydrology and geomorphology or natural disturbance regimes with data avail- ; able on a national or regional level (The Heinz Center, 2002). • The relative distribution of forests, grasslands, farmlands, and urban/suburban areas across the entire nation. • Neotropical migratory birds and other species do not depend on one ecosystem type, but many, often spread over large regions. • The condition of forest streams, and of other low-order streams across regions, was considered in Section 5.6, but processes in very large watersheds (e.g., the Mississippi or Columbia River basins) reflect the sum total of contributions from many ecosystem types. • Typically, large systems are slower to change and to respond to management actions (O'Neill, etal., 1986; Messer, 1992). Global climate change and changes in stratospheric ozone are examples of stressors of this type (Rosswall, et al., 1988). S-64 jEngscape Conaitioti Landscape Composition Jj Landscape Pattern/Structure At-risk native species Ecosystems and Communities Bird Community Index Species and Populations '_ Organism Condition 1 Ecological Processes Terrestrial Plant Growth Index Movement of nitrogen i! Nutrient Concentrations Other Chemical Parameters Chem cal contamination Trace Organic and Inorganic Chemicals Physical Parameters ^VHirnh'i • I i ' ^ ' '..h llf, •Hi „ I'; "' ^ ni L Hvdroloev and Geomoroholoev Hydrology and nr "-I!"''" '• BW. .mr.s Surface and Ground Water Flows Dynamic Structural Conditions Sediment and Material Transport 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? .cological Condition ------- ;.-..; :..,.• K- .--.-.. — • -• •':-•" .--. - : .-... --.. ::. - -• .''- '.••; • • • ,;' •'• '/-!•-;' • -'-' •''•- ; . •"' :."• '- •- • •-':. ".•-='-".-' -•" -:?-'•'•' '-.«• ':• •I-V. •1L'".t;7'1- .'...'•";-:: ^'-^'J1''-'1"^^';^:;1'-..-,,;^ I.1-!1;'.-' -'V, ••'?•'••' ••-•'''-/ •' -•.•• '. : '^fs^t^^if^y^^sssf-- >;^^j'^fei;^>!i"'^i^^^ tcosystem extent - (Category 2 Extent provides basic information on how much of an ecosystem exists, where it is, and whether it is changing over time. Changes in the extent of various cover types in the U.S. have been driven prima- rily by human land and water uses over the past 400 years. The total amount and relative distribution of land-cover types at the regional and national level are important, because ultimately they affect many of the ecological attributes such as biodiversity. For example, not only do forest species depend on forests, but many forest species also depend on adjacent wetlands or grasslands. What the Data Show Estimates show that before European settlement, the U.S. had 1 billion acres of forests (USDA, FS, 2002), 900 to 1,000 million acres of grasslands and shrublands (Klopatek, et al., 1979) and 221 million acres of wetlands (Dahl, 2000). Today, the U.S. has 749 million acres of forests (USDA, FS, 2002), 861 million acres of grasslands and shrublands (The Heinz Center, 2002), and 106 million acres of wetlands (Dahl, 2000). About 530 million acres of croplands (USDA, NRCS, 2000) and 90 million acres of urban and suburban land uses (USDA, NRCS, 2001) have been added. The acreage of forest and fresh water wetlands have each declined by about 10 million acres in the decades since the 1950s; the acreage of croplands has fluctuated, but it is currently about 35 million acres less than in the 1950s; and urban areas have grown by 40 million acres during the same period (The Heinz Center, 2002); (Exhibit 5-39). Indicator Gaps and Limitations According to The Heinz Center (2002.), the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) produced different estimates of area for forests and farmlands from those mentioned above, because of differ- ences in the definitions of these systems in the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) and the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). In addition, current indicators of extent do not provide information about fragmentation and landscape patterns. Data Sources The data.sources for these indicators were Forest Inventory and Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1979-1995); National Land Cover Database, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (1990s); National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1970-2000); and Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1982-1997). (See Appendix B, page B-48, for more information.) -39 C-hange in ecosystem extent, long-term and recent trends, I950s-I990s dt\|al Indicator Data Long-term Changes for For Forests, Croplands, isslands/Shriiblands, Urban/Suburban Grasslands and Shrublands irttat Indicator Data Recent Trends for Forests, Croplands, Grasstands/Shrubfands, '"uburSan, Freshwater Wetlands 19^0 1970 leverage lower 48 states Grassland/ Shrublands (satellite) Fdrests Forests (satellite) Croplands (satellite) Croplands Freshwater W etfands Urban Urban/ Suburban (satellite) 2000, _..„_ Because these estimates are from different sources, they do not sum to 100% £ tf U S land area Approximately 5% of lands are not accounted for by these data Dtirces They include some wetfands, some nan suburban developed areas disturbed Jj !n\|jjjis such as mines; ancfquames and the like In addition freshwater wetlands Ibtjrrentry occupy approximateK/S% of the area of the lower 48 states, a reduction of labput 50% since presettlement times Because they are found within forests grasslands and shrublands or croplands, freshwater wetlands from those ecosystems ^efshown as aggregated data on the graph Finally, the urban" trend line in this ;raphj£ based on a different definition from the one in this report and is presented J gre_to illustrate general trends. Trie definition used in this .report was used to. jgeneratethe urban/suburban (satellite)" area estimate. . ... , . ^Source 1\]s_HemzCent^.T^ State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. fEla^ajTom the USDA Forest Service (forests, current area, recent trends), USDA ^Economic Research Service (croplands trends, urban area trends), Multi-Resolution rid Characterization Consortium" (MRLC^af) satelite data, including currerit estimate 'grass/shrub anil u^bTn7suEurban area in, top graph). Presettlement estimates,.are Klopateketal 197S.J,"_, ""^ ". '..-^^..'.'.•', -,',,.," .,,,n.' „ , ^.,',:,,,V:,'.,-,.;' , Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? 5-65 ------- El As Draft jNJeport on the Environment 200^3 cnca At-risR native species - Category 2 Scientists are engaged in considerable discussion about the importance of rare and at-risk species for the sustainability of ecosystems (e.g., Grime, 1997; Hodgson, et al., 1998; Naeem, et al., 1999; Tilman and Downing, 1994; Wardle, et al., 2000). There are at (east 200,000 native plant, animal, and microbial species in the U.S., but according to The Heinz Center (2002), "little is known about the status and distribution of most of these." This indicator represents what is known about 22 species groups, including 16,000 plant species and 6,000 animal species. It includes all higher plants; all terrestrial and fresh water vertebrates (i.e., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish); select inverte- brate groups, including fresh water mussels and snails, crayfishes, butterflies and skippers; and about 2,000 species of grasshop- pers, moths, beetles, and other invertebrates (The Heinz Center, 2002). The Heinz Center believes that this indicator is a power- ful—yet manageable—snapshot of the condition of U.S. species. No data are available for marine species, which led The Heinz Center to rank this as an indicator equivalent to a Category 2. Special groupings of these species have been used as indicators in specific ecosystem cate- gories. This indicator includes all of them, but The Heinz Center has not analyzed species dependent on large or multiple ecosystems. Indicator Gaps and Limitations The data are from a census approach that fo.cuses on the location and distribution of at-risk species. Therefore] distinguishing trends in the indicator is difficult. i ; I . . . Data Source ; ! L- i ! ' ' The data for this indicator was The State pflthe Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the NatureServe Explorer database. (Sets Appendix B, page B-48, fonmore information.) What the Data Show One-third of species native species are at risk, and 1 percent of plant and 3 percent of animal species might already be extinct (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-40). Approximately 19 percent of native animal species and IS percent of native plant species are ranked as imperiled or critically imperiled. There are large differences among plant and animal groups and among regions. For example, the percentage of at- risk fresh water species such as mussels and crayfish is much higher than that for birds or mammals, and more at-risk species are found in California, Hawaii, the southern Appalachians, and Florida than elsewhere (Stein, 2002). i txnipit S-^tO^/^tris^R landjina Jreikwater^^^^ .MV«I IK;. :sn"'""',. " ^ ""~ "tr\r\r\" plant ang animal native species, /OOO 3S t Land and FresSwater Plants Land and Fresh water Animats » * Coverage: all SO Source: The Heinz • Critically Imperiled TV l^^lf^ WV'T^^/T ^ -^^ ^ ^ ^ tf* ^•imperiled All At-Risk .2UU4VCV * IWZ 1 Idlt£. V-dlll-d. IIC ^tdrte Cg tnC IVflfflOJl S i_s»t^j»js&»nu- JE-VTVI \| j- ^ppntM;L.1'?!^1 Wt ., ^ fr^^'-"«^-«'^«'** * Data thorn NatureSente and its Natural Heritage member programs. * „ sr n,^ f -^^HSWfWMWWfc'WW <##a>•fcm^'^ «f9W\| WiWWnBje a^jar _ 002, 5-66 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? Chapter 5 - 'Icdlogical Condition ------- Bird Community Index - (Category 2 The types of birds observed in an area have been shown to serve as an indicator of the overall characteristics of the landscape. Species vary in their sensitivity to physical, chemical, and biological threats, and different species require different habitats for food, shelter, and reproduction. Some species need extensive areas of interior forest, others prefer the edges between different types of land cover or mixed areas, and still others prefer disturbed or highly managed areas. Consequently, the composition of the bird community reflects the overall mix, pattern, and condition of the mosaic of forest, agri- culture, grasslands and shrublands, wetlands, streams, and urban/suburban areas that makes up most of the U.S. landscape. The Bird Community Index (BCI) was developed by O'Connell, et al. (1998, 2000) for songbirds in the mid-Atlantic states. The index was developed based on data collected at 34 reference sites, with bird species classified into 16 functional groups according to the degree to which they specialized in using the native flora and fauna in an area (high BCI scores) versus being generalists and exotic or ' invasive species (low BCI scores). The BCI then was applied to a probability sample of bird data from 126 sites across the Mid- Atlantic Highlands. txhibit 5-UI: Dird species as characteristics or landscape composition and pattern as an indicator or landscape condition, 1995-1996 Excellent Good Ecological Conditions Fair Poor Rural Poor Urban S< arlet Tanager, American Redstart, Black-and-White War >Ier, Black-Throated Green lyarbler, Hairy Woodpecker, -' ™ • ,".-,".,;',>:M'LV"' '-• r: — ^V^^Uea -—*—• American Goldfinch, B -own Thrasher, Common Yel Ovenbird, Cerulean" Wart House Sparrow, Hojuse Finch,-Rock Dove'(Pigeon), European Starling iowthroat, Gray Catbird, Re i-Winged Blackbird, Yellow Shrub Nesters ler, Worm-Eating Warbler... tVarbler, Indigo Bunting... 'igein),.! : 87% Forest Cover •• 80 ft. Height = 87% Forest Cover = 65 ft. Height = 47%CanopyC\|osure >61 % Non-Woody Plant/Agriculture >29% Residential/ Commercial Coverage' Mid-Atlantic Highlands (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) Source • EPA, Office of Research and Development. Birds Indicate Ecological Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands June 2000 Chapter 5 - Tlcological Condition 5.8 What is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? 5-67 ------- Bird Community Index - Category 2 (continued) i L What the Data Show Good-to-excellent BCI scores (diverse communities of birds charac- terized by many specialists and native species) were associated with at least 87 percent forest cover and a minimum of 47 percent canopy closure. Poor BCI scores (low diversity communities charac- terized by generalists and exotic species) were associated with either rural agricultural or urban areas where almost 30 percent of the landscape was in residential or commercial land use. The BCI was calibrated across a range of landscape conditions from least disturbed to significantly degraded. Based on this calibration, 43 percent of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands was estimat- ed to be in good to "excellent" condition (in other words, con- taining large tracts of interior forest), 36 percent was estimated to be in "fair" condition, and 21 percent (5 percent urban and 16 percent rural) was estimated to be in "poor" condition (Exhibit 5- 41). Forested sites in good and excellent condition supported dif- ferent bird communities and ground-level vegetation attributes, but could not be separated by land cover composition alone. As the proportion of the landscape in forested areas decreased or the proportion of canopy closure decreased, so did the BCI scores (O'Connell, et al., 1998, 2000). 7 Indicator Caps and Limitations The limitations of this indicator include th£ following: • This indicator depends on a value judgement common among ecologists that communities associated [with the native vegetation of a region are "better" than exotic, generalist species associated with human modification of the environment. B The BCI has been calibrated and assessed only for the Mid- Atlantic Highlands, and may not apply to areas where shoreline birds or migratory waterfowl are a largef component of the bird community. ; a The BCI relates primarily to land cover estimates, and does not explicitly include the condition of any particular land cover type. Data Source The data sources for this indicator were A Bird Community Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, O'Connell, et al., 1998; and B'rd Guilds as Indicators of Ecological Condition in the Central Applachians, O'Connell, et al., 2000, using data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mid-Atlantic Highlands Program and the National Land Cover Database;. (See Appendix B, page B-48, for more information.) ; 5-68 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? C-Kapter 5 • Ecological Condition ------- lerrestrial riant Curowtn Index - Category I Both the National Research Council and Science Advisory Board reports suggest that primary productivity (the amount of solar energy captured by plants through photosynthesis) is a key indicator of ecosystem function (NRC, 2000; SAB, 2002). Generally, ecosystems will maximize their primary productivity through adaptation (Odum, 1971), so primary productivity can increase under favorable conditions (e.g., increased nutrients or rainfall) ;or decrease under unfavorable conditions (e.g., plant stress caused by toxic substances or disease). Changes in primary produc- tivity can result in changes in the way ecosystems function, in the yield of crops or timber, or in the animal species that live in the ecosystems. Gross primary productivity is related to the standing crop of the photosynthetic pigment chlorophyll and can be thought of in simple terms as plant growth. The Terrestrial Plant Growth Index indicator is based on the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), which measures the amount of chlorophyll, using satellite data (The Heinz Center, 2002). While the standing crop of chlorophyll is not identical to primary productivity, EPAs Science Advisory Board (EPA, SAB, 2002) lists it as an example of an indicator under the ecological processes EEA. What the Data Show No overall trend in plant growth is observed for the 11 -year period from 1989 through 2000, for any land cover type or any region of the U.S., although year-to-year measurements can fluctuate by up to 40 percent of the 11 -year average (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-42). Over a sufficiently long period, regional trends in NDVI could be an important indicator of increasing or decreasing plant growth resulting from changing climate, UV-B exposure, air pollution, or other stressors. Indicator Caps and Limitations There were no calculations for phytoplankton or submerged vegetation growth in fresh water or coastal systems. Data Source The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data on visible and near-infrared wavelengths collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer and converted into a Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (Reed and Young, 1997). (See Appendix B, page B-49, for more information.) ;?',^v.Ma£ig lExkit.it 5-U2: Flant Growth Index, 1989-2000 "I errestriai riant\3rowtn Index for lower U8 states Forests Grasslands/ Shrublands Croplands All Three Systems pTJa.rjt S3ro\«tfl Inaex^squ.thwest, rocky mountain, pacific regions Southwest Rocky Mountain ..... Pacific —— U.S. (lower 48) ,:;:;:•, rlartt.tirpwtn Index: northeast, southeast,_rr\|iavvest,regions .... Northeast/ Mid-Atlantic ; Southeast i.i Midwest — U.S. (lower 48) 20OP.. ;e: .Lower 4g.srtates. _.:- .... ,. •. .. ..... . , ,g rp^e;~3ecause of .satellite problems, no.datai are. available for 1994. , ^ ^,Jfie,^ei(r\|zi^ep.tec!j,TlieFiStote of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. " a_fro,,H)Mthe U,S,-Gie_QipgicaLSurvey; Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium.'[ J Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? 5-69 ------- liiiiiiiiiii TarrrH!ir Indicator AAovement of nitrogen - Category Nitrogen is a critical nutrient for plants, and "leakage" of nitrogen from watersheds can signal a decline in ecosystem function (Vltousek, et al., 2002). It also may signal the failure of watershed management efforts to control point, non-point, and atmospheric sources of nitrogen pollutants, and the resulting nitrogen may have "cascading" harmful effects as it moves downstream to coastal ecosystems (Galloway and Cowling, 2002). Nitrate concentration in streams has served as an indicator of chemical condition in the other ecosystems in this section. This indicator, however, deals with nitrogen export from large watersheds, and is an indicator of ecosystem function. What the Data Show Nitrate export from the Mississippi River has been monitored since the mid-1950s and from the Susquehanna, St. Lawrence, and Columbia Rivers since the 1970s, and is reported in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems in tons per year. The load in the Mississippi River has fluctuated from year to year, but it has increased from approximately 250,000 tons per year in the early 1960s to approximately 1,000,000 tons per year during the 1980s and 1990s (The Heinz _ __ _ Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-43). The Mississippi River drains the agri- cultural "breadbasket" of the nation and contains a large percentage of the growing population, so the increases likely reflect failure to control nitrogen pollution, rather than a breakdown in ecosystem function (e.g., Rabalais and Turner, 2001). Nitrate loads in the other three rivers have fluctuated around 50,000 tons per year since the 1970s, although the Columbia River spiked to 100,000 tons per year in the late 1990s. Indicator Caps and Limitations The indicator does not include data from numerous coastal water- sheds whose human populations are rapidly increasing and are therefore estimated to have high nitrogen loss rates (e.g., Valigura, et al., 2000). It also does not include other forms of nitrogen besides nitrate, which may constitute a substantial portion of the nitrogen load. Data Source ' The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Stream Quality Accounting Network and National Water Quality Assessment Program, and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (See Appendix B, page B-49, for more information.) > _ , , , r- , - rexhibit 5-43: Nitrate load carried by major rivers, 1970-1999 t l, fc~o • +j o ''• 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 r<»{j j-w,fi Mississippi • 1 3 "" % —— Susquehanna * \| 1 -s (i* i -•-»- St. Lawrence 1 1 Columbia 1950 1960 Coverage: selected major rivers. I HfcS^^ ^ ^I" ^S ^ I hf w " «h nu ^ £fe Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. \|Data from the U.S. Geological Surve^NatiSnal Stream Quality Metwork (NA'SQAN), I National Water Quality Assessment fRlAWQA), and Federal-State Cooperative Program/ e ifch- "' -" - ' .) «« 4'te » j,Mt ^ 5-70 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? Chapter 5 - Icologio al Condition ------- CJiemical contamination - Category 2 This indicator has been discussed for the individual ecosystems, but here it is reported for all media, regardless of land-cover type. The following is a summary of the key findings; the Heinz report (2002) should be consulted for further details. What the Data Show Three-fourths of all streams in the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) network had one or more contaminants that exceeded guidelines for the protection of aquatic life, and one-fourth had four or more contaminants over those levels. One- fourth of ground water wells sampled had one or more contami- nants above human health standards. One-half of all streams had one or, more contaminants in sediments that exceeded wildlife protection guidelines (usually more stringent than criteria to pro- tect human health). One-half of all fish tested had one or more contaminants that exceeded wildlife protection guidelines. Approximately 60 percent of estuarine sediments tested had con- centrations of contaminants expected to lead to "possible effects" in aquatic life, and 2 percent had concentrations exceeding levels expected to have "likely effects." Indicator Gaps and Limitations The limitations of this indicator include the following: • While these data represent a comparison of a standard to the respective contaminant concentration, they do not represent assessments of risk posed to humans or ecosystems. • Different standards also reflect different levels of protection, so these data should be interpreted cautiously. • Media contamination, such as water or sediment contamination, does'not necessarily indicate exposure to the contaminant for either humans or other biological populations. Data Source The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the National Water Quality Assessment Program and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Estuaries Program. (See Appendix B, page B-SO, for more information.) Chapter 5 - £cological Condition 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? 5-71 ------- Summary: TKe Ecological Condition of tne Entire Nation Ecological processes The idea of monitoring indicators that could include the entire nation, irrespective of the type of land cover, has not been a main topic of ecological monitoring. The main idea is that pressures acting over large areas may have effects that transcend a land cover type, or may depend on the interaction of land cover types. The issue of scale has not been well-articulated with respect to these indicators (issues of national scope may not operate at national scales). This is an area of attention for future reports. Landscape condition The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) now provides a consis- tent national picture of the extent of the various ecosystem types at 30 meter (about 100 foot) resolution (Vogelmann, et al., 2001). A consortium of federal agencies performs the interpretation of the satellite data necessary for development of the NLCD. Much of the data in this indicator come from the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) or the National Resources Inventory (NRI), which allows trends to be estimated during periods prior to the first NLCD coverage. Unfortunately, these data are not comparable to the NLCD, because of differences in the definitions of the land cover categories (see Chapter 3, Better Protected Land). Blotic condition With respect to the at-risk native species indicator, the NatureServe database is an invaluable resource for identifying these species. Because the resulting data are developed without an underlying statistical design, however, it will be difficult to determine whether future trends are the result of more thorough field work and report- ing by researchers and resource managers, or actual trends in the number of at-risk species. An effort has begun to identify all species in the Smoky Mountain National Park (Kaiser, 1999), and an international effort, called Species 2000, is being developed by a multinational project team associated with the United Nations (U.N.) Convention of Biological Diversity. Recent research expanding the bird diversity index to the entire mid-Atlantic region shows that it has promise as a national indicator (O'Connell, et al., 2002). Analysis of the biological data from the first 20 National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) study units, and similar analyses of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) data from the national estuaries and streams in the West and Midwest, should shed some light on the feasibility of a national indicator for estuarine and stream benthic communities. Because the plankton communities of lakes do not exhibit a high degree of biogeographical variation (independent of natural factors such as hardness or the presence of organic color), a national plankton index would seem feasible if the necessary data were collected. The Terrestrial Plant Growth Index is probably the best example of the indicator of primary productivity called for by both the NRC (2000) and SAB (2002). Comparable data exist orj trends for a decade, with census coverage (at the resolution of the AjVHRR sensor) for the conterminous U.S. Examination of the trends data for this indicator in The Heinz Center (2002) report shows jarge (±40 percent) ' excursions from the 11 -year average in the Southwest, and ±20 per- cent excursions in the Pacific region. The amount of time necessary to separate changes caused by air pollutants (e.g., ozone, nitrogen deposition, carbon dioxide) from those caused by natural climatic factors and insect and disease outbreaks is unknown. The Movement .of Nitrogen indicator certainly captures trends in this important nutrient in the nation's largest river basins. The indicator would be improved if it included total nitrcigen, including an accurate estimate of nitrogen carried in the bed loa[d of sediments as it moves into coastal waters, and if it were extended^ to the many smaller coastal watersheds that are experiencing large increases in popula- tion. An indicator of sediment runoff potential would be a useful large-ecosystem indicator if it were extended to non-farmland ecosystems (see Chapter 3, Better Protected Land). ' i Chemical and physical characteristics i The Chemical Contamination indicator raises a serious question about how representative the streams in the NAWQA study units are. There were 119 NAWQA sites with surface water monitoring data, located in 201 geographically well-dispersed watersheds across the U.S. Eventually, NAWQA plans to expand to 60 such units, and pre- sumably all will include water sampling. On a national basis, this might be an adequate number to represent the range of factors affecting ecological condition of the streams and watersheds. The number of streams characterizing forest, farmland, or urban/subur- ban watersheds seems too small, however, given the very wide range of nutrient and contaminant concentrations presented in the Heinz report. More important, however, is whether the streams sampled are repre- sentative of the range of streams in the entire nation. The ecological condition of fresh waters (and their watersheds) reflects the sum total of natural factors (including disturbances), conscious and unconscious decisions about land-use management (e.g., what crops to grow, whether and when to cut timber.j urban planning and zon- ing), and th« presence and control of pollutants. A particular stream might be representative of a watershed) with respect to geomorphol-; ogy and hydrology, and even land use (e.g., corn or tree farming, urban or suburban). But resource management decisions and the presence or control of pollutants are particular to a specific water- shed, and so the streams must be chosen to be representative of the full range of possibilities, and of their relative frequencies. With respect to pollution control, assuming that the full set of environ- mental controls are working as envisioned by EPA is particularly risky. In fact, this risk is one of the primary reasons for monitoring 5-72 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? C_napter 5 -, tcological C-ondition ------- progress toward national goals under GPRA; to determine if the pro- grams, as implemented and enforced by the states are really protect-' . ing and restoring the biological integrity of fresh waters. In this con- text, identifying representative streams or watersheds is not as rea- sonable as identifying representative samples of .streams or water- sheds. Until the NAWQA streams can be compared to a statistically representative sample of streams, great care must be taken in assum- ing that the data accurately reflect the national condition of fresh waters and watersheds. There were no Category 1 or 2 indicators available for this report for hydrology and geomorphology or natural disturbance regimes, but developing them does not seem to be a particularly daunting • challenge, given the widely available data on geology, flow, and paleological methods to indicate the regional occurrence of climatic events and fire. 'Chapter 5 - Ecological Conditi .ion 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? 5-73 ------- 5.9 CJnallenges and DataG aps The availability of indicators across ecosystem types is summarized in Exhibit 5-44. Indicators that currently can provide national informa- tion on ecological condition are available for only 14 of the possible 126 indicator categories in the framework. More than half of the Category 1 indicators provide information only on ecosystem extent and landscape composition, with a few exceptions: • The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) and Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) programs together have achieved representative national coverage for both the present status and historical trends in the occurrence of fire, insect damage, and disease for forests. • Satellite data provide continent-wide status and trends in the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), which serves as a surrogate for primary productivity, or the amount of energy available at the base of the ecosystems.17 • Historical hydrology data were analyzed for The Heinz Center report to determine trends in high and low-flows for more than 800 streams with no specified land cover and more than 500 forest streams across the U.S., and the number and duration of dry periods were calculated for 152 streams in grasslands, shrublands, and dry areas. These analyses could presumably have been performed for urban/suburban, agricultural, and very large watersheds, but they have not been performed to date. • The current status and historical trends in the potential for sediment transport from farmland can be calculated from existing data (though not the amount of sediment actually lost). For the rest of the essential ecological attributes, only partial data exist, at best (e.g., regional data or data for only part of the resource), for one or more indicators. For more than one-half of the major indicator categories in the seven ecosystem iypes, not even one indicator was identified for this report. For many more, only one existed, though several would be necessary. This situation will improve slightly in the next year or two. A number of active research programs are collecting and analyzing relevant ecological condition data at the national or regional level, but the results had not yet met the criterion for peer review at the time this report was finalized. Two years from now, research on indicators from the FIA program, FHM program, the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program ( EMAP) Western Streams Pilot should provide new Category 2, and a few Category 1 indicators, primarily biotic condition and ecological process indicators. As of now, the gaps are substantial. "There is some debate as to whether standing crop chlorophyll can really be a surrogate for primary productivity, so this might be more appro- priate as an ecosystem condition indicator. What the rWailable Indicators Keveal iabout jome tcological Issues or Tvecent Concern to tr/x : i : The introduction to this chapter identifiedjthree reasons to monitor ecological coridition: • To establish baselines against which to assess the current and future condition of ecosystems. • To provide ia warning that action may be required. I . - • To track the outcomes of policies and programs, arid adapt them as necessary. '• < This section addresses the question of how well the available indicators of ecological condition, notwithstanding the gaps evident in Exhibit 5-44, serve these purposes for some ecological issues that have been of concern to EPA over the past decade. These do not reflect all such issues, or signify EPA's priorities, but simply typify a diverse set of challenges for national ecojogical monitoring: n Forest dieback BI Vertebrate deformities ! n Harmful algal blooms H Eutrophication n Loss of biodiversity ; • Non-target organism effects from pesticides and herbicides • Issues related to ozone, UV-B, mercury, acidic deposition, and persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBjTs) For the first five issues listed above, biota were harmed before the cause was known. For the other two, a perceived risk exists, but the extent of artual harm or exposure is unknown. In either case, data on the extent or trends in ecological condition is needed to inform how research is targeted or regulatory programs adjusted. Identifying indi- cators of the appropriate essential ecolqgical attribute also should help to identify'some of the factors that mignt be contributing to the • extent of and trends in harm to biota and ecosystem function (EPA, SAB, 2002). I i i i Forest dieback Forest dieback can be exacerbated, if pot caused, by some combina- tion of acid deposition, air pollution, LJV-B radiation, disease, insects, and unusual climate events (USDA, FS; 2002). Currently, the forest ' indicators; provide a baseline for the extent of poor tree condition in i 37 states; soon, these indicators will provide a baseline and future trends for the conterminous U.S. NDVl data are available as a surro- gate for primary productivity in forests. FIA program plots are being examined for indications of harm to ozone-sensitive species. Relevant soil data (exchangeable base cations) are being measured, even 5-74 5.9 Challenges and Data Gaps Chapter J5 - tcological Condition ------- though that indicator cannot yet be reported. A UV-B monitoring network has been collecting data for less than 2 years, and the data are currently being evaluated. Data for ozone and acid deposition in high elevation forests remain poor, as do climate data. Most of these indicators are being monitored using a probability design, so contin- ued FIA monitoring can provide a national baseline for assessing the extent and trends in forest dieback, and some of the EEAs that may contribute to it. . . - Vertebrate deformities The ability of exogenous chemicals to interfere with normal endocrine functioning and related processes of an organism has raised increasing concerns for human health and the environment. Studies have reported that both synthetic and naturally occurring compounds interfere with normal endocrine function of inverte- brates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals causing effects such as birth defects, impaired fertility, masculinization of female organisms, feminization of male organisms, or organisms with both male and female reproductive organs. Two recent reports summarize available data from field and laboratory studies and provide an assessment of the state of the science (EPA, RAF, 1997; IPCS, 2002). The existing challenge is to further elucidate the cause-and-effect relationships for the observed adverse effects, determine which chemicals are of greatest concern, and the extent to which these chemicals negatively impact populations of fish and/or wildlife. The only indicator identified in this chapter that tracks the extent or trends in animal deformities (irrespective of the cause) is a Category 2 indicator, Fish Deformities, collected by EMAP in coast and ocean ecosystems. Data are being collected on amphibian deformities by the USGS, using reports from a wide array of sources. A new national survey, the Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative, was estab- lished by USCS in 2000. However, it may be several years before USCS and EPA can detect national and/or regional trends from this initiative. Until there is a better understanding of which chemicals are of greatest concern, there is also some question about which chemi- :ij"7i^"'.r^i-"ij ,;-,r — '~ ' ••'-'•- -Llf'- -' .' ' s '• T1 — ' — . , _ - •'.,-•,' -••••'.-'..-" .:'.••.'-'•' - - - • ' " " " " ' ' > • . ifNbte: Numbers correspond to indicator categories presented in this report. : "----'-. •-;.., -,...« -»»«««-» "••-'•"-'^S^-IT''"' Ife-^- "• '"';-±- -'•''. Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 55.9 Challenges and Data Caps 5-75 ------- ' '''•''''•! ' !':; 11 ET/AS Draft Mport oh the Environinent 2QO3 • Technical Document ' rrr - . • • • M r ;••••'<• . : • •/r HI cals to monitor in the fish and wildlife habitat. Additional information on chemicals will become available once EPA has fully implemented an Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program to test a chemical for its potential endocrine disruption activity. Harmful algal blooms Scientists have also been concerned about the condition of the nation's estuaries and in particular, about a perceived increase in harmful algal blooms (HABs); loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), which serves as habitat for fish; and sediment toxicity, which might limit the productivity of an important component of the estuarine food chain (Anderson and Garrison, 2000; Gallagher and Keay, 1998). EMAP, working with the states, has collected data on the condition of SAV, estuarine fish communities, estuarine benthic communities, sediment toxicity, and nutrient concentrations that should provide representative-status and trends data for these indicators. The sampling design does not allow tracking of the frequency and extent of HABs or nutrient levels in estuaries, but USGS does monitor nutrient loads to coastal systems from four of the largest U.S. rivers. Continued monitoring of the estuaries is subject to state- by-state availability of funding. Eutrophication EPA has recently focused substantial attention on the listing by the states of their waters that do not meet their designated uses (usually expressed in terms of their ability to support aquatic life), and devel- oping total maximum daily loads of pollutants that would allow the designated use to be achieved. Concern over eutrophication of lakes and reservoirs has prompted EPA to begin developing regional stan- dards for the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus. At present, there is no indicator monitoring suitable to track progress in reducing the number of eutrophic lakes and streams or the condition of the biotic communities in rivers and streams at the national or even regional level. Indicators monitored by the states are not comparable, the same waters are not necessarily sampled over time, and their repre- sentativeness is unknown and questionable. NAWQA uses compara- ble methods and intends to monitor the same streams over time, but the number of such streams in the various ecosystem types is too small to adequately represent all the factors that contribute to water quality at the national level. While the data are likely to be broadly representative of certain types of streams, they cannot be expanded to alt streams with known statistical reliability. This fact is particularly important if the combination of factors affecting water quality in the study units (which depend on a variety of factors, including water quality management by the states, national patterns of air pollution and acid rain, geology and land use, and climate) is not statistically representative of these factors nationally. EMAP has demonstrated regional approaches to statistically representative sampling that include both biology and chemistry, but has not yet reported on relationships between them, nor is there any long-term commitment to repeating the pilot studies or expanding them to other regions. EPA is currently working with the states to rectify this situation, and some progress is reported in Chapter 2, Purer Water. toss of biodiversity EPA is concerned generally about biodiversity, and this is one of the primary areas on which EPA comments in Environmental Impact Statements for significant projects involving federal funding under NEPA. The NatureServe indicator reported for many of the ecosys- tems is invaluable in indicating species at risk in the vicinity of such projects. Becapse the database is not based on a systematic survey of plots over time, however, it is not clear now to interpret data that are not reported. For example, the current data cannot distinguish naturally rare species from species whose numbers have been reduced. It is ;iot clear how to determine whether future trends are the result of better (or less) field work or the actual status of the species in question. The answer likely depends on the species, but at this point the data seem less than ideal for national reporting. . Non-target organism effects from pesticides and herbicides EPA is concerned about non-target organism effects from pesticides and herbicides. Pesticides and herbicides /including those incorporated into the genomes of crops) are registered for use by EPA such thai: their use in accordance with the registration is not expected to pose unnecessary risks to non-target organisms. Nonetheless, neither the models nor the compliance are likely to be perfect, so tracking any residues of such pesticides in non-target organisms would be useful, as would identifying any harm or mortality of organisms that might be caused by improper use of pesticides. There are Category 2 indicators for pesticide application and leaching pesticides in stream biota, and pesticides in sediment and fish tissue for fresh waters. There are no indicators in The Heinz Center report for pesticides in terrestrial' organisms. Another indicator that might provide presumptive evidence of harm—animal die-off in fresh waters—is adequate for national reporting only for waterfowl. : 5-76 5.9 Challenges and Data Gaps Chapter 5;- Ecological Condition ------- I^M Issues related to ozone, UV-B, mercury, acidic deposition, and persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) In air, a number of pollutants travel regionally or even globally (e.g., ozone, acid deposition, PBTs [including mercury], ozone-depleting substances, greenhouse gases). What do the indicators reveal about baselines and trends in the levels of these pollutants in various ecosystems, or possible harm to biota as a result of exposure to these pollutants or their secondary effects? The chemical and physi- cal characteristic EEA in Exhibit 5-44 contains many Category 2 indicators, but no indicators are available that provide a representa- tive baseline for the nation. For water, the NAWQA program samples sediment chemistry in more than 500 streams for many PBTs. Repeated sampling should provide an invaluable picture of trends, unless the variability is too high or there are important local sources that make these streams non-rep- resentative of streams in general. A smaller number of streams have been sampled for contaminants in fish tissue. A.national monitoring network for mercury currently exists, with sampling sites primarily on the East coast and in the upper Midwest (see Chapter 2, Purer Water), but it is not adequate for establishing a national baseline for mercury or other PBTs. Monitoring for UV-B exposure is under devel- opment by USDA. EMAP has collected fish tissue residues for many of the PBTs, but there is no commitment to re-sample in the future. To the extent that these factors affect tree growth, FHM will provide national trends information in the future, but at this point, there is no prospect for establishing trends in either exposure or effects for most of these chemicals. Future Cnall* ,enges When the indicators available for this report are arrayed against the essential attributes in Exhibit 5-44, it is clear that indicators and adequate data are available to address only a portion of the informa- tion needed to describe ecological condition for the nation. Data for a few more indicators have been collected once, or for limited geo- graphic regions, but the clear message is that more data are needed to describe and track ecological condition. This situation will improve over the next few years, but most of the gaps in Exhibit 5-44 are likely to remain for some time to come. There are several challenges to developing adequate indicators of ecological condition for the nation: • Indicators must be tied to conceptual models that capture how ecosystems respond to single and multiple stressors at various scales. • Federal, state, and local monitoring organizations must find a way to coordinate and integrate their activities to meet multiple, potentially conflicting, data needs. • Mechanisms must be found to ensure long-term commitments to measuring selected indicators over long periods and in standardized ways, to establish comparable baselines and trends. • Indicators must simplify complex data in ways that make them meaningful and useful to decision-makers and the public. None of these challenges appear insurmountable, but the gaps in Exhibit 5-44 indicate the work that remains to allow measurement of ecological condition at the national scale. Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.9 Challenges and Data Caps 5-77 ------- "t ------- Appendix A: Databases and Reports Clusters of Indicators Used in the Report with Links for Additional Information ------- ~ ' ' ' •'• • j .; • . t ;:. ; '.•:-.., j . • ' ..::•.'. • • .•.:•,•..'.'.'..•• '-- :.'':'!. j J.J.I. I EPAs Draft Mpbrt qn the Environrrjent 2.b.6;5 • jlcniiical:'DoC:y:rtil\|il\|: I i ' ' ' " • •' ;' "I1 • ':\|l ;\|"' ' ' • . '•• . I.'.::1!",,;'!;•];: -N:'!;'!.1,!1:''.'';-1"""'.!" " -I'!".1. .-. ', ..:-' .i :"•,."•. ••" :V:H:iU:.:i:Wi'i':. .:'•:• I ."ft ;:•!:.I if: Appendix A: Databases ana Reports Supporting AAajor Clusters of Indicators Used in tne Report with Links for Additional Information The databases that serve as the underlying datasets and the reports that provide the majority of indicators used in the Draft Report on the Environment Technical Document are listed by human health and envi- ronmental categories in alphabetical order below. In the interests of providing complete and accurate information, rather than provide sum- mary descriptions of the databases, links to the primary home pages of the databases are noted as starting points for further investigation by interested readers. Human Health Databases Database: Web site: Database: Web site: Database: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm (NHANES) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) Web sites: http://mrw.epa.gov/nerl/research/nhexas/nhexas.httn (NHEXAS) and http://www.epa.gov/heds/ (NHEXAS data in EPA's Human Exposure Database System) Database: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System Web sites: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/ (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/ (Summary of Notifiable Diseases) Database: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm Database: National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program Web site: http://seer.cancer.gov/ , Environmental Databases and Reports ! Database: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) Website: AIRS and the Air Quality System— http://www.epa.gov/ttnairsl/aifsaqs/index.htm Database: Environmental Protection Agejicy, Office of Research aind Development, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Web site: http://www.epa.gov/emap/ \ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/fhm/index.htm U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis( (FIA) http://fia.fs.fed.us I Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Latest Findings on Rational Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends , : j http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01/ Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MLRC) Consortium, National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) MRLC: http://www.epa.gov/mrk/ NLCD: http://www.epa.goY/nlrlc/nlcd.html Database: Web site: Database: Web site: Report: Web site: Database: Web sites: Database: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Resources Inventory (NRI) Web site: http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/NRl/1997/ Database: U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Geological Survey, National Web site: 1 Stream Water Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan/ Database: ! .U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, i National Water Quality Assessment (NWAQA) Web site: : http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/ Database: < U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Web site: NWI: http://www.nwi.fws.gov/ - Database: NatureServe !' Web site: http://www.natureserve.org " Report: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997\ Website: http://www.nwi.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html • ! - Report: ! The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States Web site: http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems . \ Database: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Toxics Release [inventory (TR1) Web site: http://www.epa.gov/tri/ ; A-2 Databases and Reports Supporting Major Clusters of Indicators Used in the Report /Appendix f\ ------- ------- uPAs Draft fciport on the Environment 2003W Technical. Document « ' i ' '- ' I \ ••'"•'].' ' • -• . - ' '• i M :!;!:! lerms Used in the Indicator AAetadata Appendix Indicator names are those presented in the text report of this. Indicator type (status or trend) - Indicators are designated status if the indicator is supported by a single data point or study, a snapshot in time. Indicators are designated trends if there are at least three data points. Indicator category. Indicators were assigned to one of two categories: • Category 1 —The indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by national level data coverage for more than one time period. The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are characterized by sound collection methodologies, data management systems, and quality assurance procedures. • Category 2—The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data are available only for part of the nation (e.g., multi-state regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for more than one time period, or the not all the parameters of the indicator have been measured (e.g., data has been collected for birds, but not for plants or insects). The supporting data are comparable across the areas covered, and are characterized by sound collection methodologies, data management systems, and quality assurance procedures. All category designations for the indicators and associated data are relative to the specific associated question. Spatial coverage is scale and geographic information about where monitoring and sampling have taken place. Temporal coverage is the time period in which the data has been collected and includes information about seasonally of collection • activity where relevant Characterization of supporting data set(s) is descriptive information about the history of the database and its collection methodologies, data management systems, and quality assurance procedures. Indicator source information, including derivation and web sites, arc provided for readers who want additional information. Chapter 1: (Cleaner Air Outdoor Air Quality Indicator name: Number and percentage of days that metropolitan statistical areas: (MSAs) have Air Quality Index (AQI) values greater than 100 ; Indicator type (status or trend): Trend : Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 ' r Associated question: What is the quality of outdoor air in the United States? \ Spatial coverage: National. Based on the measurements, EPA designates geographical areas of attainment (meeting standards) and nonattainment for specific criteria air pollutants. Temporal coverage: 1988-2001. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations network measures air quality at 5,200 monitors operating at 3,000 sites across the country, mostly in urban areas. Measurements, taken on both a daily and continuous basis to assess both peak concentrations and overall trends, are reported in the Aerometric Information Retrieval Systems (AlRS). Trends are derived by averaging direct measurements from the£e monitoring stations on a yearly basis. Not all sites monitor all of the six criteria air pollutants. The Air Quality System (AQS) database contains measurements of criteria air pollutant concentrations in the SO United States,! plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. > EPA uses the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act (CAA): ground-level ozone, particujate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. In large metropolitan areas (more than 350,000 people), state and local agencies are required to report the AQI to the public daily. In 1976, EPA developed the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI), a consistent and easy to understand way of stating air pollutant concentrations and associated health implications. In June 2000, EPA updated the index and renamed it AQI. PSI and AQI are similar as they both focus on health risks of brief exposure to pollutants (a few hours or days); involve air pollutants regulated by the CAA (criteria pollutants); use the same method to calculate index valuesj and use an index value of 100 to represent pollutant concentration at the level of the national ambient standard set by EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Beginning in 2000, the AQI included new features including a new health risk category, unhealthy for sensitive groups; two additional pollutants (ozone averagediover 8 hours and fine particulate miatter less than 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.s); and a specific color associated with each of the health risk categories. B-2 Indicator Metadata /Appendix D ------- , Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): For 1988 through 1991, data were drawn from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1997. Table A-1S. EPA 4S4-R-98-016. Research Triangle Park, NC: EPA. December, 1998. For 1992 through 2001, data were drawn from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Air trends: Metropolitan area trends, Table A-17. 2001. (February 25, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/metro.html). Web sites: AIRS and AQS http://www.epa.gov/ttnairs1/airsaqs/index.htm; 7997 air quality trends report http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd97/tables.html; 2000 air quality trends tables http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/metro.html/; AQI background http://www.epa.gov/airnow/aqibroch/ Indicator name: Number of people living in areas with air quality levels above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) and ozone Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 and 2): 1 Associated question: How many people are living in areas with particulate matter and ozone levels above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)? Spatial coverage: National. Based on the measurements, EPA designates geographical areas of attainment (meeting standards) and nonattainment for specific criteria air pollutants. Temporal coverage: 2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) network measure air quality at 5,200 monitors operating at 3,000 sites across the country, mostly in urban areas. Measurements, taken- on both a daily and continuous basis to assess both peak concentrations and overall trends, are reported in the Aerometric Information Retrieval Systems (AIRS). Trends are derived by averaging direct measurements from these monitoring stations on a yearly basis. Not all sites monitor all of the six criteria air pollutants. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), the repository of data collected from the NAMS and the SLAMS is reported in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-001, Washington, DC: EPA., Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002. Web sites: AIRS and AQS http://www.epa.gov/ttnairs1 /airsaqs/index.htm; Air quality trends report http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01/ Indicator name: Ambient concentrations of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 and 2): 1 Associated question: What are the concentrations of some criteria air pollutants: PM2 5, PM-\|Q> ozone, and lead? Spatial coverage: National. Based on the measurements, EPA desig- nates geographical areas of attainment (meeting standards) and nonattainment for specific criteria air pollutants. Temporal coverage: 1982-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) network measure air quality at 5,200 monitors operating at 3,000 sites across the country, mostly in urban areas. Measurements, taken on both a daily and continuous basis to assess both peak concentrations and overall trends, are reported in the Aerometric Information Retrieval Systems (AIRS). Trends are derived by averaging direct measurements from these monitoring stations on a yearly basis. Not all sites monitor all of the six criteria air pollutants. In 1999, EPA and its state, tribal, and local air pollution control agency partners deployed a monitoring network to begin measuring PM2 5 concentrations nationwide. The PM2 5 data presents was drawn from AIRS as of July 8, 2002. 770 sites have sufficient PM10 to assess trends from 1992-2001. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), the repository of data collected from the NAMS and the SLAMS is reported in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-001, Washington, DC: EPA., Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002. Web sites: AIRS and AQS http://www.epa.gov/ttnairs1/airsaqs/index.htm; Air quality trends report http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 / Indicator name: Ambient concentrations of ozone, 8-hour and 1 -hour Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 and 2): 1 Associated question: What are the concentrations of some criteria air pollutants: PM2 5, PM-jrj, ozone, and lead? Appendix u Indicator Metadata B-3 ------- n p! , ,1 E . i , -)r\^\z ''A Tl 1 • ^1 TV Hi rart Report on the tnvironrrient 2UUft • technical Uocument Spatial coverage: National. Based on the measurements, EPA desig- nates geographical areas of attainment (meeting standards) and nonattainment for specific criteria air pollutants. Temporal coverage: 1982-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) netwqrk measure air quality at 5,200 monitors operating at 3,000 sites across the country, mostly in urban areas. Measurements, taken on both a daily and continuous basis to assess both peak concentrations and overall trends, are reported in the Aerometric Information Retrieval Systems (AIRS). Trends are derived by averaging direct measurements from these monitoring stations on a yearly basis. Not all sites monitor all of the six criteria air pollu- tants. 379 sites have sufficient data to assess trends from 1992- 2001 for both 8-hour and 1 -hour measurements. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), the repository of data collected from the NAMS and the SLAMS is reported in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2007 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-001, Washington, DC: EPA., Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002. Web sites: AIRS andAQS http://www.epa.gov/ttnairs1/airsaqs/index.htm; Air quality trends report http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 / Indicator name: Ambient concentrations of lead Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 and 2): 1 Associated question: What are the concentrations of some criteria air pollutants: PM2.5, PM10, ozone, and lead? Spatial coverage: National. Based on the measurements, EPA desig- nates geographical areas of attainment (meeting standards) and nonattainment for specific criteria air pollutants. Temporal coverage: 1982-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and tfie State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) network measure air quality at 5,200 monitors operating at 3,000 sites across the country, mostly in urban areas. Measurements, taken on both a daily and continuous basis to assess both peak concentrations and overall trends, are reported in the Aerometric Information Retrieval Systems (AIRS). Trends are derived by averaging direct measurements from these monitoring stations on a yearly basis. Not all sites monitor all of the six criteria air pollu- tants. EPA has over 200 lead monitoring sites for lead nationally in addition to special purpose monitors near smelters and other lead emitters. The lead trend is based on 39 monitors that have a full 20 years of complete data. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), the repository of data collected from the NAMS and the SLA'MS is reported in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-001, Washington, DC: EPA., Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002. Web sites: AIRS and AQS http://www.epia.gov/ttnairs1/airsaqs/index.htm; http://www.epia.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 / ; Indicator name: Visibility Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 and 2): 1 Associated question: What are the impacjts of air pollution on visi- bility in national parks and other protected lands? Spatial coverage: National. 30 sampling sites located in national parks and wilderness areas through 1999;\|110 sites after 2000 in the monitoring network with an additional' 20 sites using the moni- toring protocol. Applicable to 156 Class I areas, mostly national parks and wilderness areas in the eastern and western U.S. Temporal coverage: 1992-1999 and 1990-1999 Characterization of supporting data se^(s): Data are presented by mean visual range as measured in kilometers respectively by worst, mid-range, and best visibility. The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network was established in 1987 as a cooperative effort among EPA, states, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Data are collected and ana- lyzed from this network to determine the type of pollutants primarily responsible for reduced visibility and to track progress toward the Clean Air Act's national goal. ' Indicator derivation (project, program! organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 200! Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-001, Washington, DC: EPA., Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002. Web site: Air quality trends report http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01/ Indicator mime: Ambient concentrations of selected air toxics i Indicator type (status or trend): Trend i j Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 j Associated question: What are the concentrations of toxic air pollu- tants in ambient air? i Spatial coverage: National, but no formpl monitoring network in place limiting information. B-4 Indicator Metadata Appendix D ------- :?Q6? Temporal coverage: 1994-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Selected-air toxics only, not all 188 identified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). Ambient concentrations are based on annual averages from the reporting sites. EPA and the states do not maintain an extensive nationwide monitoring network for air toxics as they do for the criteria air pollutants. While EPA, states, tribes, and local air regulatory agencies collect monitoring data for a number of toxic air pollutants, both the chemicals monitored and the geographic coverage of the monitors vary from state to state. Measurements of benzene were taken from 95 urban monitoring sites around the country. These urban areas generally have higher levels of benzene than other areas of the country. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): The data come from a combination of several monitoring networks, including: Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations Program; Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program; Non-Methane Organic Compound Monitoring Program; Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Network. Reported in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA 4S4-K-02- 001, Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002. Web site: Air quality trends report http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 / Indicator name: Emissions: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 Associated question: What are contributors to particulate matter, ozone, and lead in ambient air? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1992-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Actual emissions data are not presented and estimates are used. EPA estimates nationwide emissions of ambient pollutants and their precursors based on actual monitored readings or engineering calculations of the amounts and types of pollutants emitted by vehicles, factories, and other sources. Emission estimates are based on many factors, including the level of industrial activity, technology developments, fuel consumption, vehi- cle miles traveled, and other activities that cause air pollution (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Consistent estimation methods have been developed to provide trend data. Estimation is particularly necessary for mobile sources and area-wide sources. The methodol- ogy for estimating emissions is continually reviewed and is subject to revision. EPA is currently conducting such an evaluation of emissions data, and emissions estimates may be updated. Trend data prior to revisions must be considered in the context of those changes. Emission estimates also reflect changes in air pollution regulations and installation of emission controls. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) is a composite of many data sources reported in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-001, Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002. In the NEI, EPA divides emissions into four types of sectors: 1) major (large industrial) sources; 2) area and other sources, which include smaller industrial sources like small dry cleaners and gasoline stations, as well as natural sources like wildfires; 3) onroad mobile sources, including highway vehicles; and 4) nonroad mobile sources like aircraft, locomotives, and construction equipment (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Web site: Air quality trends report http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 / Indicator name: Lead emissions Indicator type (status or trend): Trend v Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 Associated question: What are contributors to particulate matter, ozone, and lead in ambient air? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1982-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): EPA estimates nation- wide emissions of ambient pollutants and their precursors based on actual monitored readings or engineering calculations of the amounts and types of pollutants emitted by vehicles, factories, and other sources. Emission estimates are based on many factors, includ- ing the level of industrial activity, technology developments, fuel consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and other activities that cause air pollution (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Consistent estimation methods have been developed to provide trend data. Estimation is particularly ne'cessary for mobile sources and area-wide sources. The methodology for estimating emissions is continually reviewed and is subject to revision. EPA is currently conducting such an evaluation of emissions data, and emissions estimates may be updated. Trend data prior to revisions must be considered in the context of those changes. Emission estimates also reflect changes in air pollution regulations and installation of emission controls. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) is a composite of many data sources reported in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-001, Washington, DC: EPA., Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002. Appendix 6 Indicator Metadata B-5 ------- EPAs Draft Report on the Environment 200J3 • lecnnical Document Web site: Air quality trends report http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 / Indicator name: Air toxics emissions Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 Associated question: What are contributors to toxic air pollutants in ambient air? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1990-1993,1996 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Hazardous air pollu- tant estimates are currently available for 1990-1993 (a mix of years depending on data availability on various source types) and 1996. EPA compiles an air toxics inventory as part of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI, formerly the National Toxics Inventory) to estimate and track national emissions trends for the 188 toxic air , pollutants regulated under the CM. In the NEI, EPA divides emis- sions into four types of sectors: 1) major (large industrial) sources; 2) area and other sources, which include smaller industrial sources like small dry cleaners and gasoline stations, as well as natural sources like wildfires; 3) onroad mobile sources, including highway vehicles; and 4) nonroad mobile sources like aircraft, locomotives, and construction equipment. The data presented are based on the data in the NEI (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): The NEI for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) is a com- posite of many data sources reported in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA 4S4-K-02-001, Washington, DC: EPA., Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002. Web site: Air quality trends report http://www,epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 / Acid Deposition Indicator name: Deposition: wet sulfate arid wet nitrogen Indicator type (status or trend): Status comparison Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 Associated question: What are the deposition rates of pollutants that cause acid rain? Spatial coverage: NADP/NTN consists of over 250 sites in the continental U.S., Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Temporal coverage: 1989-1991, 1999-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The data is collect- ed by uniform methods/protocol under the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)/National Trends Network (NTN) and the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet). The NADP is a cooperative program among federal and state agencies, universities, electric utilities, and other industries that has measured precipitation chemistry in the U.S. since 1978. The NADP/NTN is a nationwide network of precipitation monitoring sites designed to measure regional levels of atmospheric deposition. The NADP/NTN measures wet acid deposition that occurs in rain, snow, or sleet) weekly at about 250 monitoring stations throughout the U.S. The data are subject to strict quality assurance and completeness screening in the field, in the laboratory, and during analysis; 2) Presented total sulfur and total nitrogen data are derived from CASTNet, a nationwide network of over 70 sites concentrated in the eastern continental U.S. that measure ambient air concentrations of pollutants, including ozone. CASTNet has not yet completed its expansion into the Great Plains and western states. CASTNet also measures dry deposition (the process through which particles and gases are deposited in the absence of precipitation) of acidic compounds. CASTNet data are also subject to strict quality assurance and completeness criteria (EPA, OAR, November 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program,'organization, report): NADP/NTN iand CASTNet data are reported in. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Acid Rain Program:\2001 Progress Report, EPA 430-R-02-009, Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, November, 2002. j Web site: NADP/NTN Data Access http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/ Indicator name: Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides Indicator type (status or trend): Trend ' Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 ; Associated question: What are the emissions of pollutants that form acid rain? ! Spatial coverage: Over 2000 facilities nationally. Temporal coverage: 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data collected by regu- lated facilities using certified continuous emissions monitors or equiva- lent, beginning in 1994-95 with quarterly and annual totals tabulated for each facility and aggregated for plants, states, and the U.S. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Acid Rain Program: 2007 Progress Report, EPA 430-R-02-009. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office! °f Air anc' Radiation, November 2002. Appendix A: Acid Rain Program - Year 2001 SO2 Allowance Holdings and Deductions. (April 8, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/airinarkets/cmprpt/arp01 /appendixa.pdf) and Appendix B1: 2001 Compliance Resultslfor NOX Affected Units. (April 8, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp01/appen- dixbl.pdf). ; Web site: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/index.html B-6 Indicator Metadata Appendix B ------- pGUrtiertt ; raft "Report on the /Environment 2005 Indoor Air Quality Indicator name: U.S. homes above EPA's radon action levels Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 Associated question: What is the quality of the air in buildings in. the United States? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1989-1990 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Radon Residential Study of 1989-1990 was a survey of the nation's housing that estimated that 6 percent of U.S. homes (5.8 million in 1990) had an annual average radon level greater than 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) in indoor air. Data viability is limited given its age and subsequent changes as a result of education efforts and new housing stock. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Residential Radon Survey: Summary Report, EPA 402-R-92-011. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, October 1992. Web site: Report is not available online. Indicator name: Percentage of homes where young children are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 Associated question: What is the quality of the air in buildings in the United States? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) has been conduct- ed continuously since 1957, the content of the survey has been updated about every 10-15 years. In 1996 a substantially revised NHIS content began field testing. This new questionnaire, described in detail below, began in 1997 and improves the ability of the NHIS to provide important health information. 1998 data is cited. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The NHIS is a continuous nationwide survey in which data are collected through personal household interviews. Self-reported information is obtained on personal and demographic characteristics, illnesses, injuries, impairments, chronic conditions, utilization of health resources, and other health topics. The sample scheduled for each week is representative of the target population, and the weekly samples are additive over time. Response rates for special health topics (supplements) have generally been lower. Because of the extensive redesign of the questionnaire in 1997 and introduction of the computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) method of data collection, data from 1997 and later years may not be comparable with earlier years. The indicator numerator was the number of ' children 6 years and under living in households with a resident who smoked inside the home 4 or more days each week. The denominator was the number of households with children ages 6 years and under. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics. Healthy People 2000 Final Review, DHHS Publication No. 01 -0256. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service, October 2001. Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hp2000/hp2k01 .pdf Stratospheric Ozone Indicator name: Ozone levels over North America Indicator type (status or trend): Status (two separate data points, not a trend) Indicator category (1 and 2): 1 Associated question: What is the trends in the Earth's ozone layer? Spatial coverage: Daily images of North America. Temporal coverage: Begun in 1978, ongoing with a gap in coverage from December 1994 through June 1996. Characterization of supporting data set(s): High-resolution spec- trographic images taken daily from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) satellite platforms. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ozone Levels Over North America - NIMBUS-7/TOMS. March 1979 and March 1994. (January,24, 2003; http://epa.gov/ozone/science/glob_dep,html). Web site: The graphic images referenced by the indicator can be found at http://www.epa.gov.ozone/science/glob_dep.html Indicator name: Worldwide and U.S. production of ozone-depleting substances indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 Associated question: What are causing changes to the ozone layer? Spatial coverage: Global and national Temporal coverage: Worldwide1986 and 1999; U.S.1958-1993 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Global—The present report contains additional and updated data on the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS), as reported to the United Nations Secretariat during the period 1986-2000, by 167 of the 183 parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Appendix 6 Indicator Metadata B-7 ------- Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Secretariat has arranged the data provided by the Parties into the groups for which control measures arc prescribed in the protocol. To calculate the figures for each group, the quantities in metric tons reported by the parties for each substance of the group were multiplied by the ozone- depleting potential (OOP) of that substance and added together. All the data in this report is therefore presented in OOP tons. National-Methodology uncertain. Indicator derivation (project, p'rogram, organization, report): Global: United Nations Environment Programme. Production and Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances under the Montreal Protocol 1986-2000, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme, Secretariat for The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, April 2002. National: Historical data (1958-1993) is drawn from the report U.S. International Trade Commission. 1993. Synthetic Organic Chemicals; U.S. Production and Sales, Washington DC Government Printing Office, 1994. Web site: EPA report http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/ publications/emissions/index.html; U.S. ITC report http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ Jndicat/index.html Web site: WMO report http://www.unep.ch/ozone/sap2002.shtml; Global Equivalent Effective Chlorine graphic http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/graphs/graphs Indicator name: Concentrations of ozone-depleting substances (equivalent effective chlorine) Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 Associated question: What are causing changes to the ozone layer? Spatial coverage: Global . Temporal coverage: 1992-2002 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Approximately 250 scientists from many countries of the developed and developing world participated in the 2002 assessment as lead authors, coau- thors, contributors, and reviewers. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002, Executive Summary, Report No. 47. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, 2003. 2) Montzka, S.A., J.H. Butler, J.W. Elkins, T.M. Thompson, A.D. Clarke, and LT. Lock. Present and future trends in the atmospheric burden of ozone- depleting halo- gens. Nature 398: 690-694 (1999). 3) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory. Halocarbons and other Atmospheric Trace Species (HATS). 2002. March 18, 2003; http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/graphs/graphs.html). B-8 Indicator Metadata Appendix B ------- Chapter 2: turer Water Waters and Watersheds Indicator name: Altered fresh water ecosystems Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the condition of fresh surface waters and watersheds in the U.S.? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states. Applies to rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and reservoirs, and does not account for all types of alter- ation.1 Temporal coverage: 1992 Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The U.S. Geological Survey's National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium's National Land Cover Database (NLCD) were used to identify alter- ation. NLCD uses remote-sensed image data. 2) Data on altered wet- lands are available through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS): National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). NWI counts all wet- lands, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds regardless of land ownership, but recognizes only wetlands that are at least 3 acres, and ponds that are at least 1 acre/At present, these data are not available in elec- tronic form for the entire U.S. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) MRLC Consortium's NLCD and the USGS's NHD, processed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division plus the 2) USFWS's NWI. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 140 and 247 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: NHD http://nhd.usgs.gov/; NLCD http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/about.html; NWI http://www.nwi.fws.gov Indicator name: Lake Trophic State Index Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the condition of fresh surface waters and watersheds in the U.S.? Spatial coverage: Northeast United States Temporal coverage: 1991 -1994 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (EMAP) program con-, ducted variable probability sampling on 344 lakes throughout the northeastern United States. The EMAP trophic state characterization is based primarily on the total phosphorus indicator. Descriptions of total nitrogen, chlorophyll-a, total suspended solids, and Secchi disk transparency were used to support the total phosphorus characteri- zation. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Peterson, Spencer A., David P. Larsen, Steven G. Paulsen, and N. Scott Urquhart. Regional Lake Trophic Patterns in the Northeastern United States: Three Approaches. Environmental Management 22 (5): 789-801 (1999). Web site: Full article not available on noncommercial website. Indicator name: Wetland extent and change Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trends Indicator category (T or 2): 1 Associated question: What is the extent and condition of wetlands? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states Temporal coverage: 1950s to 1997 (1954-1974, 1974-1983, 1986-1997) Characterization of supporting data set(s): An interagency group of statisticians developed the design for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) national status and trends study. The basic sam- pling design and study objectives have remained constant for each wetland status and trends report. The study design consists of 4,375 randomly selected sample plots (4-square-miles in area) that are examined and characterized using aerial imagery provided by the National Aerial Photography Program in combination with field verifi- cation to determine wetland change. Estimates of change in wetlands were made over a specific time period. To make the three studies used comparable, the USFWS authors of the 2000 report adjusted the estimate of wetland area for the mid-1980s in the 1991 report to be in the same statistical range. Other factors contributing to this adjustment were corrections to the wetland data set, and improved data capture and measurement techniques (Dahl, 2000). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997, Washington DC: U.S. Department of the - Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000. 2) Frayer, WE., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and F.A. Graybill. Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United States, 1950'sto 1970's, Ft. Collins, CO: Colorado State University, 1983. 3) Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, Mid-197Q's to Mid-1980's, Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991. Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-9 ------- ., . i .. EPAs Draft "RbjDbrt on tne Environment 20S.fJ: Web site: DaM, 2000 http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html Indicator name: Sources of wetland change/loss Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the extent and condition of wetlands? Spatial coverage: Non-federal lands, lower 48 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands Temporal coverage: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Resources Inventory (NRI) data are collected every five years, 1982-1997. Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data collected for the 1997 NRI were based on a statistical design to sample 800,000 sample points, using photo-interpretation and other remote sensing methods and standards. Data gatherers utilized a variety of ancillary materials; extensive use was made of USDA field office records, infor- mation provided by local Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) field personnel, soil survey and wetland inventory maps and reports, and tables and technical guides developed by local field office staffs. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Department of Agriculture. Summary Report 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory, 2000. Web site: http%y/www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/ table16.html Indicator name: Water clarity in coastal waters Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the condition of coastal waters? Spatial coverage: U.S. east coast south of Cape Cod, Gulf of Mexico, and west coast. Temporal coverage: 1990-1997 variable by region Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data collected using a statistically based random design from estuaries by transmissometer at 1 meter below the water surface. Geographic location/applicability: U.S. east coast south of Cape Cod, Gulf of Mexico, and west coast Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAr) Estuaries database as presented in U.S. Environmental Protection1 Agency. National Coastal Condition Report, EPA 620-R-01-005. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, September 2001. Web site: EMAP data http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/datal/estuary/data/index.html; NCCR http://eipa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html Indicator name: Dissolved oxygen in coas :al waters Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the condition of coastal waters? Spatial coverage: U.S. east coast south of Cape Cod, Gulf of Mexico, and west coast Temporal coverage: 1990-1997 variable by region Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data collected using a statistically-based random design from estuaries by point-in-time or continuously recording dissolved oxygen meter a 1 meter above the bottom. . \| Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Estuaries database as presented in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report, EPA 620-R-01 -005. Washington DC: EPA, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, September 2001. i ; Web site: EMAP data http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/datal/estuary/data/index.html; NCCR http://epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.htm! Indicator name: Total organic carbon in sediments Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the condition of coastal waters? Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic estuaries Temporal coverage: 1997-1998 Characterization of supporting data setj(s): The EPA Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Siimmary Database contains water quality, sediment, benthic community, and fish data collected by several partners in MAIA Region estuaries in 1997 and 1998. The MAIA program conducted regular fish surveys during the summer of 1998 to characterize the structure and health of the fish communi- B-10 Indicator Metadata Appendix B ------- O^ ties. The stations sampled were selected according to a probabilistic design. These stations were not identical with the stat ons sampled for water'and sediment quality analyses conducted primarily in 1997; therefore, it is not possible to directly compare these different analyses station by station. However, it is statisticallyvalid to compare results among classes of estuaries, (e.g., large versus small estuaries, Delaware Estuary versus Chesapeake Estuary). Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment, MAIA - Estuaries 1997-98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003. Narragansett, Rl: EPA, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, May 2003. Web site: MAIA Estuaries data http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/html/data/estuary/9798/xport.html Indicator name: Chlorophyll concentrations Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the condition of coastal waters? Spatial coverage: National in scope, selected ocean regions Temporal coverage: 1998-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data from the National Aeronautical and Space Administration's (NASA) Sea viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (Sea WiFS) were analyzed for nine ocean regions, by the National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Reflectance, or light reflected from the sea surface is used to estimate chlorophyll concentrations at the surface using a series of assumptions accepted by the scientific community (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): NASA Sea WiFS data analyzed by the NOS. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 80 and 226 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov Indicator name: Percent urban land cover in riparian areas Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial, coverage: National, excluding Alaska Temporal coverage: NLCD, 1992 imagery; C-CAP, mid-1990s imagery; NHD, 1999. Characterization of supporting data set(s): Riparian zones defined as 30-meter buffer around streams, extent and locations extracted from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Urban land cover defined as sum of low-intensity residential, high-intensity residential, and commercial/industrial/transportation land cover types in National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and sum of high-intensity developed and low- intensity developed land cover types in the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). Cover identified by aerial imagery. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): NHD, NLCD, and C-CAP data processed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division. Web sites: NLCD http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/about.html; C-CAP http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/index.html; NHD http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html; HUC http://water.usgs.gov/CIS/huc.html Indicator name: Agricultural lands in riparian areas Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: National, excluding Alaska Temporal coverage: NLCD, 1992 imagery; C-CAP, mid-1990s imagery; NHD, 1999. Characterization of supporting data set(s): Riparian zones defined as 30-meter buffer around streams, extent and locations extracted from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Total agriculture is defined as the sum of row crops and pasture land cover types in the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and as the amount of cultivated land in the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). Cover identified by aerial imagery. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): NHD, NLCD, and C-CAP data processed by U.S. EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division. Web sites: NiCD http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/abouthtml; C-C4P http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/index.html; NHD http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html; HUC http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html Indicator name: Population density in coastal areas Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: National Appendix 6 Indicator Metadata B-ll ------- Temporal coverage: 1790 to 1994 population data Characterization of supporting data set(s): Various Bureau of the Census publications were used in preparing the article. NPA Data Services, Inc. provided the population projection data for this paper. The Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of the Interior, provided historical information on coastal counties. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Culliton, Thomas J. "Population: Distribution, Density and Growth." In NOAA's State of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1998. (February 2003; http://state-of-coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html/pop_dl/pop.html). Web site: http://state-of-coastnoaa.gov/bulletins/ html/pop_01 /pop.html Indicator name: Changing stream flows Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: Since end of the 19th century focusing on period from 1970s to 1990s Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data are from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge network using standard USGS protocols. Data are available in the form of daily streamflow values reported as the average volume of water per second over a 24-hour period. Gauge placement by the USGS is not a random process as gauges are generally placed on larger, perennial streams and rivers, and changes seen in these larger systems may differ from those seen in smaller streams and rivers (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): USGS stream gauging network. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 142 and 249 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://www,water.usgs.gov.nwis.discharge Indicator name: Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in grassland/shrublands Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1950s to 1990s Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data are from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge network using standard USGS protocols. Data are available in the form of daily streamflow values reported as the average volume of Water per second over a 24-hour period. Gauge placement by the UJSGS is not a random process as gauges are generally placed on larger, perennial streams and rivers, and changes seen in these largejr systems may differ from those seen in smaller streams and rivers (The Heinz Center, 2002). The number of sites with at least one no-ffow day in a year was determined for each water year from 1950\|to 1999. The correspon- ding percentage value for that year was also calculated as 100 x (number of sites/total sites). The percentage values were then aver- aged over each decade (i.e., 1950s, 1960s1 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s). This procedure was followed for ajl sites with greater than 50% grassland/shrubland cover as well as jfor each ecoregion (The Heinz Center, 2002). \| Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): USGS stream gauge network. Presented mjhe State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 166 and 259 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nwis/discharge Indicator name: Sedimentation index \| Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? ! Spatial coverage: Statistically selected stream sites in the Mid- Atlantic states (parts of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York and all of West Virginia) ; Temporal coverage: 1993-1994 sampling years Characterization of supporting data sejt(s): About 450 stream reaches were sampled in the Mid-Atlantic] Highlands. To describe the condition of all streams within the Highlands without sampling all of them EMAP worked with EPA Region 3 and the states to develop a regional statistical survey of streams. A sedimentation index was ; developed far streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands to assess the quality of insitream habitat to support aquatic communities. Stream sedimentation was defined as an increase or excess in the amount of fine substrate particles (smaller than 16m'm diameter) relative to an expected reference value that is based on the region and the Indicator derivation (project, program' organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment, EiPA 903-R-00-015. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, Office of Research and Development, August 2000. ; Web site: MAIA Report http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/maha.html Indicator name: Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trend B-12 Indicator Metadata Appendix B ------- Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: NADP/NTN consists of over 250 sites in the con- tinental U.S., Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Temporal coverage: 2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The data is collect- ed by uniform methods/protocol under the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)/National Trends Network (NTN) and the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet). The NADP is a cooperative program among federal and state agencies, universities, electric utilities, and other industries that has measured precipitation chemistry in the U.S. since 1978. The NADP/NTN is a nationwide network of precipitation monitoring sites designed to measure regional levels of atmospheric deposition. The NADP/NTN measures wet acid deposition that occurs in rain, snow, or sleet) weekly at about 2SO monitoring stations throughout the U.S. The data are subject to strict quality assurance and completeness screening in the field, in the laboratory, and during analysis. 2) CASTNet is a nationwide network of over 70 sites concentrated in the eastern continental U.S. that measure ambient air concentrations of pollu- tants. CASTNet has not yet completed its expansion into the Great Plains and western states. CASTNet also measures dry deposition (the process through which particles and gases are deposited in the absence of precipitation) of acidic compounds. CASTNet data are also subject to strict quality assurance and completeness criteria (EPA, OAR, November 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): NADP/NTN and CASTNet Web site: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps2001 Aio3dep.pdf and http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps2001/nh4dep.pdf Indicator name: Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: National. Major river basins and watersheds across U.S. Temporal coverage: 1992-1998 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Nitrate data were col- lected annually from 105 stream sites and 1,190 wells in agricultural areas from 36 major river basins in the conterminous U.S. 1992- 1998. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program samples watersheds with relatively homogeneous land use/land cover to better illuminate the effect of land use on water quality. All sample were collected and analyzed by USGS according to the overall NAWQA design. The data are highly aggregated and should be interpreted mainly as an indication of general national patterns (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): USGS, NAWQA. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 95 and 232 (The Heinz Center, 2002) Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa Indicator name: Total nitrogen in coastal waters Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic estuaries Temporal coverage: 1997-1998 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The EPA Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Summary Database contains water quality, sediment, benthic community, and fish data collected by several partners in MAIA Region estuaries in 1997 and 1998. The MAIA program conducted regular fish surveys during the summer of 1998 to characterize the structure and health of the fish communi- ties. The stations sampled were selected according to a probabilistic design. These stations were not identical with the stat ons sampled for water and sediment quality analyses conducted primarily in 1997; therefore, it is not possible to directly compare these different analyses station by station. However, it is statistically valid to compare results among classes of estuaries, (e.g., large versus small estuaries, Delaware Estuary versus Chesapeake Estuary). Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment, MAIA - Estuaries 1997-98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003. Narragansett, Rl: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, May 2003. Web site: MAIA Estuaries data http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/html/data/estuary/9798/xport.html Indicator name: Phosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: National. Major river basins and watersheds across U.S. Temporal coverage: 1992-1998 Appendix B Indicator Metadata B-13 ------- £lT\S Draft "Report on the Environment 20Q3; Documera Jit Characterization of supporting data set(s): Phosphorus data were collected annually from 105 stream sites in agricultural areas from 36 major river basins in the conterminous U.S. 1992-1998. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USCS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program samples watersheds with relatively homogeneous land use/land cover to better illuminate the effect of land use on water quality. All sample were collected and analyzed by USCS according to the overall NAWQA design. The data are highly aggre- gated and should be interpreted mainly as an indication of general national patterns (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): USCS, NAWQA. Presented in Tfie State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 96 and 232 (The Heinz Center, 2002) Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa Indicator name: Phosphorus in large rivers indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: National. Major river basins and watersheds across U.S. Temporal coverage: 1992-1998 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Phosphorus data were collected annually from 140 stream sites in agricultural areas from 36 major river basins in the conterminous U.S. 1992-1998. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USCS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) program sampling efforts from 1992 to 1998. NAWQA samples watersheds with relatively homoge- neous land use/land cover to better illuminate the effect of land use on water quality. All sample were collected and analyzed by USGS according to the overall NAWQA design. The data are highly aggre- gated and should be interpreted mainly as an indication of general national patterns (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): USGS, NAWQA. Presented in , pages 141 and 248 (The Heinz Center, 2002) Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa Indicator name: Total phosphorus in coastal waters Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic estuaries Temporal coverage: 1997-1998 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The EPA Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Summary Database contains water quality, sediment, benthic community, and fish data collected by several partners in MAIA Region estuaries in 1997 and 1998. The MAIA program conducted regular fish surveys during the summer of 1998 to characterize the structure and health of the fish communi- ties. The stations sampled were selected according to a probabilistic design. These stations were not identical with the stat ons sampled for water and Sediment quality analyses conducted primarily in 1997; therefore, it is not possible to directly compare these different analyses station by station. However, it is statistically valid to com- pare results among classes of estuaries, (e.g., large versus small estu- aries, Delaware Estuary versus Chesapeake Estuary). Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment, MAIA-Estuarie.> 1997-98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003. Narragansett, Rl: EPA, Office of Research ahd Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, May 2003. Web site: MAIA Estuaries data j http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/html/data/estuary/9798/xport.html Indicator name: Atmospheric deposition of mercury Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 • Associated question: What are pressures'to water quality? Spatial coverage: National with limited coverage related to mercury emission sources Temporal coverage: 2001 ' . Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)i Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) is a cooperative program:among federal and state agencies, universities, electric utilities, and other industries. Samples were collected from SO sites across the UjS. related to mercury emissions. The network uses standardizedrmethods for collection and analyses. Weekly precipitation sample^ are collected and ana- lyzed by cold vapor atomic fluorescence. The MDN provides data for total mercury, but also includes methylmercury if desired by a site sponsor. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): NADP, MDN ! i Website: i http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/maps/2001 /01 MDNdepo.pdf Indicator name: Chemical contamination water Indicator type (status or trend): Status n streams and ground B-14 Indicator Metadata Appendix D ------- = -.._.:_-.-.•---..= .--•--•---• 1" .-._;. ..'... ..,,.:- ;..,.". . - =. .,.;••••' -••-•- •-•.•'•. •.-" •. . ;- Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states Temporal coverage: 1992-1998 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The data for freshwater streams and ground water were collected and analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS), National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) in 36 major river basins and aquifers across the U.S. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): USGS, NAWQA. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 48-51 and 210 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa Indicator name: Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: National in scope, 20 hydrologic basins Temporal coverage: 1992-1998 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data collection from 1992-1996 included analyses for 76 pesticides and 7 selected pesticide degradation products, in 8,200 samples of ground water/surface water in 20 of the nation's major hydrologic basins. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program samples watersheds with relatively homogeneous land use/land cover to better illuminate the effect of land use on water quality. All sample were collected and analyzed by USGS according to the overall NAWQA design. The data are highly aggregated and should be interpreted mainly as an indica- tion of general national patterns (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): USGS, NAWQA. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 97-98 and 234 (The Heinz Center, 2002) Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa Indicator name: Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: Eastern United States Temporal coverage: 1984-1986 Characterization of supporting data set(s): In the mid-1980s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies commissioned a National Surface Water Survey (NSWS) to examine the effect of acid deposition in over 1,000 lakes 1,000 lakes larger than 10 acres and in thousands of miles of streams believed to be sensitive to acidification. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): 1) EPA, NSWS and 2) Baker, LA., A. Herlihy, P. Kaufmann, and J. Eilers. Acid Lakes and Streams in the United States: the role of acid deposition. Science 252:1151-1154 (1991). Web site: NSWS not available online and Baker, et al., not available on a noncommercial website. Indicator name: Toxic releases to water of mercury, dioxin, lead, PCBs, and PBTs Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxics Release Inventory (TR1) database consists of release and other waste management information from facilities. EPA requires facilities to use one or more of four general approaches to estimating/measuring releases, namely, monitoring, emission factors, mass balance, and engineering calculations. Facilities report release and other waste management information along with information about release estimation methods. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 Toxics Release Inventory Public Data Release Report, EPA 260-S-02-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, May 2002. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/tri/ Indicator name: Sediment contamination of inland waters Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: National, generally from sites targeted for con- tamination problems Temporal coverage: 1980-1999 Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-15 ------- -q- -\| ;: :;•••=;•:: 1 rV&tit f "'. f \|\|t\| ;IMn;j1i\|\|l.::U^\|g^\|M!: Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data are contained in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Sediment Qualify Inventory, comprehensive national survey of data about the quality of aquatic sediments in the United States mandated by Congress, and the forthcoming report of this data is an update of a 1997 report. The underlying data primarily are those reported to the EPA Storage and Retrieval (STORE!) database. Data are from 19,470 sites evaluated. Limitations of the compiled data include: the mixture of data sets derived from different sampling strategies; incomplete sampling coverage; the age and quality of the data; and missing information, such as latitude and longitude. The limitations of the evaluation approach include uncertainties in the tools used to assess sediment qualify. Because of these limitations, the draft report assesses locations in the U.S. where there is the probability of adverse effects to human health and the environment. Since the data in this report come from non-random sampling and do not cover the entire country, EPA states that it is not appropriate to come up with a national estimate of contaminated sediments. EPA also states that the results from the trend assessment should not be extrapolated to areas of the country where data were not available. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey: Second Edition, DRAFT, EPA 823 -R- 01 -01, Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Water, December 2001. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/surveyfs.html , Indicator name: Sediment contamination of coastal waters Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures to water quality? Spatial coverage: Eastern U.S. south of Cape Cod and Gulf of Mexico estuaries Temporal coverage: 1990-1997 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The data for sedi- ments and fish contamination in coastal waters were collected and analyzed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). The data were collected in a manner that allows conclusions to be drawn concerning the majority (approximately 76 percent) of the area of estuaries in the United States. The list of contaminants targeted in sediments by EMAP include pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls . (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals. Samples collected from over 2,000 location for measurement of over 100 contaminants. Sample sites selected based upon statistically random design. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): EPA's EMAP Estuaries data set (EPA, 2001) implemented through partner- ships with the\| National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), coastal states, and aca- demia as reported in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report, EPA 620-R-01 -005. Washington DC: EPA, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, September 2001. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, 72 and 220 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: EM4P-http://www.epa.gov/emap'/; NCCR http://i5pa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html Indicator name: Sediment toxicity in estuaries Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are pressures ito water quality? Spatial coverage: Eastern U.S. south of Cape Cod and Gulf of Mexico estuaries , Temporal coverage: 1990-1997 for EMAP and since 1986 for NOAA Characterization of supporting data set(s): The data were collected and analyzed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program. 1) The EMAP data from over 2,500 location were collected in a manner [ that allows conclusions to be drawn concerning the majority (approximately 76 percent) of the area of estuaries in the United States. Sample sites selected based upon statistically random design. 2) The NOAA NS&.T bioeffects program collected toxicity data from 22 major estuaries of the United States. Indicator derivation (project, program,[Organization, report): EPA's EMAP Estuaries data set (EPA, 2001 j) implemented in partner- ship with NOAA, as reported in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report; EPA 620-R-01 -005. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, September 2001. E Web site: EMAP http://www.epa.gov/emap/; NCCR http://epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html; NOAA http://ccmaserver.nos.noaa.gov/NSandT/New_NSandT.htm! Drinking; Water Indicator narrie: Population served by community water systems that meet all health-based standards i Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trends Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What is the quality Spatial coverage: National if drinking water? B-16 Indicator Metadata Appendix 6 ------- Temporal coverage: 1993-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Community water systems report monitoring violations quarterly to the states and data are compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The over 55,000 water systems that are required to report violations serve about 94% of the U.S. population. The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) contains information about public water systems and their violations of EPA's drinking water regulations, as reported to EPA by states and EPA regions in conformance with reporting requirements established by statute, regulation and guidance. States report the following information to EPA: • Basic information on each water system, including: name, ID number, number of people served, type of system (year-round or seasonal), and source of water (ground water or surface water); • Violation information for each water system: whether it has followed established monitoring and reporting schedules, com- plied with mandated treatment techniques, or violated any Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs); • Enforcement information: what actions states have taken to ensure that drinking water systems return to compliance if they are in violation of a drinking water regulation; • Sampling results for unregulated contaminants and for regulated contaminants when the monitoring results exceed the MCL Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): EPA SDWIS1 Federal version. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm Recreation in and on the Water Indicator name: Number of beach days that beaches are closed or under advispry Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the condition of surface waters sup- porting recreational use? Scale and coverage: National, coastal Temporal coverage: 2001 reporting year, collected since 1997 Characterization of supporting data set(s): A questionnaire is sent to managers (usually health or environmental quality depart- ments in states, counties, or cities) responsible for monitoring swim- ming beaches on the coasts or estuaries of the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico, and the shoreline of the Great Lakes; information on some inland fresh water beaches has also been collected. Days that beaches are closed or under advisory are extracted from the survey and compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Respondents numbered 237 in 2001 reporting on 2,445 beaches. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Beach Watch Program: 2001 Swimming Season, EPA 823-F-02-006. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, May 2002. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/waterscienee/beaches/2001 surveyfs.pdf Consumption of Fish and Shellfish Indicator name: Percent of river miles and lake acres under fish con^ sumption advisories Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the condition of waters that support consumption offish and shellfish? Spatial coverage: National Temporal, coverage: 1993-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) database includes all available information describing state-, tribal-, and federally- issued fish consumption advisories in the United States for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. Territories, and in Canada for the 12 provinces and territories. The database contains information provided to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the states, tribes, territories and Canada. The EPA has compiled these advisory data into a database which lists, among, other things, species and size offish or wildlife under advisory, chemical contaminants covered by the advisory, location and sur- face area of the waterbody under advisory, and population subject to the advisory. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Update: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories. EPA 823-F-02-007, Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Water, May 2002. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/ factsheet.pdf Indicator name: Contaminants in fresh water fish Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the condition of waters that support consumption offish and shellfish? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states Temporal coverage: 1992-1998 (USGS) Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-T7 ------- I - '''•[<• I '! :'H ' ETTAS Draft feport ori tke Envirohirjent 2005 Characterization of supporting data set(s): From 1992 to 1998, fish samples were collected and analyzed from 223 stream sites by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. Tissue composites from whole fish were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, and trace elements. The stream sites selected were r epresentative of a large range of stream sizes, land use practices and were not selected to be a statistical representation of U.S. streams (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): USGS, NAWQA; EPA, EMAP and GLNPO. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 48-51 and 210 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: NAWQA http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa Indicator name: Number of watersheds exceeding health-based national water qualify criteria for mercury and PCBs in fish tissue Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the condition of waters that support consumption offish and shellfish? Spatial coverage: National; for mercury, 35 states (West coast and eastern two-thirds of the U.S.) Temporal coverage: 2001 reporting year, collected 1993-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The data set is a com- pilation offish tissue quality data housed in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) fish tissue database. Mercury data represented in 696 watersheds and PCBs in 153 watersheds. Mercury map is based on 22,000 records offish tissue mercury concentrations from the NLFWA where air deposition is the sole significant source of mercury. Watersheds are eliminated from the analysis if they contain potentially significant, but unquantified, runoff and effluent loads from mercury mines, large-producer gold mines, and mercury-cell chlor-alkati facilities. Watersheds are also eliminated when the total screening level effluent load estimates for municipal wastewater treatment plants and pulp and paper mills are above five percent of the estimated waterbody-delivered air deposition load (EPA, Office of Water, November 2001). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): EPA NLFWA Mercury Fish Tissue Database, June 2001 as presented in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Maps: Unking Air Deposition and Fish Contamination on a National Scale. EPA 823-F-01 - 026. Washington, DQ EPA, Office of Water, November 2001. Web site: Mercury map http://www.epa.gov/watersdence/maps/factsheet.pdf C^napter 3: "Better "Protected Land Land Use Indicator name: Extent of developed lands Indicator type (status or trend): Status jand Trend Indicator Category: 1 Associated question: What is the extent iof developed lands? Spatial coverage: National, statistical sample of non-federal lands. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) National Resources Inventory (NRI) collects data at the same 800,000 sampling sites every five years in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and some Pacific Basin locations. i Temporal coverage: At each NRI sample point, information is available for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997 so that trends and changes in land use and resource characteristics over 15 years can be examined! and analyzed. i [ Characterization of supporting data set(s): NRI is a statistical sampling of over 800,000 locations to collect data on land cover and use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity, conservation practices, and related resource attributes. NRI is a com- pilation of natural resource information on non-Federal land in the U.S. ; Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Department of Agriculture. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory, 2000. Web site: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/tedhnical/NRI/ Indicator name: Extent of urban and suburban lands Indicator type (status or trend): Statjjs Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the extent of developed lands? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states. ; Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite land cover data. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), in the 1990s, a federal interagency B-18 Indicator Metadata Appendix 6 ------- ilecnnicai 1^ consortium (the Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) consortium) was created to coordinate access to and use of land cover data from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Using Landsat data and a variety of ancillary data, the consortium processed data from a series of 1992 Landsat images, to create the NLCD on a square grid covering the lower 48 states. The MRLC NLCD with 21 land cover classes, was further processed by the USCS for the Heinz Center to estimate the urban and suburban area coverage for the U.S. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Multi-resolution land characteristics consortium - national land cover data. 1992. (February 19, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html). Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 181 and 264 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: Data are available from http://www.usgs.gov/mrlcreg.html Indicator name: Extent of agricultural land uses Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend Indicator Category: 1 Associated question: What is the extent of farmlands? Spatial coverage: National, statistical sample of non-federal lands. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) National Resources Inventory (NRI) collects data at the same 800,000 sampling sites every five years in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and some Pacific Basin locations. Temporal coverage: At each NRI sample point, information is available for 1982, 198Z 1992, and 1997 so that trends and changes in land use and resource characteristics over 15 years can be examined and analyzed. Characterization of supporting data set(s): NRI is a statistical sampling of over 800,000 locations to collect data on land cover and use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity, conservation practices, and related resource attributes. NRI is a compilation of natural resource information on non-Federal land in theU.S. ': Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Department of Agriculture. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory, 2000. Web site: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/ Indicator name: The farmland landscape Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the extent of farmlands? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states. Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite land cover data. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). In the 1990s, a federal interagency consortium (the Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC)1 consortium) was created to coordinate access to and use of land cover data from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Using Landsat data and a variety of ancillary data, the consortium processed data from a series of 1992 Landsat images, to create the NLCD on a square grid covering the lower 48 states. The MRLC NLCD with 21 land cover classes, was aggregated and reprocessed by the USCS for the Heinz Center to estimate the farmland landscape coverage for the U.S. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Multi-resolution land characteristics consortium - national land cover data. 1992. (February 19, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html). Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 92 and 231 (The Heinz Center, 2002). . Web site: Data are available from http://www.usgs.gov/mrlcreg.html Indicator name: Extent of grasslands and shrublands Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the extent of grasslands and shrublands? Spatial coverage: The lower 48 states and Alaska. Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite imagery Characterization of supporting data set(s): The Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium's National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) with 21 land cover classes, was used to estimate the area coverage for the U.S. The NLCD is based on remotely sensed imagery from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Data for Alaska were estimated from a vegetation map of Alaska by Fleming (1996) based on Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) remote- sensing images with an approximate resolution of 1 km on a side (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Multi-resolution land characteristics consortium - national land cover data. 1992. (February 19, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html). 2) Flemming, M,D. A Statewide Vegetation Map of Alaska Using a Phenological Classification of AVHRR Data. Anchorage, AK: 1996 Alaska Surveying and Mapping Conference, February 1996. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 161 and 256 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-19 ------- i_ Web site: Data are available from http://www.usgs.gov/mrlcreg.html Indicator name: Extent of forest area, ownership, and management Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend Indicator Category: 1 Associated question: What is the extent of forest lands? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: Data from late 1940s to present. Data since 1953 provided with a reliability of ± 3-10 percent per 1 million acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA provides updates of assessment data every five years. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is a survey- based program that has operated since the late 1940s, collecting information on a variety of forest characteristics. FIA has used a two- phase sample (generally, double sampling for stratification) to collect information on the nation's forests. Phase one establishes a large number of samples (more than 4 million, roughly every 0.6 miles). These are selected using aerial photographs or other remote-sensing images, which are then interpreted for various forest attributes. Phase two establishes a subset of approximately 450,000 phase-one points (roughly every 3 miles) for ground sampling. About 125,000 of these samples are permanently established on forest land. The forest characteristics measured include ownership, protection status, Species composition, stand age and structure, tree growth, occurrences of mortality and removals, tree biomass, incidences of pathogens, natural and human-caused disturbances, and soil descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Draft Resource Planning Act assessment tables. August 12, 2002. (September 2003; http://wvfff.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801 /FIADB/rpaJabler/Draft_RPA_ 2002Jrbrest_ResourceJables.pdf). Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 117 and 239 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/ Indicator name: Sediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelands Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What are the ecological effects associated with land uses? Spatial coverage: National, statistical sample of non-federal lands. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) National Resources Inventory (NRI) collects data at the same 800,000 sampling sites every five years in all 50 states, F'uerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Isjands, and some Pacific Basin location!;. ; Temporal coverage: At each NRI sample point, information is avail- able for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997 so that trends and changes in ' land use and resource characteristics over JI5 years can be examined and analyzed. NRI is a compilation of natural resource information on non-Federal land in the U.S. i Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data are from USDA/NRCS STATSGO Soils Data and NR 1997 data (adjusted in 2000). The Sioil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is a public domain rnodeil actively supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) at the Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory in Temple, Texas. : Indicator derivation (project, program; organization, report): Walker, Clive. Sediment Runoff Potential, 1990-1995. Hydrologic Unit Modeling of the United States (HUNJIUS) Project. Temple, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. August 24, 1999. Web site: Exhibit source http://www.cpa.gOV/iwi/1999sept/iv12c_usmap.html; NRI http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/; SWAT http://www.brc.tamus.edu/swat/ ' Chemicals in the Landscape Indicator name: Quantity and type of toxic chemicals released and managed i Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 [ Associated question: How much and what types of toxics are released into the environment? i Spatial coverage: National ' Temporal coverage: 1998-2000 i Characterization of supporting data set(s): Th'e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database consists of release and other waste management information from facilities. EPA requires facilities to use one or more of four general approaches to estimating/measuring releases, namely, monitoring, emission factors, rnass balance, and engineer- ing calculations. Facilities report release and other waste management information along with information about release estimation methods. •, Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.j2000 Toxics Release Inventory Public Daia Release Report, EPA 260-S-02-001. Washington, DC: U.S: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, May 2002. j Web site: http://www.epa.gov/tri/ \| B-20 Indicator Metadata Appendix D ------- Indicator name: Agricultural pesticide use Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the volume, distribution, and extent of pesticide use? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1992 and 1997 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data are based on the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) Pesticide Use Database, a database of information on pesticide applications to cropland for 220 active ingredients. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Data from the NCFAP, a private, non-profit, non-advocacy research organization, as reported in Gianessi, LR, and M.B. Marcelli. Pesticide Use in U.S. Crop Production. Washington D.C. November, 2000. Web site: http://www.ncfap.org/ncfap/nationalsummary1997.pdf Indicator name: Fertilizer use Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the volume, distribution, and extent of fertilizer use? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1960-1998 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Resources and - Environmental Indicators Report is based on a variety of surveys, as well as the Census of Agriculture and the Natural Resources Inventory. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Daberkow, S., H. Taylor, and W. Huang. "Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators: Nutrient Use and Management." September, 2000. In Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, Agricultural Handbook No. AH722. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, February 2003,4.4.1-4.4.49. Web site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/arei2001 / Indicator name: Pesticide residues in food Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator Category: 1 Associated question: What is the potential disposition of chemicals used on land? Scale and coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1997-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (POP) was started by USDA in May 1991 to provide data on pesticide dietary exposure, food consumption, and pesticide usage. POP data are based on samples of approximately SO different commodities tested for more than 290 different pesticides. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Pesticide Data Program: Annual Summary Calendar Year 2000, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2002. POP is USDA's program to collect data on pesticide residues in food. Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/ Indicator name: Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 1 Associated question: What is the potential disposition of chemicals used on land? Spatial coverage: National, statistical sample of non-federal lands. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) National Resources Inventory (NRI) collects data at the same 800,000 sampling sites every five years in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and some Pacific Basin locations. Temporal coverage: At each NRI sample point, information is avail- able for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997 so that trends and changes in land use and resource characteristics over 15 years can be examined and analyzed. The data used in this analysis were from 1992. Characterization of supporting data set(s): Using national-level databases, a simulation was conducted of potential pesticide losses from representative farm fields. About 170,000 Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) sample points were treated as "representative fields." Thirteen crops were included in the simulation: barley, corn, cotton, oats, peanuts, potatoes, rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugar beets, sun- ' flowers, tobacco, and wheat. The potential for pesticide loss from each "representative field" was estimated using the state average pesticide application rate and percent acres treated from the National Pesticide Use Database. The maximum percent runoff loss over a 20-year simulation of rainfall from the Pesticide Loss Database was imputed to NRI sample points using match-ups by soil properties and proximity to 55 climate stations. The total loss of pesticides from each "representative field" was estimated by summing over the loss estimates for all the pesticides that the National Appendix 6 Indicator Metadata B-21 ------- Ef/\s Draft Rteport on the Environment 2QOi$ • Technical Documellt I ' . : i .• - i : ! I'.r ! i . - I : . . • ' • .-.'•[. I;; I f Pesticlde Use Database reported for each State and crop. Watershed scores were determined by averaging the scores for the NRI sample points within each watershed. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Data are from 1)1) National Resources Inventory, U.S. Department. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1992; 2) National Pesticide Use Database from Gianessi, Leonard P., and James Earl Anderson. Pesticide Use in U.S. Crop Production: National Data Report. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington D.C, February 1995; and 3) Pesticide Loss Database from Don W. Coss, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Temple, Texas. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/iwi/1999sept/iv12a_usrnap.html Indicator name: Risk of nitrogen export Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the potential disposition of chemicals used on land? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite imagery Characterization of supporting data set(s): The Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium's National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) with 21 land cover classes, was used to estimate the area coverage for the U.S. The NLCD is based on remotely sensed imagery from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Multi-resolution land characteristics consortium - national land cover data. 1992. (February 19, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcdMml). 2) Wickham, J.D., K.H. Riitters, R.V. O'Neill, K.H. Reckhow, T.G. Wade, and K.B. Jones. Land cover as a framework for assessing risk of water pollution, journal of the American Water Resources Association 36 (6): 1-6 (2000). Web site: Data are available from http://www.usgs.gov/mrlcreg.html Indicator name: Risk of phosphorus export Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the potential disposition of chemicals used on land? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite imagery Characterization of supporting data set(s): The Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium's National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) with 21 land cover classes, was used to estimate the area coverage for the US. The NLCD is based on remotely sensed imagery from 1:he Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and- Development. Multi-resolution land characteristics consortium - national land cover data. 1992. (February 19, 2003; , http://www.epa.gov/mrk/nlcd.html). 2) Wickiham, J.D., K.H. Riitters, R.V. O'Neill, K.H. Reckhow, T.G. Wade, and JK.B. Jones. Land cover as a framework for assessing risk of water pollution. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36 (6r. 1 -6 (2000). Web site: Data are available from http://www.usgs.gov/mricreg.html Waste and Contaminated Lands Indicator name: Quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) generat- ed and managed Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: How much and what types of waste are generated and managed? Spatial coverage: National ; Temporal coverage: Trends in MSW mapagement from 1960 to 1999, including source reduction, recovery for recycling (including . composting), and disposal via combustioji and landfilling. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The supporting data set addressees MSW in the U.S. that is ge.nerated, recycled, and disposed. More recently, estimates of waste prevention have been included as well. Data are provided both for specific materials (glass, plastic, paper, etc.) in MSW and specific products (newspaper, aluminum cans, etc.) in MSW. i Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Data are from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures, EPA S30-S-02- 001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agehcy, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, June 2002. , Web site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ msw99.htm : Indicator name: Quantity of RCRA hazardous waste generated and managed ; Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 ! Associated question: How much and what types of waste are generated ;and managed? j Spatial coverage: National i B-22 Indicator Metadata 7 \ppendix "B ------- technical 00£u^ ..-..:- •--.: •- "-.- ' - '.- ••:' '-- . -.;,. ' .-' - I:"...-.,..;..:. .j.cX.^v^i^: .;/-• ,;..; ::luii IA :^T-;':;':i:3S^ Temporal coverage: Biennial Characterization of supporting data set(s): Generators, transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to provide information about their activities to state environmental agencies. These agencies in turn pass on the information to regional and national EPA offices. This information is stored in EPA's RCRAInfo database. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, EPA 530-R-01 -009. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, June 2001. Website: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs99/index.htm Indicator name: Quantity of radioactive waste generated and in inventory Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: How much and what types of waste are generated and managed? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: Fiscal year 2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Summary data on the amounts (vplume/mass) and location of the radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and contaminated media managed by the U.S. Department,of Energy (DOE). These data are provided in a publicly- available report (Summary Data Report) and are based oh data in the DOE's Environmental Management (EM) Corporate Database (Central Internet Database). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. Central Internet Database. 2002. (January 2003; http://cid.em.doe.gov). Web site: http://cid.em.doe.gov Indicator name: Number and location of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend Indicator Category: 2 • Associated question: What is the extent of land used for waste management? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: Trends in MSW management from 1960 to 1999, including source reduction, recovery for recycling (including composting), and disposal via combustion and landfilling. Characterization of supporting data set(s): BioCycle magazine collects the MSW landfill data annually through a survey to state solid waste officers who relay the total number of landfills in each state (as reported by state agencies, counties, and/or municipalities). There is no quality review process for these data and there are differences in the ways data is collected and reported by the state programs. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): BioCycle Journal of Composting and Organics Recycling 41 (4), April 2000 as reprinted in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures, EPA 530-S-02-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, June 2002. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/ muncpl/msw99.htm Indicator name: Number of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the extent of land used for waste management? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1999 Characterization of supporting data set(s): RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRAInfo replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). The RCRAInfo system allows tracking of many types of information about the regulated universe of RGRA hazardous waste handlers. RCRAInfo characterizes facility status, regulated activities, and compliance histories and captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste from large quantity generators and on waste management practices from treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, EPA 530-R-01 -009. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, June 2001. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/index.htm Appendix B Indicator Metadata B-23 ------- Indicator name: Number and location of Superfund National Priorities List sites Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the extent of contaminated land? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1990-2002 Characterization of supporting data set(s): CERCLIS is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System. CERCLIS contains information on haz- ardous waste sites, potential hazardous waste sites, and remedial activities across the nation, including sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for the NPL CERCLIS is used by EPA to track activities conducted under its Superfund pro- gram. Specific information is tracked for each individual Superfund site. Sites which come to EPA's attention because of a potential for releasing hazardous substances into the environment are added to the CERCLIS inventory. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. National Priorities List Site Totals by Status and Milestone. March 26, 2003. (April 3, 2003; hltp://mw.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/ queryhtm/npltotal.htm) and Number of NPL Site Actions and Milestones by Rscal Year. March 26, 2003. (April 3, 2003; htip://ww»f.epa,gov/ superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfy/htm). Web site: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm ing of many types of information about th? regulated universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers. RCRAInfo! characterizes facility sta- tus, regulated activities, and compliance histories and captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste from large quan- tity generators and on waste management;practices from treatment, storage, and (disposal facilities. Currently, EPA believes that there are over 6,500 facilities subject to RCRA CA statutory authorities. Of these, approximately 3,700 facilities haveiCA already underway or : will need to implement CA as part of the process to obtain a permit to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. EPA refers to these 3,700 facilities as the "corrective action workload." To help prioritize resources further, EPA established specific short-term goals for 1,714 facilities referred to as the RCRA Cleanup! Baseline. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Corrective action background. October 8, 2002. (October 15, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ ca/backgnd.htm#5). [ Web site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/index.htm Indicator name: Number and location of RCRA Corrective Action Sites Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the extent of contaminated land? ., Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1997-1999 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Corrective Action (CA) is the term the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program uses to describe the cleanup of sites that manage hazardous wastes. The EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) CA program keeps information on CA sites in the RCRAInfo database. RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRAInfo replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCR1S) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). The RCRAInfo system allows track- B-24 Indicator Metadata Appendix B. ------- CJnapter 4: Human Health Health Status of the United States: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Indicator name: Life expectancy Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends for life expectancy? Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the SO states and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified. Temporal coverage: 1933 to present. Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demo- graphic information on the birth certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician, medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause of death. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): NCHS, NVSS Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm Indicator name: Cancer mortality Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (7 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma? Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and, the District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified. Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1973-1998 data displayed. Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS),'through the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician, medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause of death. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): NCHS, National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm Indicator name: Cancer incidence indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1997-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State epidemiolo- gists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recom- mend additions or deletions to the list or nationally notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are consid- ered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative disease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials respon- sible for disease control and public health surveillance, introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease entities can Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-25 ------- y** 'ii«^ cause changes in disease reporting that are independent of the true incidence of disease. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/; Summary of Notifiable Diseases http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/ Indicator name: Cardiovascular disease mortality Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma? Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the SO states and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.- Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1900-1996 data displayed. Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician, medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause of death. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): NCHS, NVSS Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm Indicator name: Cardiovascular disease prevalence Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHANES III, 1998-1994 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is designed to collect data on the health of [the United States popu- lation, including information about many topics, such as nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001). The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES 111 was performed in 1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with • laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in the survey, while other chemicals wereionly measured for a small sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV meas- ures exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): NHANES III, 1999. The CDC National Replprt on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (often referred to\| as the "CDC Report Card") summarizes chemical exposure data from the 1999 NHANES; Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm Indicator name: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma? Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified. Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1980-1998 data displayed. Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), through the relational Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS), has collected and pub ished data on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral director biased on information supplied by an informant. A physician, medical exiaminer, or coroner provides medical certification of cause of death. B-26 Indicator Metadata Appendix 6 ------- Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): NCHS, NVSS Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm Indicator name: Asthma mortality indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma? Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified. Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1980-1999 data displayed Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician, medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause of death. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): NCHS, NVSS Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm Indicator name: Asthma prevalence Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the .trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHIS has been conducted continuously since 195^ the content of the survey has been updated about every 10- 15 years. In 1996 a substantially revised NHIS content began field testing. This new questionnaire, described in detail below, began in 1997 and improves the ability of the NHIS to provide important health information. 1980-1996 and 1980-1999 data displayed. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a continuous nationwide survey in which data are collected through personal household interviews. Self- reported information is obtained on personal and demographic characteristics, illnesses, injuries, impairments, chronic conditions, utilization of health resources, and other health topics. The sample scheduled for each week is representative of the target population, and the weekly samples are additive over time. Response rates for special health topics (supplements) have generally been lower. Because of the extensive redesign of the questionnaire in 1997 and introduction of the computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) method of data collection, data from 1997 and later years may not be comparable with earlier years. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Center for Health Statistics .(NCHS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm Indicator name: Cholera prevalence Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal ill- nesses? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1997-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of dis- eases defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State epidemi- ologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tab- ulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nation- ally notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative disease burdens.-However, these data must be interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials responsible for disease control and public health surveillance, introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-27 ------- new disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that arc independent of the true incidence of disease. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report http://wvw.cdc.gov/mmwr/; Summary of Notifiable Diseases http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/ Indicator name: Cryptosporidiosis prevalence Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal ill- nesses? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1997-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State epidemiol- ogists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabu- lates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging pri- orities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative dis- ease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials responsible for disease control and public health surveillance, introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent of the true incidence of disease. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/; Summary of Notifiable Diseases http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/ Indicator name: E. coli 0157:H7 prevalence Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 ' i Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal ill- nesses? ; I Spatial coverage: National ! Temporal coverage: 1997-2001 ; Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to . provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State .epidemiol- ogists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United Status. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally noti- fiable diseases based on the need to reispond to emerging priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable' diseases to CDC is volun- tary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are considered notifiable varies slightly by Istate. Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative dis- ease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials responsible for disease control and pdblic health surveillance, introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new' disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent of the true incidence of jdisease. Indicator source (project, program,!organization, report): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Wet kly Report http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/; ! : Summary of Notifiable Diseases , • http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsCim/ Indicator name: Hepatitis A prevalence Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 ; B-28 Indicator Metadata Appendix B ------- Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal illnesses? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1997-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State epidemiologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative disease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials responsible for disease control and public health surveillance, introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent of the true incidence of disease. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/; Summary of Notifiable Diseases http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/ Indicator name: Salmonellosis prevalence ' Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal illnesses? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1997-2001" Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State epidemiologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative disease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials responsible for disease control and public health surveillance, introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent of the true incidence of disease. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/; Summary of Notifiable Diseases http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/ Indicator name: Shigellosis prevalence Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal ill- nesses? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1997-20Q1 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State epidemiologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review Appendix B Indicator Metadata B-29 ------- Tefctirlteal Ddcflminfe and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative disease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials responsible for disease control and public health surveillance, introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent of the true incidence of disease. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/; Summary of Notifiable Diseases http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/ Indicator name: Typhoid fever prevalence Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal ill- nesses? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1997-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State epidemiologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative disease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials responsible for disease control and public rjealth surveillance, introduction of new diagnostic tests, or disfcovery of new disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent of the true incidence of disease. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/; Summary of Notifiable Diseases ' http://www.ciJc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/ : Indicator name: Infant mortality Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated (question: What are the trends for children's environ- mental health issues? Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified. Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1999 data displayed Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician, medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause of death. - : Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm Indicator name: Low birthweight incidence Indicator type (status or trend): Trend B-30 Indicator Metadata Appendix D ------- cj^ Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends for children's environmental health issues? Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified. Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1991-2000 data displayed. Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths, marriages; and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician, medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause of death. : Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS); National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/htm Indicator name: Childhood cancer mortality Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends for children's environ- mental health issues? Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified. Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1994-1998 data displayed. Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician, medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause of death. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National'Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm Indicator name: Childhood cancer incidence Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or.2): 2 Associated question: What are the trends for children's environ- mental health issues? Spatial coverage: Eleven Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) amounting to fourteen percent of the U.S. population. Temporal coverage: 1973 to present; 1975-1998 data displayed. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute is a source of information on cancer incidence and survival in the United States. The SEER Program began on January 1, 1973. NCI contracts with 11 population-based registries that cover eleven SMSAs (and three supplemental registries) within the United States to provide data on all residents diagnosed with cancer during each year and to provide current followup information on all previously diagnosed patients. The SEER Program covers approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population. The SEER Program is the only comprehensive source of population-based information in the United States that includes stage of cancer at the time of diagnosis and survival rates within each stage. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Institutes of Health (NIH), NCI, SEER Web site: http://seer.cancer.gov Indicator name: Childhood asthma mortality Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends for children's environmental health issues? Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified. Temporal coverage: 1933 to present Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths, /Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-31 ------- IKTOSfsaBRSf «=»w; marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician, medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause of death. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) Web site: http://vww.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm Indicator name: Childhood asthma prevalence Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends for children's environmental health issues? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHIS has been conducted continuously since 19S7, the content of the survey has been updated about every 10- 15 years. In 1996 a substantially revised NHIS content began field testing. This new questionnaire, described in detail below, began in 1997 and improves the ability of the NHIS to provide important health information. 1980-2001 data displayed. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a continuous nationwide survey in which data are collected through personal household interviews. Self- reported information is obtained on personal and demographic characteristics, illnesses, injuries, impairments, chronic conditions, utilization of health resources, and other health topics. The sample scheduled for each week is representative of the target population, and the weekly samples are additive over time. Response rates for special health topics (supplements) have generally been lower. Because of the extensive redesign of the questionnaire in 1997 and introduction of the computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) method of data collection, data from 1997 and later years may not be comparable with earlier years. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Web site: http://wvw.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm Indicator name: Deaths due to birth defeqts I Indicator type (status or trend): Trend • Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 \| Associated question: What are the trends for children's environmental health issues? Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified. Temporal coverage: 1933 to present. Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard [certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demographic; information on the birth certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical and health iriformation is based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician, medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause of death. • ' Indicator sciurce (project, program, organization, report): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) ' Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm Indicator name: Birth defect incidence Indicator type (status or trend): Trent Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 i Associated question: What are the trends for children's environmental health issues? ; Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified. Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 2000 data displayed. Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics ; Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Livje Birth and Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in content arid arrangement to the standard certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical B-32 Indicator Metadata Appendix D ------- and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician, medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause of death. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends Indicator name: Blood lead level Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What is the level of exposure to heavy metals? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHANES 1999-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is designed to collect data on1 the health of the United States population, including information about many topics, such as nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001). The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in 1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999. The CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (often referred to as the "CDC Report Card") summarizes chemical exposure data from the 1999 NHANES. Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm Indicator name: Urine arsenic level Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the level of exposure to.heavy metals? Spatial coverage: NHEXAS-Region 5 Temporal coverage: 1999 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) was developed by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) early in the 1990s to provide critical information about multipathway, multimedia population exposure distribution to chemical classes. Phase 1 of NHEXAS consisted of demonstration and scoping studies in Maryland, Phoenix, Arizona, and ERA Region 5 using probability- based sampling designs. Although the study was conducted in three different regions of the U.S., it was not designed to be nationally representative. The Region S study was conducted in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and measured metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs). Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): 1) NHEXAS-Region 5; 2) National Research Council. Arsenic in Drinking Water. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999. Web site: NHEXAS http://www.epa.gov/nerl/research/nhexas/nhexas.htm; NHEXAS data in EPA's Human Exposure Database System http://www.epa.gov/heds/ Indicator name: Blood mercury level Indicator type (status or trend): Trend . Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What is the level of exposure to heavy metals? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is designed to collect data on the health of the United States population, including information about many topics, such as nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001). The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in 1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-33 ------- laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999. The CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (often referred to as the "CDC Report Card") summarizes chemical exposure data from the 1999 NHANES. Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm Indicator name: Blood cadmium level Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What is the level of exposure to heavy metals? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is designed to collect data on the health of the United States population, including information about many topics, such as nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001). The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in 1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999. The CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (often referred to as the "CDC Report Card") summarizes chemical exposure data from the 1999 NHANES. Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm Indicator name: Blood cotinine level Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What is the level of exposure to cotinine? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series of surveys conducted by the Centers for Djsease Control's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NChjS). The survey is designed to collect data on the health of tpe United States population, including information about many topics, such as nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001). The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in 1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures exposure for 127 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous NHANES, exposure had been assessed via'laboratory analysis for only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cbtinine. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1 I Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm Indicator name: Blood volatile organic compound levels Indicator type (status or trend): " Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What is the level of exposure to volatile organic compounds? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHANES 111 (1988-1994) Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is designed to collect data on the health of the United States population, including information about many topics, such as nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to Chemicals (CDC, 2001). The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in B-34 Indicator Metadata Appendix D ------- 1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999. The CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (often referred to as the "CDC Report Card") summarizes chemical exposure data from the 1999 NHANES. Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm Indicator name: Urine organophosphate levels to indicate pesticides Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What is the level of exposure to pesticides? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is designed to collect data on the health of the United States population, including information about many topics, such as nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001). The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in 1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999. The CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (often referred to as the "CDC Report Card") summarizes chemical exposure data from the 1999 NHANES. Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm Indicator name: Blood lead level in children Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends in exposure to environ- mental contaminants for children? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is designed to collect data on the health of the United States population, including information about many topics, such as nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001). The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. • The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in 1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999. The CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (often referred to as the "CDC Report Card") summarizes chemical exposure data from the 1999 NHANES. Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm Indicator name: Blood mercury level in children Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends in exposure to environ- mental contaminants for children? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-35 ------- of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is designed to collect data on the health of the United States population, including information about many topics, such as nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001). The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in 1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999. The CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (often referred to as the "CDC Report Card") summarizes chemical exposure data from the 1999 NHANES. Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm "1" exposure for 2,7 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm Indicator name: Blood cotinine level in children Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What are the trends in exposure to environmental contaminants for children? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is designed to collect data on the health of the United States population, including information about many topics, such as nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001). The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in 1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures B-36 Indicator Metadata /Appendix 13 ------- ^ SmMSffiTa^^^ySw^^a^^ ^^:yfefafrUy&rt^ Chapter 5: tcologica (Condition Forests Indicator name: Extent of area by forest type Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 1 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states Temporal coverage: 1963-1997. Data from late 1940s to present. Data since 1953 provided with a reliability of ± 3-10 percent per 1 million acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA provides updates of assessment data every five years. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is a survey- based program that has operated since the late 1940s, collecting information on a variety of forest characteristics. FIA has used a two- phase sample (generally, double sampling for stratification) to collect information on the nation's forests. Phase one establishes a large number of samples (more than 4 million, roughly every 0.6 miles). These are selected using aerial photographs or other remote-sensing images, which are then interpreted for various forest attributes. Phase two establishes a subset of approximately 450,000 phase-one points (roughly every 3 miles) for ground sampling. About 125,000 of these samples are permanently established on forest land. The forest characteristics measured include ownership, protection status, species composition, stand age and structure, tree growth, occurrences of mortality and removals, tree biomass, incidences of pathogens, natural and human-caused disturbances, and soil descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Smith, W.B., J.S. Vissage, D.R. Darr, and R.M. Sheffield. Forest Statistics of the United States, 1997, General Technical Report NC-219. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North • Central Research Station, 2001. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 118 and 240 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://fia.fs.fed.us Indicator name: Forest age class Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests? Spatial coverage: National, all 50 states Temporal coverage: 1997. Data from late 1940s to present. Data since 1953 provided with a reliability of ± 3-10 percent per 1 million acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA provides updates of assess- ment data every five years. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is a survey- based program that has operated since the late 1940s, collecting information on a variety of forest characteristics. FIA has used a two- phase sample (generally, double sampling for stratification) to collect information on the nation's forests. Phase one establishes a large number of samples (more than 4 million, roughly every 0.6 miles). These are selected using aerial photographs or other remote-sensing images, which are then interpreted for various forest attributes. Phase two establishes a subset of approximately 450,000 phase-one points (roughly every 3 miles) for ground sampling. About 125,000 of these samples are permanently established on forest land. The forest characteristics measured include ownership, protection status, species composition, stand age and structure, tree growth, occurrences of mortality and removals, tree biomass, incidences of pathogens, natural and human-caused disturbances, and soil descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Smith, W.B., J. Vissage, D. Darr, and R. Sheffield. Forest Statistics of the United States, 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-219. St. Paul, MN: USDA, Forest Service. 2001. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 126 and 242 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://fia.fs.fed.us Indicator name: Forest pattern and fragmentation Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite imagery and data from late 1940s to present. Data since 1953 provided with a reliability of ± 3- 10 percent per 1 million acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA provides updates of assessment data every five years. Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The Multi- Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium's National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) provides a consistent, uniform, spatially explicit description of general land cover/land use across the continental U.S. at a 30-meter resolution. It does not contain habitat types. 2) The USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is a survey-based program that has operated , Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-37 ------- ^^ since the late 1940s, collecting information on a variety of forest characteristics. F1A has used a two-phase sample (generally, double sampling for stratification) to collect information on the nation's forests. Phase one establishes a large number of samples (more than 4 million, roughly every 0.6 miles). These are selected using aerial photographs or other remote-sensing images, which are then interpreted for various forest attributes. Phase two establishes a subset of approximately 450,000 phase-one points (roughly every 3 miles) for ground sampling. About 125,000 of these samples are permanently established on forest land. The forest characteristics measured include ownership, protection status, species composition, stand age and structure, tree growth, occurrences of mortality and removals, tree biomass, incidences of pathogens, natural and human- caused disturbances, and soil descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1)Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium (MRLC) - National Land Cover Data (NLCD); 2) Conkling, B., J. Coulston, and M. Ambrose (eds.). Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report 1991 "1999, Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2002; 3) Riiters, K.H., J.D. Wickham, R.V. O'Neill, K.B. Jones, E.R. Smith, J.W. Coulston, T.G. Wade, and J.H. Smith. Fragmentation of Continental United States Forests. Ecosystems 5: 815-822 (2002). Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 120-121 and 240 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web sites: MRLC http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/; NLCD http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nkd.html; Riitlers, et at. material http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/4803/landscapes/ Indicator name: At-risk native forest species Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests? Spatial coverage: Natural Heritage programs in all 50 states. Temporal coverage: 2000. Data managed consistently since 1974. Characterization of supporting data set(s): NatureServe is an independent nonprofit organization whose research biologists gather, review, integrate, and record available information about species taxonomy, status, and use of different habitats or ecological system types. They are assisted in this work by scientists in the network of Natural Heritage programs as well as by contracted experts for different invertebrate taxa. NatureServe staff and collaborators assign a conservation status by using standard Heritage ranking criteria. The Heritage ranking process considers five major status ranks: critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2), vulnerable (G3), apparently secure (G4), and demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure (G5). In addition, separate ranks are assigned for species regarded as presumed extinct (GX) or possibly extinct (GH). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): NatureServe and its member programs in the network of Natural Heritage programs develop and maintain information on species at risk. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 124 and 214 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://www.natureserve.org Indicator name: Populations of representative forest species Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests? ! Spatial coverage: National data for birdsy 37 states for trees Temporal coverage: 1970-2002. FIA data date from late 1940s to present. Data since 1953 provided with ateliability oft 3-10 per: cent per 1 million acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA provides updates of assessment data every five years. BBS was initiated in 1966. ; Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a long-term, large-scale international avian monitoring program intended to track the status and trends of North American bird populations. Today there are approximately 3700 active BBS routes across the continental U.S. and Canada of which 2900 are surveyed each year (Saufer, et al., 2001). 2) The USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is a survey-based program that has operated since the late 1940s, collecting information on a variety of forest characteristics. FIA has used a two-phase sample (generally, double sampling for stratifica- tion) to collect information on the nation's forests. Phase one estab- lishes a largo number of samples (more than 4 million, roughly every 0.6 miles). These are selected using aerial photographs or other remote-sensing images, which are then interpreted for various forest attributes. Phase two establishes a subset of approximately 450,000 phase-one points (roughly every 3- miles) for ground sampling. About 125,000 of these samples are permanently established on forest land. The forest characteristics measured include ownership, protection status, species composition, stand age and structure, tree growth, occurrences of mortality and removals, tree biomass, inci- dences of pathogens, natural and human-caused disturbances, and soil descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Bird data are from the U.S. Geological Survey's North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), and tree data are from the U.S. Forest Service, Draft Resource Planning and Assessment Tables, August 2002. Reported in U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. This indicator was based on the final review draft of the Sustainable Forests report (USDA, FS, 2002) and the website for corresponding technical sup- port material is provided below. The final version of the report and B-38 Indicator Metadata Appendix B ------- ' supporting technical material will be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/. Web site: Sustainable Forests Report http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/data.htm (Indicator 9); RPA tables http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801 /FIADB/rpaJabler/ Draft_RPA_2002_Forest_Resource_Tables.pdf; BBS http://www.mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ Indicator name: Forest disturbance: fire, insects, and disease Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator Category: 1 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests? Spatial coverage: National, all 50 states Temporal coverage: 1979-2000. FIA data date from late 1940s to present. Data since 1953 provided with a reliability of ± 3-10 per- cent per 1 million acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA provides updates of assessment data every five years. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is a survey- based program that has operated since the late 1940s, collecting information on a variety of forest characteristics. FIA has used a two- phase sample (generally, double sampling for stratification) to collect information on the nation's forests. Phase one establishes a large number of samples (more than 4 million, roughly every 0.6 miles). These are selected using aerial photographs or other remote-sensing images, which are then interpreted for various forest attributes. Phase two establishes a subset of approximately 450,000 phase-one points (roughly every 3 miles) for ground sampling. About 125,000 of these samples are permanently established on forest land. The forest characteristics measured include ownership, protection status, species composition, stand age and structure, tree growth, occurrences of mortality and removals, tree biomass, incidences of pathogens, natural and human-caused disturbances, and soil descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002). Data on insects and disease are based on a probability sample that represents unbiased estimates of both public and private forests in the U.S. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Data on fires are from 1) U.S. General Accounting Office. Western National Forests: Nearby Communities Are Increasingly Threatened by Catastrophic Wildfires, GAO/T-RCED-99-79. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1999 and 2) National Interagency Fire Center. Wildland Fire Statistics. 2002. (May 2003; http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html).; data on insects and disease are from Conkling, B., J. Coulston, and M. Ambrose (eds.). Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report 1991 -1999, Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2002. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 127 and 242 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: FHM http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/fhm/index.htm; NIFC http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html Indicator name: Tree condition Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests? Spatial coverage: 32 states; more than half of the South and Rocky Mountain regions had insufficient or no data. Temporal coverage: 1990-1999 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Available national data relates almost exclusively to trees, not the entire suite of forest biota. Three metrics are used to determine tree condition: tree mor- tality, tree crown condition, and fire condition class. National scale data is lacking on many components of forest ecosystems. Available data coverages are incomplete. Fundamental research linking biologi- cal components to ecological processes is lacking (USFS, FS, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) Conkling, B., J. Coulston and M. Ambrose (eds). Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report, 1991-1999. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program, Southern Research Station. 2002; 2) U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. This indicator was based on the final review draft of the Sustainable Forests report (USDA, FS, 2002) and the website for corresponding technical support material is provided below. The final version of the report and supporting technical material will be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/. Web site: FHM http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/fhm/index.htm; Sustainable Forest Report http://www.fs.fed.us/ research/sustain/data.htm (Indicator 17) Indicator name: Ozone injury to trees Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests? Spatial coverage: 32 states Temporal coverage: 1994-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The USDA Forest Service Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program collects informa- tion about ozone air quality on a network of biomonitoring plots using ozone sensitive bioindicator plants (trees, woody shrubs, and non-woody herb species). In 2000, there were 918 biomonitoring sites in 32 states. /Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-39 ------- Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) Conkling, B., J. Coulston, and M. Ambrose (eds.). Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report 1991-1999, Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2002; 2) U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. This indicator was based on the final review draft of the Sustainable Forests report (USDA, FS, 2002) and the website for corresponding technical sup- port material is provided below. The final version of the report and supporting technical material will be found at http:XAvww.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/. Web site; Sustainable Forest Report http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/data.htm (Indicator 16); FHM http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/fhm/index.htm Indicator name: Carbon storage Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests? Spatial coverage: National. Data for Alaska and Hawaii are not included in this data series. Temporal coverage: 1953-1996. Volume, area, and other forest characteristics are compiled in Smith, et al., 2001 for the years 1953,1963,1977,1987, and 1997. The inventory years begin on the first calendar day of each year. More detailed data are available in databases for 1997 (USDA, FS, 2002). Characterization of supporting data set(s): All carbon pools, with the exception of soil carbon, are estimated using USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) measured data or imput- ed data, along with inventory-to-carbon relationships, developed with information from ecological studies (USDA, 2003). Carbon storage is estimated by the FIA program using on-the ground meas- urements of tree trunk size from many forest sites and statistical models that show the relationship between trunk size and the weight of branches, leaves, coarse roots (>0.1 inch in diameter), and forest floor litter. Such data are combined with estimates of forest land area obtained from aerial photographs and satellite imagery. Forest floor litter includes all dead organic matter above the mineral soil horizons, including litter, humus, small twigs, and coarse woody debris (branch- es and logs greater than 1.0 inches in diameter lying on the forest floor). Note that there are 1.1 English tons per metric ton. In most international discussions, carbon storage is reported in metric tons. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) Smith, W.B., J.S. Vissage, D.R. Darr, and R.M. Sheffield. Forest Statistics o/Oie United States, 1997, General Technical Report NC- 219. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 2001. 2) U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. This indicator was based on the final review draft of the Sustainable Forests report (USDA, FS, 2002) and the website for corresponding technical support material is provided below. The final version of the report and supporting technical material will be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/.> Web site: FIA http://fia.fs.fed.us; ' Sustainable Forests Report ' http://www.f5.fed.us/research/sustain/data.htm (primarily Indicator 27 with reference to Indicators 26 and 28) Indicator name: Soil compaction Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 ! Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests? Spatial coverage: 37 states (mostly east of the Mississippi, Rocky Mountains and Pacific Coast); STATSGO data are available for the conterminous U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Temporal coverage: 1998-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program data collected on a rep- resentative sample of 2006 plots, a subset of the Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) plot network (USDA, FS, J2003). The FIA soil indicator program is in the implementation phase and plots have not yet been established in all states. Analysis from the program is limited in scope. Da':a used for this indicator are based on visual inspection and state soil maps. No measurements !were made regarding the intensity of compaction and physical disturbances that are not readi- ly visible from the surface may be underreported. Compaction data from FIA/FHM are intended only to provide a "presence/absence" index of the occurrence of disturbed sbils across the landscape (USDA, FS, 2003). 2) State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) consists of state general soil maps made by generalizing the detailed soil survey data. The level of mapping is designed to be used for broad planning and management uses covering state, regional, and multi-state areas. STATSGO data are designed for use in a Geographic Information System (CIS). The mapping scale for STATS- GO map is 1:250,000 (with the exception of Alaska, which is 1:1,000,000). Each STATSGO map is linked to the Soil Interpretations Record (SIR) attribute data base. The attribute data base gives the proportionate extent of the component soils and their properties for each map unit. The STATSGO map units consist ' of 1 to 21 components each. The Soil Interpretations Record data base includes over 25 physical and chemical soil properties, interpreH tations, and productivity. Examples of information that can be queried from the data base are available water capacity, soil reaction, salinity, flooding, water table, bedrock, and interpretations for engi- , neering uses, cropland, woodland,; ra'ngeland, pastureland, wildlife, and recreation development. \ • B-40 Indicator Metadata Appendix D : ------- Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forthcoming, 2003. This indicator was based on finalized portions of the forthcoming report referenced above that were provided to EPA for this report. The report, including technical support material for this indicator can be found at the website listed below. 2) STATSGO. Web site: Sustainable Forests Report http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/; • STATSCO http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/stat_data.html Indicator name: Soil erosion Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?- Spatial coverage: 37 states (mostly east of the Mississippi, Rocky Mountains and Pacific Coast); STATSCO data are available for the conterminous U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Temporal coverage: 1998-2000 Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program measured erosion rates on plots and modeled the data using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP). Erosion estimates are limited by model assumptions and aggregate estimates of soil erosion often have little meaning in and of themselves due to natural variability in soil erosion (USDA, FS, 2003). 2) State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) consists of state general soil maps made by generalizing the detailed soil survey data. The level of mapping is designed to be used for broad planning and management uses covering state, regional, and multi-state areas. STATSGO data are designed for use in a Geographic Information System (CIS). The mapping scale for STATSGO map is 1:250,000 (with the exception of Alaska, which is 1:1,000,000). Each STATS- GO map is linked to the Soil Interpretations Record (SIR) attribute data base. The attribute data base gives the proportionate extent of the component soils and their properties for each map unit. The STATSGO map units consist of 1 to 21 components each. The Soil Interpretations Record data base includes over 25 physical and chemical soil properties, interpretations, and productivity. Examples of information that can be queried from the data base are available water capacity, soil reaction, saliniiy, flooding, water table, bedrock, and interpretations for engineering uses, cropland, woodland, rangeland, pastureland, wildlife, and recreation development. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forthcoming, 2003. This indicator was based on final- ized portions of the forthcoming report referenced above that were provided to EPA for this report. The report, including technical support material for this indicator can be found at the website listed below. 2) STATSGO. Web site: Sustainable Forests Report— http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/; STATSGO— http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/stat_data.html Indicator name: Processes beyond the range of historic variation Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: Effects during 1800-1850 (historic or baseline time period) were compared with the 1996-2000 (current time period) and beyond the range of recent variation (using data from the past 20-80 years) the effects of the recent past, e.g. 1979- 1995, were compared with those during the current time period (USDA, FS, 2002). Characterization of supporting data set(s): Primarily anecdotal data. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. This indicator was based on the final review draft of the Sustainable Forests, report (USDA, FS, 2002) and the website for corresponding technical support material is provided below. The final version of the report and supporting technical material will be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/. Web site: Sustainable Forests Report— http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/data.htm (Indicator 15) Farmlands Indicator name: Pesticide leaching potential Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of farm- lands? Spatial coverage: Agricultural lands covering 5.5 million hectares in six mid-Atlantic states Temporal coverage: 1994 and 1995 Characterization of supporting data set(s): EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) used the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) probability area sampling frame in the Mid-Atlantic region to select 122 sites in 1994 and 152 sites in 1995. The sites were sampled during the NASS Fall Survey. Soil Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-4T ------- samples and questionnaire data were collected from a random sam- ple of 293 sites. Indicators addressed productivity, management at the agroecosystem scale, and management for the landscape scale on annual crop land. Crop yields were almost 30% higher than those of the 1980s, with a mean observed to expected yield index of 1.27. The mean soil qualify index showed moderate quality for supporting plant growth. Non-tilted sites, which were mostly hay, had greater microbial biomass than tilled sites, just over half of the annual crop land was covered by rotation plans; hay fields accounted for most of the land where one crop was grown- continuously. Hay showed a lower use of applied nitrogen than seed crops. Integrated pest man- agement was practiced on less than 20% of annual crop land. Twenty-seven different annual crops were grown in the region, with hay (all types) the dominant crop. Less than 20% of the land where pesticides were applied had high to moderately high potential for pesticides leaching into groundwater. This information provides a baseline for long-term monitoring of agricultural lands in the region (Hellkamp. et al. 2000). Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Hellkamp, A.S., J.M. Bay, CL Campbell, K.N. Easterling, D.A. Fiscus, G.R. Hess, B.F. McQuaid, M.J. Munster, G.L Olson, S.L. Peck, S.R. Shafer, K. Sidik, and M.B. Tooley. Assessment of the condition of agricultural lands in six mid-Atlantic states. Journal of Environmental Quality 29: 79-804 (2000). Web site: Paper abstract— httpv'/oaspub.epa.gov/emap/bib.print_abstract?pub_id_in=1284 Indicator name: Soil quality index Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of farm- lands? Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic states Temporal coverage: 1994-1995 Characterization of supporting data set(s): EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) used the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) probability area sampling frame in the Mid-Atlantic region to select 122 sites in 1994 and 152 sites in 1995. The sites were sampled during the NASS Fall Survey. Soil samples and questionnaire data were collected from a random sample of 293 sites. Indicators addressed productivity, management at the agroecosystem scale, and management for the landscape scale on annual crop land. Crop yields were almost 30% higher than those of the 1980s, with a mean observed to expected yield index of 1.27. The mean soil quality index showed moderate quality for supporting plant growth. Non-tilled sites, which were mostly hay, had greater microbial biomass than tilled sites. Just over half of the annual crop land was covered by rotation plans; hay fields accounted for most of the land where one crop was grown continuously. Hay showed a lower use of applied nitrogen than seed crops. Integrated pest management viras practiced on less than 20% of annual crop land. Twenty-seven different annual crops were grown in the region, with hay (all types) the dominant crop. Less than 20% of the land where pesticides were applied had high to moderately high potential for pesticides leaching into groundwater. This information provides a baseline for long-term monitoring of agricultural lands in the region (Hellkamp, etal. 2000). '. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Data are available from the EPA Mid- Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) initiative and the index is described in Hellkamp, A.S., J.M. Bay, CL Campbell, K.N. Easterling, D.A. Fiscus, C.R. Hess, B.F. McQuaid, M.J. Munster, G.L. Olson, S.L. Peck, S.R. Shafer, K. Sidik, and M.B. Tooley. Assessment of the condition of agricultural lands in six mid-Atlantic states. Journal of Environmental Quality 29: 79-804 (2000). ; Web site: Paper abstract , http://oaspub.epa.gov/emap/bib.print_abstract?pub_id_in=1284 Indicator name: Soil erosion Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of farmlands? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: At each Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) sample point, information is available for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997 so that trends and changes in land use and resource character- istics over 15 years can be examined and analyzed. Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The NRI is a statis- tical sampling of over 800,000 locations to collect data on land cover and use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity, conservation practices, and related resource attributes on non-federal land in the U.S. 2) Soil erosion estimates were calculated using the USGS watersheds, NRI soils data, and the Universal Soil Loss Equation (Renard et al., 1997) and the Wind Erosion Equation (Bondy et al., 1980; Skidmore and Woodruff, 1968). 3) Soil parame- ters were obtained from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils database. The State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) consists of state general soil maps made by generalizing the detailed soil survey data. The level of mapping is designed to be used for broad planning and management uses covering state, regional, and multi-state areas. STATSGO data are designed for use in a Geographic Information System (CIS). The mapping scale for STATSGO map is 1:250,000 (with the exception of Alaska, which is 1:1,000,000). Each STATSGO map is linked to the Soil Interpretations Record (SIR) attribute data base. The attribute data base giveis the proportionate extent of the component soils and their properties for each map unit. The STATSGO map units consist of 1 to .21 components each. The Soil Interpretations Record data B-42 Indicator Metadata Appendix D ------- base includes over 25 physical and chemical soil properties, interpre- tations, and productivity. Examples of information that can be queried from the data base are available water capacity, soil reaction, salinity, flooding, water table, bedrock, and interpretations for engi- neering uses, cropland, woodland, rangeland, pastureland, wildlife, and recreation development. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization,, report): Data are from 1) USDA, NRCS STATSGO soils data and 2) USDA, NRCS NRI 1997 data (adjusted in 2000). Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 100 and 235 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: NRI http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRl/; STATSCO http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/stat_data.html Grasslands and Shrublands Indicator name: At-risk native grasslands and shrublands species Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of grasslands and shrublands? Spatial coverage: National Spatial coverage: Natural Heritage programs in all 50 states. Temporal coverage: 2000. Data managed consistently since 1974. Characterization of supporting data set(s): NatureServe is an independent nonprofit organization whose research biologists gather, review, integrate, and record available information about species taxonomy, status, and use of different habitats or ecological system types. They are assisted in this work by scientists in the network of Natural Heritage programs as well as by contracted experts for different invertebrate taxa. NatureServe staff and collaborators assign a conservation status by using standard Heritage ranking criteria. The Heritage ranking process considers five major status ranks: critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2), vulnerable (G3), apparently secure (G4), and demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure (G5). In addition, separate ranks ' are assigned for species regarded as presumed extinct (GX) or possibly extinct (GH). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): NatureServe and its member programs in the network of Natural Heritage programs develop and maintain information on species at risk. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 168 and 214 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://www.natureserve.org Indicator name: Population trends in invasive and native non-inva- sive bird species Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category: 1 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of grasslands and shrublands? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: Data were analyzed in seven 5-year intervals from 1966 to 2000. Characterization of supporting data set(s): The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a long- term, large-scale international avian monitoring program intended to track the status and trends of North American bird populations. Today there are approximately 3700 active BBS routes across the continental U.S. and Canada of which 2900 are surveyed each year (Sauer, et al., 2001). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division, Breeding Bird Survey. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 170 and 262 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: BBS http://www.tnbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/introbbs.html and http://www.mp2- pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/; Sauer, et al. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/trend/tfmb.html Urban and Suburban Lands Indicator name: Patches of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland in urban/suburban areas Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of urban and suburban areas? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite imagery Characterization of supporting data set(s): NLCD provides a consistent, uniform, spatially explicit description of general land cover/land use across the continental U.S. at a 30-meter resolution. It does not contain habitat types. Eight of the 21 NLCD classifica- tions were defined as "natural" for this analysis, including three class- es of forest, three types considered grasslands/shrublands, and two wetlands types (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium (MRLC) - National Land Characterization Data (NLCD). Data analyses were undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey's Earth Resources Observations Systems (EROS) Data Center. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 183 and 266 (The Heinz Center, 2002). /Appendix u Indicator Metadata B-43 ------- iiik'SsiT .• r>ii icilulc Web sites: MRLC http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/; EROS Data Center "raw" data (requiring "considerable computing power" (The Heinz Center, 2002) http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/prb- gram/lccp/mrlcreg.html Fresh Waters Indicator name: Extent of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of fresh waters? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states. Lake area does not include the Great Lakes, which cover about 60.2 million acres within the United States. Temporal coverage: 1950s-1990s Characterization of supporting data set(s): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) counts all lakes, reservoirs, and ponds regardless of land ownership. A permanent study design is used, based initially on stratification of the 48 con- terminous states by state boundaries and 35 physiographic subdivi- sions. Within these subdivisions are 4375 randomly selected sample plots that are examined with the use of aerial imagery of varying scale and type. Ponds include the category of open- water ponds and non-vegetated palustrine wetlands (mud flats and shorelines of ponds) generally less than six feet deep and less than 20 acres in size. Lakes and reservoirs are generally larger than 20 acres and deeper than six feet (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Data for lakes, reservoirs, and ponds come from 1) Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in ifie Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000; 2) Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, Mid-1970's to Mid-1980's, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service, 1991; 3) Prayer, WE., T.J. Monaha'n, D.C. Bowden, and FA Graybill. Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in tl\e Conterminous United States, 19SO's to 1970's, Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, 1983; and 4) unpublished data from the U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service (The Heinz Center, 2002). Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 139 and 246 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: Dahl, 2000 http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html Indicator name: At-risk native fresh water species Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of fresh waters? \| i Spatial coverage: Natural Heritage programs in all 50 states. Temporal coverage: 2000. Data managed consistently since 1974. Characterization of supporting data set(s): NatureServe is an independent nonprofit organization whose' research biologists gather, review, integrate, and record available information about species taxonomy, status, and use of different habitats or ecological system types. They are assisted in this work by scientists in the network of Natural Heritage programs as well as by contracted experts for different invertebrate taxa. NatureServe staff and collaborators assign a conservation status by using standard Heritage ranking criteria. The Heritage ranking process considers five major status ranks: critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2), vulnerable (G3), apparently secure (G4), and demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure (G5). In addition, separate ranks are assigned for species regarded as presurned extinct (GX) or possibly extinct (GH). \| Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): NatureServe aind its member programs in the network of Natural Heritage programs develop and maintain information on species at rislc Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 144 and 214 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Indicator name: Non-native fresh water species Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the condition of fresh waters? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states Temporal coverage: 2000. An expansive spatial database underlies the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) program, which was created in 1978 and continues to be updated and revised. Characterization of supporting data set(s): Roughly 90 percent of the data in the U.S. Geological Survey's NAS database are derived from the published literature. Data are collected for the most part by federal and state biologists, although the public does contribute by reporting sightings (The Heinz Center, 2002). NAS is a repository for accurate and spatially referenced biogeographic accounts of nonindigenous aquatic species. Provided are scientific reports, online/realtime queries, spatial data sets, regional contact lists, and general information. The data is made available for use by biologists, interagency groups, and the general public. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division (BRD), NAS Database. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 145 and 251 (The Heinz Center, 2002). B-44 Indicator Metadata Appendix D ------- Web site: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/ Indicator name: Animal deaths and deformities Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of fresh waters? Spatial coverage: National. Database covers all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands Temporal coverage: 1985-1999 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) maintains a database that contains wildlife disease and mortality events information on avian, mammalian, and amphibian mortality events. Information in the database is provided by various sources, such as state and federal personnel, diagnostic laboratories, wildlife refuges, and published reports (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resource Division (BRD), NWHC. Presented :in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 146 and 252 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://www/mwhc.usgs.gov/pub_metadata/ qrt_mortali- ty_report.html Indicator name: At-risk fresh water plant communities Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of fresh waters? Spatial coverage: Natural Heritage programs in all 50 states, but this coverage excludes Alaska - Temporal coverage: 2000. Data managed consistently since 1974. Characterization of supporting data set(s): NatureServe is an independent nonprofit organization whose research biologists gather, review, integrate, and record available information about species taxonomy, status, and use of different habitats or ecological system types. They are assisted in this work by scientists in the net- work of Natural Heritage programs as well as by contracted experts for different invertebrate taxa. NatureServe staff and collaborators assign a conservation status by using standard Heritage ranking criteria. The Heritage ranking process considers five major status ranks: critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2), vulnerable (G3), apparently secure (G4), and demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure (G5). In addition, separate ranks are assigned for species regarded as presumed extinct (GX) or possibly extinct (GH). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): NatureServe and its member programs in the network of Natural Heritage programs develop and maintain information on species at risk. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, 148 and 253 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://www.natureserve.org Indicator name: Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) in streams Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of fresh waters? Spatial coverage: Statistically selected stream sites in the Mid- Atlantic Highlands (parts of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York and all of West Virginia) Temporal coverage: 1993-1994 sampling years Characterization of supporting data set(s): About 450 stream reaches were sampled in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. To describe the condition of all streams within the Highlands without sampling all of them EMAP worked with EPA Region 3 and the states to develop a regional statistical survey of streams. Examples offish metrics measured were: the number offish species present in the stream who cannot tolerate pollution; the proportion of individuals present that require clean gravel for spawning; and the number of bottom versus water column species present. Each metric was scored against the researchers expectations of what value was possible for each stream based on reference conditions. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1 )Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA), Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment, EPA/903/R-00/015, August 2000. 2) McCormick, F.H., R.M. Hughes, P.R. Kaufmann, D.V. Peck, J.L Stoddard, and A.T. Herlihy. Development of an index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130: 857-877 (2001). Web site: MAIA Report http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/maha.html Indicator name: Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) for streams Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the condition of fresh waters? Appendix 6 Indicator Metadata B-45 ------- • T i JD" ..... "f" i : ":f '•$• •'•]' ; -'I" '•' i iP ' ' \|:"':' ' !•'••"' ';t •'• ; ""/'• Pl-'rf^' ..... rcirt meport 6fi the tZnvirbnifient 2Q03 II ; ecntlKa ' JESS: Spatial coverage: Statistically selected stream sites in the Mid- Atlantic Highlands (parts of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York and all of West Virginia) Temporal coverage: 1993-1994 sampling years Characterization of supporting data set(s): About 450 stream reaches were sampled in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. To describe the condition of all streams within the Highlands without sampling all of them EMAP worked with EPA Region 3 and the states to develop a regional statistical survey of streams. One aquatic insect index, EPT, has been used extensively to evaluate stream condition throughout the United States and was used in the Highlands. It is calculated from the number of species that are found in three orders of aquatic insects-mayflies (Ephemeoptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddis- flies (JHchoptera) and gets its name from the first initials of these three orders (EPT). Many of the species in these three orders are sensitive to pollution and other stream disturbances, and the total number of species is a good gauge of how disturbed any given stream may be. EPT scores from least-disturbed Highland streams were used to set expectations. Expectations were set separately for streams with fast-moving sections or "riffles" (the vast majority of Highland streams) and slow-moving streams where "pools" dominate, because fewer EPT species naturally occur in pools. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) Klemm, D.J., KA Blocksom, FA Fulk, AT. Herlihy, R.M. Hughes, P.R. Kaufmann, D.V. Peck, J.L Stoddard, W.T. Thoeny, M.B. Griffith, and W.S. Davis. Development and Evaluation of a Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBit) for Regionally Assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams. Environmental Management 31 (5): 656-669 (2003). 2) Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA), Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment, EPA/903/R-00/015, August 2000. Web site: MAIA Report http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/maha.html Coasts and Oceans Indicator name: Extent of estuaries and coastline Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts and oceans? Spatial coverage: National, all 50 states and territories Temporal coverage: 1996-1998 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data were submitted by the states and territories to EPA's Office of Water which compiled a national report. Data were collected using different methodologies, definitions, and assumptions, so the data is unlikely to be consistent. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 2000 National Water Quality Inventory, EPA 841 -R-02-001, August 2002, Table C-1 Total Estuarine and Ocean Shoreline Waters in the Nation. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/appendixc.pdf Indicator name: Coastal living habitats Indicator type (status or trend): Trend Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts and oceans? Spatial coverage: National Temporal coverage: 1950s to 1990s Characterization of supporting data set(s): While data gaps are reported for the coral reef, seagrasses, and shellfish beds compo- nents of the indicator (The Heinz Center, 2002), the wetlands component ii> supported by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) recent report. The Status and Trend of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986-1997. The report utilizes National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and other wetland data. NWI counts all wetlands, regardless of land ownership, but recognizes only wetlands that are at least three acres. To ensure adequate coverage of coastal • wetlands, supplemental sampling along the Atlantic and Gulf coast fringes was added (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 69 and 218 (The Heinz ;Center, 2002). Web site: htl:p://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html Indicator naime: Shoreline types Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts and oceans? Spatial coverage: National in scope; Pacific Northwest, Southern California, and South Atlantic regions only Temporal coverage: 1984-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data were extracted from Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) atlases, a product of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA), Office of Response and Restoration (ORR). The ESI method provides a standardized mapping approach for coastal geomorphology as well as biological and human use elements. Data from multiple atlases B-46 Indicator Metadata Appendix D ------- were aggregated into the regions used. Some of the data atlases utilized were more than 15 years old (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): NOAA, ORR, Hazardous Materials Response Division, ESI atlases. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 70 and 219 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: Some NOAA ESI data are available at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/esi/esiintro.html Indicator name: Benthic Community Index Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts and oceans? Spatial coverage: National in scope, 24 coastal states Temporal coverage: Stations on the west coast were sampled in 1999. The entire U.S. coast, including the Gulf of Maine, was sam- pled in 2000. Characterization of supporting data set(s): In 2000, EPA, NOAA, and USCS, in cooperation with all 24 U.S. coastal states, initiated the National Coastal Assessment. Using a compatible, probabilistic design and a common set of survey indicators, each state conducted the survey and independently assessed the condition of their coastal resources. While the complete assessment of national coastal waters is scheduled for publication in 2003, a preliminary assessment of selected estuaries was published by EPA in 2001. The EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) National Coastal Database contains estuarine and coastal data that EMAP and Regional-EMAP have collected since 1990 from hundreds of stations between Cape Cod and the Mexican border. These include water column data, sediment chemistry and toxicity data, demersal fish and invertebrate community and contaminant data and benthic invertebrate community data. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1.) EMAP National Coastal Database; 2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report, EPA 620-R-01 - 005. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, September 2001. Web site: NCCR http://epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html; National Coastal Database http://www.epa.gov/emap/nca/html/data/index.html Indicator name: Fish diversity Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts and oceans? Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic estuaries Temporal coverage: 1997-1998 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The EPA Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Summary Database contains water quality, sediment, benthic community, and fish data collected by several partners in MAIA Region estuaries in 1997 and 1998. The MAIA program conducted regular fish surveys during the summer of 1998 to characterize the structure and health of the fish communi- ties. The stations sampled were selected according to a probabilistic design. These stations were not identical with the stations sampled for water and sediment quality analyses conducted primarily in 1997; therefore, it is not "possible to directly compare these different f analyses station by station. However, it is statistically valid to com- pare results among classes of estuaries, (e.g., large versus small estu- aries, Delaware Estuary versus Chesapeake Estuary). Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid- Atlantic Integrated Assessment, MAIA - Estuaries 1997-98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003. Narragansett, RI: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, May 2003. Web site: MAIA data http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/html/data/ estuary/9798/xport.html Indicator name: Submerged aquatic vegetation Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts and oceans? Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic estuaries, Chesapeake Bay Temporal coverage: 1985-1998 Characterization of supporting data set(s): The Chesapeake Bay Program's second submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) Technical Synthesis revises and updates the first synthesis published in 1992, by providing new light requirements for SAV through the water column and at the leaf surface, providing diagnostic tools for their application and interpretation, and identifying preliminary sets of physical, chemical, and other biological habitat requirements. An algorithm was applied to analyze SAV habitat suitability for some 50 sites in Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries using data collected over 14 years (1985-1998) of environmental monitoring (EPA, CBP, 2000). 2) Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) field crews noted the presence or absence of SAV at their sampling stations as an ancillary measurement. No attempt was made to estimate the extent of SAV the MAIA region. The MAIA database contains water quality, sediment, benthic community, and fish data collected by Appendix D Indicator Metadata B-47 ------- IE; several partners in MAIA Region estuaries in 1997 and 1998. The MAIA program conducted regular fish surveys during the summer of 1998 to characterize the structure and health of the fish communi- ties. The stations sampled were selected according to a probabilistic design. These stations were not identical with the stations sampled for water and sediment qualify analyses conducted primarily in 1997; therefore, it is not possible to directly compare these different analyses station by station. However, it is statistically valid to compare results among classes of estuaries, (e.g., large versus small estuaries, Delaware Estuary versus Chesapeake Estuary). Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): 1) Batiuk, RA, P. Bergstrom, M. Kemp, E. Koch, L Murray, J.C. Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, C. Callegos, L Karrh, M. Naylor, D. Wilcox, K.A. Moore, S. Ailstock, and M. Teichberg. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Water Qualify and Habitat-Based Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Second Technical Synthesis, CBP-TRS 245-00, EPA 903-R-00-014. Annapolis, MD: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, 2000; 2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid- Atlantic Integrated Assessment, MAIA - Estuaries 1997-98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003. Narragansett, Rl: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, May 2003. Web site: CBP report http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/sav/index.html Indicator name: Rsh abnormalities Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts and oceans? Spatial coverage: National assessment, data presented for Gulf of Mexico to Cape Cod, Great Lakes excluded Temporal coverage: Data collected in 2000, available in 2002 for Pacific Coast Characterization of supporting data set(s): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) data on fish pathologies by estuarine province. Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report, EPA 620-R-01 -005. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, September 2001. Web site: NCCR http://epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html Indicator name: Unusual marine mortalities Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator category: 2 Associated question:. What is the ecological condition of coasts and oceans? Spatial coverage: National in scope for marine mammals Temporal coverage: 1992-2001 Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data is available for whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, sea otters, and mana- tees. Data is not available for turtle, seabjrd, fish, and shellfish mortality. The 2001 data for two unusual mortality events and the total number of gray whales lost in the 19,99-2001 unusual mortality event were obtained directly from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). All other unusual mortality event data were obtained from Dierauf and Gulland, (2001) (The Heinz Center, 2002). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program; 2) Dierauf, LA., and F.M.D. Gulland (eds.) CRC Handbook of Marine Mammal Medicine: Health, Disease, and Rehabilitation, 2nd Edition, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc., 2001. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 77 and 223 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: NMFS data ] http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Health_and_Stranding_ Response_Program/WGUMMME.html The Entire Nation Indicator name: Ecosystem extent ; Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 Associated (question: What is the ecological condition of the entire nation? Spatial coverage: National in all cases ; Temporal coverage: 1950s-1990s. i Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) For cropland, the data source is the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) relying on data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service and a variety of other sources to provide an estimate of extent. 2) For forests, the data source is the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, a survey-based program that has operated since the late 1940s, collecting information on a variety of forest characteris- tics. 3) For fresh water wetlands, the data source is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory as reported in the most recent wetlands status and trends report (Dahl, 2000). 4) For grasslands and shrublands, the data source is the National Land Cover Datassit (NLCD). In the 1990s, a federal interagency consor- tium (the Multi- Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium) was created to coordinate access to and use of land B-48 Indicator Metadata Appendix D ------- cover data from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Using Landsat data and a variety of ancillary data, the consortium processed data from a series of 1992 Landsat images, to create the NLCD on a square grid covering the lower 48 states. The MRLC NLCD with 21 land cover classes, was used to estimate the area coverage for the U.S. 5) For urban/suburban, the data source is the NLCD. Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1) ERS; 2) FIA; 3) Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000; 4) NLCD; 5) NLCD. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 41 -43 and 207 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: ERS http://www.ers.usda.gov/Emphases/Harmony/issues/arei2000/; FIA http://fia.fs.fed.us; Dahl, 2000 http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html; NLCD http://www.usgs.gov/mrlcreg.html Indicator name: At-risk native species Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of the entire nation? Spatial coverage: Natural Heritage programs in all SO states. Temporal coverage: 2000. Data managed consistently since 1974. Characterization of supporting data set(s): NatureServe is an independent nonprofit organization whose research biologists gather, review, integrate, and record available information about species taxonomy, status, and use of different habitats or ecological system types. They are assisted in this work by scientists in the network of Natural Heritage programs as well as by contracted experts for different invertebrate taxa. NatureServe staff and collabo- rators assign a conservation status by using standard Heritage rank- ing criteria. The Heritage ranking process considers five major status ranks: critically imperiled (Cl), imperiled (G2), vulnerable (G3), apparently secure (C4), and demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure (C5). In addition, separate ranks are assigned for species regarded as presumed extinct (CX) or possibly extinct (CH). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): NatureServe and its member programs in the network of Natural Heritage programs develop and maintain information on species at risk. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 52-53 and 214 (The Heinz Center, 2002). Web site: http://www.natureserve.org Indicator name: Bird Community Index Indicator type (status or trend): Status Indicator Category: 2 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of the entire nation? Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic Highlands (parts of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York and all of West Virginia) Temporal coverage: 1995-1996 data Characterization of supporting data set(s): Birds and vegetation were surveyed across the entire Mid-Atlantic highlands within sites sufficiently large (200 acres) to represent most of the habitat elements that are required by breeding birds. Use of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) survey design guaranteed that data from the 126 sample sites were representative of the entire highlands area. Sixteen specific groups of bird species, such as omnivores, bark probers, residents, migrants, shrub nesters, etc., were ultimately selected as representative of the mostly forested Mid-Atlantic Highlands'area. Of the 16 groups, nine were "specialists" and seven were "generalists"; for example, insectivores are specialists and omnivores are generalists. Placement of specific bird species within each group was based on a review of scientific publications. Species may be assigned to several groups as well as to both specialist and generalist groups simultaneously. In general, a high proportion of birds with specialized requirements indicates healthy natural habitat that provides ecological benefits at local and larger scales (EPA, 2000). Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):1 1) O'Connell, T.J., L.E. Jackson, and R.P. Brooks. Bird guilds as indica- tors of ecological condition in the central Appalachians. Ecological Applications 10: 1706-1721 (2000). 2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. MAIA Project Summary: Birds Indicate Ecological Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. EPA 620-R-000-003. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Research and Development, June 2000. Web site: MAIA summary http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/bird.htrh; Full research report http://www.wetlands.cas.psu.edu Indicator name: Terrestrial Plant Growth Index Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend Indicator Category: 1 Associated question: What is the ecological condition of the entire nation? Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states Temporal coverage: 1989-2000, except for 1994 when the satellite failed. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is calculated at two-week intervals and summed throughout the grow- ing season; only values that exceed non-growing-season, background NDVI are included. Growing season dates, end dates, and back- Appendix 8 Indicator Metadata B-49 ------- !pi m ISIlIil 3 IM/iWfl \|\|jOT.:Mw ------- Appendix C: • • i .. . • Atronyhfis and I I .. Abbreviations ------- A BRAC: base realignment and closure facilities BRD: Biological Resources Division TNAP:1-napthol AFO: animal feeding operation AHA: American Heart Association AHEF: Atmospheric and Health Effects Framework AIRS: Aerometric Information Retrieval System AM: atrazine mercapturate ANC: acid-neutralizing capacity APCs: areas of probable concern AQI: Air Quality Index AQS: Air Quality System AREAL: Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory ARS: Agricultural Research Center ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry AVHRR: advanced veiy high resolution radiometer AVS: acid volatile sulfide c 6 BASE: Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation BBS: Breeding Bird Survey BCI: Bird Community Index BEACH: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Program BEIR VI: Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation BLM: Bureau of Land Management C&I: criteria and indicators CAA: Clean Air Act ; CAFOs: confined animal feeding operations CAPI: computer-assisted personal interviewing CASTNet: Clean Air Status and Trends Network CBP: Chespeake Bay Program CCA: chromate copper arsenate C-CAP: Coastal Change Analysis Program CDC: Centeirs for Disease Control and Prevention CDDS: California Department of Developmental Services CEMS: continuous emissions monitors CENR: Council on the Environment and Natural Resources CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CESQCs: conditionally exempt small quantity generators CFCs: chloroflourocarbons CHD: coronary heart disease cm: centimeter CMSAs: consolidated metropolitan statistical areas CO: carbon monoxide C-2 Acronyms and Abbreviations Appendix C ------- COHb: carboxyhemoglobin COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease COS: carbonyl sulfide CPI: Consumer Price Index CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission CRA: comparative risk assessment CRP: Conservation Reserve Program CSO: combined sewer overflow CSTE: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists CVD: cardiovascular disease CWA: Clean Water Act CWS: community water system D DBPs: disinfection byproducts DDE: dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene DDT: dichlorodiphenltrichloroethane DO: dissolved oxygen DOC: dissolved organic carbon DOE: U.S. Department of Energy DOI: U.S. Department of the Interior DSS: decision support systems DU: Dobson Units" EBD: environmental burden of disease ECAO: Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office ECI: Employee Cost Index EDC: endocrine-disrupting compounds EEA: essential ecological attribute EECL: equivalent effective chlorine EEZ: U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone EMAP: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program ENSO: El Nino-Southern Oscillation EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency STAR: Science to Achieve Results EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act EPHI: environmental public health indicators EPO: Epidemiology Program Office EPT: Ephemeoptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera Index ERL: effects range low ERM: effects range medium EROS: Earth's Resources Observation System ESC: Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines ESI: Environmental Sensitivity Index ESRD: end stage renal disease ETS: environmental tobacco smoke Appendix Acronyms and Abbreviations C-3 ------- lechrim F FDA: Food and Drug Administration FHM: Forest Health Monitoring Program FIA; Forest Inventory and Analysis FQPA: Food Quality Protection Act FS: Forest Service FY: fiscal year G CAO: General Accounting Office GBD: global burden of disease GDP: gross domestic product GI: gastrointestinal illness CIS: geographic information systems GLEAMS: groundwater loading effects of agricultural management GPRA: Government Performance Results Act H HABs: harmful algal blooms HCB: hexachlorobenzene HCFCs: hydrochlorofiuorocarbons HFCs: hydrofluorocarbons HHS: Department of Health and Human Services HHW: household hazardous waste HUG: hydrol ogic unit code HUMUS: hydrologic unit modeling of the United States 1-1 IAQ: indoor air quality IBI: index of biotic integrity ICCC: international classification of childhood cancer ICTDRN: International Center for Tropical Disease Research Network : ; IDEM: India'na Department of Environmental Management IMP: integrated pest management IMPROVE: Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments IPCS: International Programme on Chemical Safety IQ: intelligence quotient IRIS: Integrated Risk Information System IWI: Index of Watershed Indicators K-L Ibs: pounds LDC: least distributed condition LQGs: large quantity generators LTER: long-term ecological research LUST: leaking underground storage tanks km: kilometers C-4 Acronyms and Abbreviations Append x ------- M MA: metropolitan area MAD: malathion dicarboxylic acid MAIA: Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment MBII: Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index MCL: maximum contaminant levels MDC: minimally distributed condition MDN: Mercury Deposition Network \|J/m3: micrograms per cubic meter \|J/dl: micrograms per deciliter \|J/L: micrograms per liter MRLC: Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics MSAs: metropolitan statistical areas N N2: nitrogen NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards NADP: National Atmospheric Deposition Program NAE: National Academy of Engineering NAMS: national air monitoring stations NAO: North Atlantic Oscillation NAPAP: National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program NAS: Nonindigenous Aquatic Species NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASQAN: National Stream Quality Accounting Network NASS: National Agricultural Statistics Service NAWQA: National Water Qualiiy Assessment Program NCEA: National Center for Environmental Assessment NCES: National Center for Education Strategies NCEH: National Center for Environmental Health NCFAP: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy NCHS: National Center for Health Statistics NCI: National Cancer Institute NCS: National Children's Study NDVI: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index NEI: National Emissions Inventory NEP: National Estuary Program NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act NERRS: National'Estuarine Research Reserve System ng/mL: nanograms per milliliter NHANES: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey NHATS: National Human Adipose Tissue Survey NHj: ammonia NHD: National Hydrography Dataset NHEXAS: National Human Exposure Assessment Survey NHIS: National Health Interview Survey NHLBI: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute NIH: National Institutes of Health NINDS: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke NLCD: National Land Cover Data NLFWA: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories Appendix C. Acronyms and Abbreviations C-5 ------- ' ' _r '" ' • ' • •" •• ':"^^T' " ' ' ; ilallli'al•llal^^Sl¥S^!t4Jl^^i^SB;fiSE^S6^lll^K! II NLV: Norwalk-like virus nm: nanometers NMI: Nematode Maturity Index MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report NMVOCs: non-methane volatile organic compounds NOjs nitrogen dioxide NO,, nitrogen oxides NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOPES: Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study NPb National Priorities List NPP: Net Primary Production NRC: National Research Council NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service NRI: National Resources Inventory NSF: National Science Foundation NSh National Sediment Inventory NSSP: National Sanitary Survey Program NS&.T: National Status and Trends Program NTN: National Trends Network NVSS: National Vital Statistics System NWHC: National Wildlife Health Center NWI: National Wetlands Inventory o j: ozone OAQPS: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards . ! OAR: Office of Air and Radiation ! OCFO: Office of the Chief Financial Officer OCHP: Office of Children's Health Protection OCIR: Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations OECA: Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance OEI: Office of Environmental Information OOP: ozone-depleting potential ODS: ozone-depleting substance OE: Office of Enforcement OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OPEI: Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation OPs: organophosphate pesticides ' OPP: Office of Pesticide Programs OPPE: Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation OPPT: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics OPPTS: Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances ORD: Office of Research and Development OSWER: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OW: Office of Water C-6 Acronyms and Abbreviations /Appendix (_- : ------- P: phosphorus PAH: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Pb: lead PBTs: persistent bioaccumulative toxics PCBs: polychlorinated biphenyls PCC: poison control centers PCDD: pojychlorinated dibenzo-dioxin PCDF: polychlorinated dibenzo-furan pCi/L: picocuries per liter PDO: Pacific Decadal Oscillation POP: Pesticides Data Program PECDF: pentachlorodibenzofuran PERC: chloroform tetrachloroethylene PFCs: perflourinated carbons PIBI: Periphyton Index of Biotic Integrity PM: particulate matter PMiQr PM2.s: particulate matter 10, 2.5 micrometers (coarse, fine) PMSAs: primary metropolitan statistical areas POPs: persistent organic pollutants POTW: publicly owned treatment works PPI: Producer Price Index PSR: pressure-state-response framework PSR/E: pressure-state-response-effects framework PWS: public water system Q-R QA/QC: quality assurance/quality control RB meter: Robertson-Berger meter RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRAInfo: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System ReVA: Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program RMSF: rocky mountain spotted fever ROE: EPA's Report on the Environment ElPA: Resource Planning Act RUSLE: revised universal soil loss equation s SiAB: Science Advisory Board SARA: Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act SAV: submerged aquatic vegetation SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act SDWIS: Safe Drinking Water Information System SDWIS/FED: Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal version SeaWiFS: sea viewing wide field-of-view sonar . SiEER: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Si EM: simultaneously extracted metals SF6: sulfur hexafluoride x SIC: standard industrial classification SIDS: sudden infant death syndrome Appendix C Acronyms and Abbreviations C-7 ------- \ ' I If .;•'• . .. ! I ' j . ; '. : '! : 1M ' SLAMS: state/local air monitoring stations SMSA: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area SO2: sulfur dioxide SOLEC: State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference SQI: Soil Quality Index SPARROW: SPAtially-Referenced Regression On Watershed Attributes SQCs: small quantify generators SSO: sanitary sewer overflow SST: sea surface temperature STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database STORET: STORage and RETrieval Database SWAT: Soil and Water Assessment Tool T TBP: theoretical bioaccumulation potential TCEs trichloroethylene TDCF: tetrachlorodibenzofuran TESS: Toxic Exposure Surveillance System THMs: trihalomethanes TIME: temporally integrated monitoring of ecosystems TMDL: total maximum daily load TN: total nitrogen TOO total organic carbon TOMS: total ozone mapping spectrometer TP: total phosphorus TRI: Toxics Release Inventory TD: Technical Document for EPA's Report on the Environment TSDs: treatrhent, storage, and disposal facilities TYPY: 3,5,6'-trichloro-2-pyridinol U-Z UAs: urbanised areas UCs: urban clusters UN: United Nations UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USCS: U.S. Geological Survey UST: underground storage tanks UV: ultraviolet UV-A: ultraviolet A UV-B: ultraviolet B VMT: vehicle miles traveled VOCs: volatile organic compounds WBDO: Waterborne disease outbreak WHO: World Health Organization WMO: World Meteorological Organization WMPC: waste minimization priority chemicals C-8 Acronyms and Abbreviations Appendix C. ------- Appendix D Ci • ^^k ^ £ *%•' VM JF ioss3rv : ^ ! ' J .1 of Tetrnris.. ------- • \|• "™ [" ' ' • '" • "«: " ' Still IHlllf . '^W.^^:l:'J>wi:^ .'^^g^^HlMlKKifl^ A accretion: The gradual build-up of sediment along the bank or shore of a river or stream. acid deposition: A complex chemical and atmospheric phenomenon, that occurs when emissions of sulfur and nitrogen compounds are transformed by chemical processes in the atmosphere and then deposited on earth in either wet or dry form. The wet forms, often called "acid rain," can fall to earth as rain, snow, or fog. The dry forms are acidic gases or particulate matter. adipose tissue: Fatty tissue. advisory: A nonregulatory document that communicates risk information to those who may have to make risk management decisions. (EPA, December 1997) aerosol: 1. Small droplets or particles suspended in the atmosphere, typically containing sulfur. They are emitted naturally (e.g., in volcanic eruptions) and as a result of human activities (c.g. burning fossil fuels). 2. The pressurized gas used to propel substances out of a container. (EPA, December 1997) agricultural waste: Byproducts generated by the rearing of animals and the production and harvest of crops or trees. Animal waste, a large component of agricultural waste, includes waste (e.g., feed waste, bedding and litter, and feedlqt and paddock runoff) from livestock, dairy, and other animal-related agricultural and farming practices. air pollutant: Any substance in air that could, in high enough concentration, harm man, other animals, vegetation, or material. Pollutants may include almost any natural or artificial composition of airborne matter capable of being airborne. They may be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or in combination thereof. Generally, they fall into two main groups: (1) those emitted directly from identifiable sources and (2) those produced in the air by interaction between two or more primary pollutants, or by reaction with normal atmospheric constituents, with or without photoactivation. Exclusive of pollen, fog, and dust, which are of natural origin, about 100 contaminants have been identified. Air pollutants are often grouped in categories for ease in classification; some of he categories are: solids, sulfur compounds, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen compounds, oxygen compounds, halogen compounds, radioactive compounds, and odors. (EPA, December 1997) air pollution: The presence of contaminants or pollutant substances in the air that interfere with human health or welfare or produce other harmful environmental effects. (EPA, December 1997) air quality criteria: The levels of pollution and lengths of exposure above which harmful health and welfare effects may occur. (EPA, December 1997) air quality standards: The level of pollutants prescribed by regulations that are not to be exceeded during a given time in a defined area. (EPA, December 1997) ' '. •' i i • • ; i ,.. air toxics: Air pollutants that cause or may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental and ecological effects. Examples of toxic air pollutants include benzene, found in gasoline; perchloroethylene, emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, used as a solvent by a number of industries. algal blooms: Sudden spurts of algal growth, which can degrade water quality and indicate potentially hazardous changes in local water chemistry. (EPA, December 1997) ambient air: Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere; open air, surrounding air. (EPA, December 1997) ambient aiir quality standards: See criteria pollutants and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. animal waiste: Byproducts that result from livestock, diary, and other animal-related agricultural practices. anthropogenic: Originating from humans, not naturally occurring, (EPA, MAIA, August 2002) aquatic ecosystems: Salt water or fresh water ecosystems, includes rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries and coral reefs. aquifer: An underground geological formation, or group of formation:;, containing water; source of. ground water for wells and springs. (USCS, 1996) arsenic: A silvery, nonmetallic element that occurs naturally in rocks and soil, water, air, and plants and animals. It can be released into the environment through natural activities such as. volcanic action, erosion of rocks, and forest fires or through human actions. Approximately 90 percent of industrial arsenic in the U.S. is used as a wood preservative, but arsenic is also used in paints, dyes, metals, drugs, sojips, and semiconductors. Agricultural applications (used in rodent poisons and some herbicides), mining, and smelting also contribute to arsenic releases in the environment. It is a known human carcinogen. arterioscjerosis: Hardening of the arteries. asbestos:: Naturally occurring strong, flexible fibers that can be separated into thin threads and woven. These fibers resist heat and D-2 Glossary of Terms Appendix D ------- chemicals and do not conduct electricity. Asbestos is used for insulation, making automobile brake and clutch parts, and many other products. These fibers break easily and form a dust composed of tiny particles that are light and sticky. When inhaled or swallowed they can cause health problems. (NCI, 2001) assemblage: The association of interacting populations of organisms in a selected habitat. 6 basal cell carcinoma: A type of skin cancer, usually curable if treated in time. beach day: A day that a beach would normally be open to the public. : benthic: Occurring at or near the bottom of a body of water. benthic organisms: The worms, clams, crustaceans, and other organisms that live at the bottom of the estuaries and the sea. benthos: In fresh water and marine ecosystems, organisms attached to, resting on, or burrowed into bottom sediments. bioaccumulation: A process whereby chemicals (e.g., DDT, PCBs) are retained by plants and animals and increase in concentration over time. Uptake can occur through feeding or direct absorption from water or sediments. (EPA, MAIA, August 2002) biodiversity: The variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different items and their relative frequencies. The term encompasses three basic levels of biodiversity: ecosystems, species, and genes. biological diversity: See biodiversity. biomarker: 1. A parameter that can be used to identify a toxic effect in an individual organism and can be used in extrapolation between species. 2. An indicator signaling an event or condition in a biological system or sample and giving a measure of exposure, effect, or susceptibility. (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, 1993) biomass: All of the living material in a given area; often refers to vegetation. (EPA; December 1997) biomonitoring: Use of a living organism or biological entity as a detector and its response as a measure to determine environmental conditions. Ambient biological surveys and toxicity tests are common biological monitoring methods. biotic: Refers to living organisms. biotic condition: The state of living things. biotic integrity: The ability to support and maintain balanced, integrated functionality in the natural habitat of a given region. body burden: The amount of various contaminants retained in a person's tissues. bog: A type of wetland that accumulates appreciable peat deposits. Bogs depend primarily on precipitation for their water source and are usually acidic and rich in plant residue, with a conspicuous mat of living green moss. (EPA, December 1997) brownfield: Real property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. c cadmium: A metal found in natural deposits as ores containing other elements. The greatest use of cadmium is primarily for metal plating and coating operations, including transportation equipment, machinery and baking enamels, photography, and television phosphors. It is also used in nickel-cadmium and solar batteries and in pigments. (EPA, OGWDW, September 2002) carcinogen: An agent that causes cancer. cerebrovascular disease: A category of diseases, including stroke, related to blood vessels supplying the brain. chlorination: The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage, or industrial waste to disinfect or to oxidize undesirable compounds. (EPA, December 1997) chlorine: A greenish-yellow gas that is slightly soluble in water. Chlorine is often used in disinfection of water and treatment of sewage effluent as well as in the manufacture of products such as antifreeze, rubber, and cleaning agents. chromium: A heavy metal that occurs naturally in rocks, plants, soil, and volcanic dust and gases. It is tasteless and odorless. It can damage living things at low concentrations and tends to accumulate in the food chain. Appendix D Glossary of Terms D-3 ------- ecnnica chronic exposure: Multiple exposures occurring over an extended period of time or over a significant fraction of an animal's or human's lifetime (usually seven years to a lifetime). (EPA, December 1997) Class I area: Under the Clean Air Act, a Class I area is one in which visibility is protected more stringently than under the national ambient air quality standards; includes national parks, wilderness areas, monuments, and other areas of special national and cultural significance. (EPA, December 1997) cleanup: Action taken to deal with a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance that could affect humans, the environment, or both. The term "cleanup" is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms "remedial action," "removal action," "response action," or "corrective action." coastal and ocean ecosystem: An ecosystem that consists primarily of estuaries and ocean waters under U.S. jurisdiction. U.S. • waters extend to the boundaries of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, 200 miles from the U.S. coast. (The Heinz Center, 2002) (This report focuses on waters within 25 miles of the coast.) coastal wetland: Ecosystem generally found along the Atlantic, Pacific, Alaskan, and Gulf coasts and closely linked to the nation's estuaries, where sea water mixes with fresh water to form an environment of varying salinities. The plants in coastal wetlands have adapted to changing fluctuating water levels and salinities to create tidal salt marshes, mangrove swamps, and tidal fresh water wetlands, which form beyond the upper edges of tidal salt marshes where the influence of salt water ends. Fresh water coastal wetlands can also be found adjacent to the Great Lakes. community water system: A public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. (EPA, December 1997) composting: The controlled biological decomposition of organic material in the presence of air to form a humus-like material. Controlled methods of composting include mechanical mixing and aerating, ventilating the materials by dropping them through a vertical series of aerated chambers, and placing the them in piles out In the open air and mixing it or turning it periodically. congenital anomalies: Birth defects. construction and demolition debris: Waste generated during building, renovation, and wrecking projects. This type of waste generally consists of materials such as wood, concrete, steel, brick, and gypsum. contaminant: Any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter that has an adverse effect on air, water, or soil. (EPA, December 1997) contaminated land: Ground that has been polluted with hazardous materials and requires cleanup or remediation. Contaminated sites may contain both polluted objects (e.g., buildings, machinery) and land (e.g. soil, sediments, and plants). contaminated media: Materials such as soil, sediment, water, and sludge that are polluted at levels requiring cleanup or further assessment. contamination: Introduction into water,-air, or soil of microorganisms, chemicals, toxic substances, wastes, or waste water in a concentration that makes the medium unfit for its next intended use. Also applies to surfaces of objects, buildings, and various household and agricultural use products. ;(EPA, December 1997) conterminous: Enclosed within one common boundary (e.g., the 48 conterminous states). cotinine: A breakdown product (metabolite) of nicotine that can be measured in urine. criteria air pollutants: A group of six widespread and common air pollutants regulated by the EPA on the basis of standards set to protect public health or environmental effects of pollution. These six criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. cropland: A National Resources Inventory land cover/use category that includes areas used for the production of adapted crops for harvest. Two subcategories of cropland are recognized: cultivated and noncultivated. Cultivated cropland comprises land in row crops or close-grown crops and also other cultivated cropland, for example, hayland or pastureland that is in a rotation with row or close-grown brops. Noncultivated cropland includes permanent hayland and horticultural cropland. (USDA, NRCS, 2000) D depuration: The process of reducing the number of pathogenic organisms that may be present in shellfish by using a controlled aquatic environment as the treatment process. (FDA, 2000) D-4 Glossary of Terms /Appendix U ------- ^^::^' yM^^'-?'&'$ftyt%i&?&-&M$Mb i '•l-MT^-.^^^^j^j^^tf^&i!^^-, dermal absorption: The process by which a chemical penetrates the skin and enters the body as an internal dose. (EPA, December 1997) _. • . designated uses: Those wate'r uses identified in state water quality standards that must be achieved and maintained as required under the Clean Water Act. Uses can include fishing, shellfish harvesting, public water supply, swimming, boating, and irrigation. (EPA, December 1997) developed land: A combination of National Resource Inventory land cover/use categories: large urban and built-up areas, small built- up areas, and rural transportation land. (USDA, NRCS, 2000) dioxin: A group of chemically similar compounds, known chemically as dibenzo-p-dioxins, that are created inadvertently during combustion, chlorine bleaching of pulp and paper, and some types of chemical manufacturing. Tests on laboratory animals indicate that it is one of the more toxic anthropogenic (manmade) compounds. disinfection byproduct: A compound formed by the reaction of a disinfectant such as chlorine with organic material in the water supply; a chemical byproduct of the disinfection process. (EPA, December 1997) Dobson unit (DU): A measurement of ozone in the atmosphere. If, for example, 100 DU of ozone were brought to earth's surface, they would form a layer one millimeter thick. (EPA, December 1997) dose: 1. The actual quantity of a chemical administered to an organism or to which it is exposed. 2. The amount of a substance that reaches a specific tissue (e.g., the liver). 3. The amount of a substance available for interaction with metabolic processes after crossing the outer boundary of an organism. (EPA, December 1997) dry deposition: The settling of gases and particles out of the atmosphere. Dry deposition is a type of acid deposition, more commonly referred to as "acid rain." (EPA, Clean Air Markets Division, October 2002). ecological processes: The metabolic functions of ecosystems— energy flow, elemental cycling, and the production, consumption, and decomposition of organic matter, (EPA, SAB, 2002) ecology: The study of the structure and function of nature; the totality of relations between organisms and their environment. (Odum, 1971) ecoregions: Areas within which ecosystems with similar characteristics are likely to occur with predictable patterns; variables include such things as landform, vegetation, soils, and fauna. ecosystem: 1. The interacting system of a biological community and its nonliving environmental surroundings. 2. A geographic area including all living organisms (people, plants, animals, and microorganisms), their physical surroundings (such as soil, water and air), and the natural cycles that sustain them. ecotone: A habitat created by the juxtaposition of distinctly different habitats; an edge habitat; or an ecological zone or boundary where two or more ecosystems meet. (EPA, December 1997) emissions standard: The maximum amount of air-polluting discharge legally allowed from a single source, mobile or stationary. (EPA, December 1997) endangered species: Animals, birds, fish, plants, or other living organisms threatened with extinction by anthropogenic (human-caused) or natural changes in their environment. Requirements for declaring a species "endangered" are contained in the Endangered Species Act. (EPA, December 1997) endocrine disrupters: Chemicals that interfere with the endocrine systems, leading to adverse effects. Some chemicals do this by binding to receptors, such as the estrogen and androgen receptors. endocrine system: The components of the body that produce hormones that regulate reproductive and developmental functions. Major endocrine glands include' the pituitary, thyroid, adrenal glands, testes, and ovaries. ecological indicators: Measurable characteristics related to the structure, composition, or functioning of ecological systems (EPA, SAB, 2002); a measure, an index of measures, or a model that characterizes an ecosystem or one of its critical components (Jackson et.al, 2000); any expression of the environment that quantitatively estimates the condition of ecological resources, the magnitude of stress, the exposure of biological components to stress, or the amount of change in condition. (Barber, 1994) enrichment: The addition of nutrients (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon compounds) from sewage effluent, agricultural or urban runoff, or other sources to surface water. Enrichment greatly increases the growth potential for algae and other aquatic plants. (EPA, December 1997) environmental burden of disease: The proportion of diseases, disability, and injury caused by factors in the environment: chemical pollutants, infectious microorganisms, and radiation. Appendix D Glossary of Terms D-5 ------- environmental exposure: Human exposure to pollutants in their surroundings. Low-level chronic exposure to pollutants is one of the most common forms of environmental exposure (see threshold level). (EPA, December 1997) environmental indicators: Scientific measurements that help measure over time the state of air, water, and land resources, • pressures on those resources, and resulting effects on ecological and human health. Indicators show progress in making the air cleaner and the water purer and in protecting land. environmental risk: The potential for adverse effects on living organisms associated with pollution of the environment by effluents, emissions, wastes, or accidental chemical releases; energy use, or the depletion of natural resources. (EPA, December 1997) environmental risk factor: An exposure to something in the environment that, based on evidence, is known to be associated with health-related conditions and considered important to prevent. (Green, 1999) environmental tobacco smoke: A mixture of smoke exhaled by a smoker and the smoke from the burning end of a smoker's cigarette, pipe, or cigar. Also known as second hand smoke. epidemiology: The study of how diseases occur in a population or area. epiphyte: A plant, fungus, or microbe sustained entirely by nutrients and water received, by means other than a parasite, from within the canopy in which it resides. (Moffett, 2000) erosion: The wearing away of land surface by wind or water, intensified by land-clearing practices related to farming, residential or industrial development, road building, or logging. (EPA, December 1997) estuaries: Partially enclosed bodies of water (this term includes bays, sounds, lagoons, and fjords); they are generally considered to begin at the upper end of tidal or saltwater influence and end where they meet the ocean. (The Heinz Center, 2002) cutrophic: Pertaining to a lake or other body of water characterized by large nutrient concentrations, resulting in high productivity of algae. eutrophication: The slow aging process during which a lake, estuary, or bay evolves into a bog or marsh and eventually disappears. During the later stages of this process, the water body is choked by abundant plant life that result from higher levels of nutritive compounds such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Human activities can accelerate the process. (EPA, December 1997) exotic species: A species that is not indigenous to a region. (EPA, December 1997) exposure: The amount of radiation or pollutant present in a given environment that represents a potential health threat to living organisms. (I:PA, December 1997) exposure pathway: The path from sources of pollutants via, soil, water, or food to humans and other species. (EPA, December 1997) exposure route: The way a chemical or pollutant enters an organism after contact; i.e. by ingestion, inhalation, or dermal absorption. (EPA, December 1997) extraction waste: Byproducts produced as a result of mining practices. F farmlands: include both croplands-lands used for production of annual and perennial crops and livestock-and surrounding landscape, such as field borders and windbreaks, small woodlots, grassland or shrubland areas, wetlands, farmsteads, small villages and other built- up areas, and similar areas within and adjacent to croplands. (The Heinz Center, 2002) fauna: Animal life. fertilizers: Supplements to improve plant growth that are commonly used on agricultural lands, as well as in urban, industrial, and residential settings. fish kill: A large-scale die-off of fish caused by factors such as pollution, noxious algae, harmful bacteria, and hypoxic conditions. floodplain: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. flora: Plant or bacterial life. forage: Food for animals especially when taken by browsing or grazing. forests: Lands at least 10 percent covered by trees of any size, at least one acre in extent. This includes areas in which trees are intermingled with other cover, such as chaparral and pinyon, juniper areas in the Southwest, and both naturally regenerating forests and areas planted for future harvest (plantations or "tree farms"). (The Heinz Center, 2002) D-6 Glossary of Terms Appendix D ------- forest fragmentation: The division of a formerly healthy forest into patches, usually as a result of conversion to agricultural or residential land. (EPA, August 2002) forest land: Land that is at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any size, including land that formerly had tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated. The minimum area for classification of forest land is one acre. (USDA, Forest Service, April 2001) fresh water systems: Include: • Rivers and streams, including those that flow only part of the year • Lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, from small farm ponds to the Great " Lakes • Ground water, which is often directly connected to rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands • Fresh water wetlands, including forested, shrub, and emergent wet- lands (marshes), and open water ponds • Riparian areas-they usually vegetated margins of streams and rivers (although this term can also apply to lake margins). (The Heinz Center, 2002) ground water: Subsurface water that occurs beneath the water table in soils and geologic formations that are fully saturated. G geomorphology: The scientific study of the nature and origin of the landforms on the surface of earth and other planets. giardiasis: The illness resulting from infection of the gastrointestinal tract with Giardia lamblia. The symptoms of giardiasis include gastric pain, fatigue, extreme diarrhea, fever, chills, and nausea. The most acute symptoms typically last only a few days (Garcia, 1999). global burden of disease: The overall impact of disease related to all causes.' It takes into account the burden represented by years of life lived with illness or disability. grasslands and shrublands: Lands in which the dominant vegetation is grasses and other nonwoody vegetation, or where shrubs (with or without scattered trees) are the norm (also called rangelands); includes bare-rock deserts, alpine meadows, arctic tundra, pastures, and haylands (an overlap with the farmland system). Less-managed pastures and haylands fit well within the grassland/shrubland system; more heavily managed ones fit well as part of the farmlands system. (The Heinz Center, 2002) gross primary production: Total energy captured in units of carbon gain. ground-level ozone: See ozone. H habitat: The place where a population (e.g., human, animal, plant, microorganism) lives and its surroundings, both living and nonliving. (EPA, December 1997) habitat fragmentation: The division of large areas of natural habitat into smaller sections through conversion of the natural habitat to other uses (e.g., roads, development), resulting in populations of plants and animals becoming isolated from each other and potentially threatening their survival. habitat loss: The destruction of habitat by natural disasters (hurricanes, fires, flooding, etc.) and human activity (clearing land for agricultural, industrial, and residential development; clear-cut harvesting of timber; oil spills; and war). halogens: Compounds that contain atoms of chlorine, bromine, or fluorine. hardwood: The wood of an angiospermous tree as distinguished from that of a coniferous tree; a tree that yields hardwood. hazardous waste: Byproducts of society that can pose a substantial or potential threat to human health or the environment when improperly managed. Hazardous waste possesses at least one of four characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, ortoxicity. health outcomes: An outcome measured by the quality of life, likelihood of disease, life expectancy, and overall health of individuals or communities. (HIC, 2000-2001) heavy metals: Metallic elements with high atomic weights (e.g., mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, lead); can damage' living things at low concentrations and tend to accumulate in the food chain. (EPA, December 1997) herbicide: A form of pesticide used to control weeds that limit or inhibit the growth of the desired crop. high-level radioactive waste: Highly radioactive waste material from the chemical processing of spent fuel. It includes spent fuel, liquid waste, and highly radioactive solid waste from the liquid. High-level radioactive waste contains elements that decay very slowly and remain radioactive for thousands of years. (DOE, 1997) Appendix D Glossary of Terms D-7 ------- CDA' iffi HOT rfWPfPWI3«8£I! SWfllPW liiiff tr/^s Pratt ixepsft ort r ••'•!• ! • • T •••]•".• ' -" '•-•• ;t •' household hazardous waste: Hazardous products used and disposed of by residential rather than industrial consumers. It includes paints, stains, varnishes, solvents, pesticides, and other materials or products containing volatile chemicals that can catch fire, react, or explode, or are corrosive or toxic. human exposure to contaminants: The contact of a chemical contacting and the outer boundary of a human. (EPA, ORD, March 1998) hydrologic cycle: Movement or exchange of water between the atmosphere and earth. (EPA, December 1997) hydrologic unit code (HUC): An eight-digit code that is used to classify watersheds in the U.S. This code uniquely identifies each of four levels of watershed classification within four two-digit fields. The first two digits of the code identify the water-resources region; the first four digits identify the sub-region; the first six digits identify the accounting unit; and the final two digits identify the cataloging unit. For example, in hydrologic unit code (HUC) 01080204, 01 identifies the region; 0108 identifies the sub-region; 010802 identifies the accounting unit; and 01080204 identifies the cataloging unit. hydrology: The geology of ground water, with particular emphasis on the chemistry and movement of water. (EPA, December 1997) hypertrophic: Pertaining to a lake or other body of water characterized by excessive nutrient concentrations, resulting high productivity. hypoxia/hypoxic waters: Waters with low levels of dissolved oxygen concentrations, typically less than two ppm, the level generally accepted as the minimum required for most marine life to survive and reproduce. (EPA, December 1997). incidence rate of disease: The number of new cases of a disease or condition in a given period of time in a specified population. indoor air: The breathable air inside a habitable structure or conveyance. (EPA, December 1997) indoor air pollution: Chemical, physical, or biological contaminants in indoor air. (EPA, December 1997) industrial waste: Process waste associated with manufacturing. This waste u<;ually is not classified as either municipal waste or RCRA hazardous waste by federal or state laws. (EPA, OSWER, October 1988) industrial non-hazardous waste: Process waste associated with generation of electric power and manufacture of materials such as pulp and paper, iron and steel, glass, and concrete. This waste usually is not classified as either municipal waste or hazardous waste by federal or state laws. infant mortality: The death of children in the first year of life. inland wetlands: Wetlands that include marshes, wet meadows, and swamps. These areas are often dry one or more seasons every year. In the arid West of the U.S., they may be wet only periodically. integrated pest management: The coordinated use of available pest-control methods to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by the most eiconomical means and with the least possible hazard to people, property, and the environment. invasive species/invasive nuisance species: See nonnative species. inversion: The condition that occurs when warm air is trapped near the ground and normal temperature gradients don't permit air to flow into the atmosphere. (Nadakavukaren, 2000). impervious surface: A hard surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle or causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, and gravel roads. (Washington Department of Ecology, 1992). impounded: Refers to a body of water such as a pond, lake, or river that has been confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other barrier. (Texas Environmental Center, 1991) Julian day (JO): A Julian day is a continuous count of days beginning witjh January 1, 4713 BC. Julian days are often used by astronomers and sometimes used by historians to provide a precise date for an event, independent of all calendar systems. The date 4713 BC was chosen for the start of the count because this was earlier than all known historical records and happened to be a convenient starting point for several chronological and astronomical cycles. The length of the year in the Julian calendar is exactly 365.25 Julian days. D-8 Glossary of Terms Appendix U ------- K keystone species: A species that interacts with a large number of other species in a community. Because of the interactions, the removal of this species can cause widespread changes to community structure. (Pidwirny, 2000-2001) L lagoons (for waste treatment): Water impoundments in which organic wastes are stored, stabilized, or both. A shallow, artificial treatment pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify wastewater; a stabilization pond. An aerated lagoon is a treatment pond that uses oxygen to speed up the natural process of biological decomposition of organic wastes. (EPA, August 2002) land cover: The ecological status and physical structure of the vegetation on the land surface. (NRC, 2000) land use: Describes how a piece of land is managed or used by humans. The degree to which the land reflects human activities (e.g., residential and industrial development, roads, mining, timber harvesting, agriculture, grazing, etc.). landfills: 1. Sanitary landfills: Disposal sites for nonhazardous solid wastes spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and covered by material applied at the end of each operating day. 2. Secure chemical landfills: Disposal sites for hazardous waste, selected and designed to minimize the chance of release of hazardous substances into the environment. landscape: The traits, patterns, and structure of a specific geographic area, including its biological composition, its physical environment, and its anthropogenic or social patterns. An area where interacting ecosystems are grouped and repeated in similar form. (EPA, December 1997) landscape condition: The extent, composition, and patterns of habitats in a landscape. landscape pattern: The spatial distribution of the land use/land cover types, the arrangement of patches, connectivity among patches, and corridors for movement. large urban and built-up areas: A National Resources Inventory land cover/use category composed of developed tracts of at least 10 acres, meeting the definition of urban and built-up areas. (USDA, NRCS, 2000) large-quantity generators: Businesses that generate substantial "RCRA hazardous waste" as a part of their regular activities. leaching: The process by which soluble materials in the soil, such as nutrients, pesticide chemicals, or contaminants, are washed into a lower layer of soil or are dissolved and carried away by water. (Texas Environmental Center, 1991) lead: A heavy metal used in many materials and products. It is a natural element and does not break down in the environment. When absorbed into the body, it can be highly toxic to many organs and systems. levee: A natural or manmade earthen barrier along the edge of a stream, lake, or river. Land alongside rivers can be protected from flooding by levees. lichen: Any of numerous complex thallophytic plants made up of an alga and a fungus growing in symbiotic association on a solid surface (e.g., a rock). life expectancy: The probable number of years (or other time period) that members of a particular age class of a population are expected to live, based on statistical studies of similar populations in similar environments. life expectancy (at birth): The average number of years that a group or cohort of infants born in the same year are expected to live. low birthweight: Refers to children born weighing less than 2,500 grams (5.5 pounds). low-level waste: Radioactive waste, including accelerator-produced waste, that is not high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, byproduct material (as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954), or naturally occurring radioactive material. M macroinvertebrate: An organism that lacks a backbone and can be seen with the naked eye. (EPA, OW, November 2002). malignant melanoma: A type of skin cancer, more often fatal than other types of skin cancer. media: Specific environments—air, water, soil—that are the subject of regulatory concern and activities. (EPA, December 1997) Appendix D Glossary of Terms D-9 ------- medical waste: Any solid waste generated during the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings or animals, in research, production, or testing. mercury: Mercury is a metallic element that occurs in many forms and in combination with other elements. When combined with carbon, which readily occurs in water, it forms more-bioavailable organic mercury compounds (e.g., methylmercury). mesotrophic: Pertaining to a lake or other body of water characterized by moderate nutrient concentrations and moderate productivity in terms of aquatic animal and plant life. metabolic rate: The rate at which the body can turn food into energy. metabolites: Compound that result from human digestion (metabolism) of contaminants and that serve as a biomarkers of exposure. metadata: Information about data. It describes the content, quality, condition, and other characteristics of data. methemoglobinemia: A rare but potentially fatal condition in infants that results from interferences in the blood's ability to carry oxygen. Nitrates in drinking water are associated with methemoglobinemia (also known as "blue baby syndrome"). metropolitan area: A Metropolitan Area (MA) is a U.S. Census Bureau construct that consists of an area comprising a core with a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and social integration with that core. Each MA must contain either a place with a minimum population of 50,000 or a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area and a total MA population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). The area is defined by county boundaries. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001) microorganisms: Tiny life forms that can be seen only with the aid of a microscope. Some microorganisms can cause acute health problems when consumed; also known as microbes. (EPA, OGWDW, November 2002) Mid-Atlantic Highlands: A region that encompass 79,000 square miles and extends east to west from the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia to the Ohio River, and north to south from the Catskill Mountains to the North Carolina-Tennessee-Virginia border mixed low-level waste: Low-level radioactive waste that also contains hazardous constituents. (DOE, December 1999) mobile sources: Moving objects that release pollution from combustion of fossil fuels, such as cars, trucks, buses, planes, trains, lawn mowers, construction equipment, and snowmobiles. Some mobile sources, such as some construction equipment or movable diesel generators,- are called nonroad sources, because they are usually operated off road. Monte Carlo analysis: A computer-based statistical tool—drawing on various probabilistic techniques—that is used to help quantify variability and uncertainty inherent to risk assessment. morbidity: Sickness, illness, or disease that does not result in death. mortality: Death; death rate, the proportion of the population who die of a diseeise, often expressed as a number per 100,000. municipal solid waste: Waste discarded by households, hotels/motels, and commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. It typically consists of everyday items such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, paint, and batteries. It does not include waste water. N National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Standards established by EPA under the Clean Air Act that apply to outdoor air throughout the country (see criteria pollutants). (EPA, December 1997) nematodes: Simple worms consisting of an elongate stomach and reproduction system inside a resistant outer cuticle (outer skin). (USDA, 2001) net primary production: Gross primary production minus all sources of plant respiration. Represents the carbon or biomass that is available to other organisms, providing the base of the food web. nitrate: The primary chemical form of nitrogen in most aquatic systems; occurs naturally; a plant nutrient and fertilizer; can be harmful to humans and aninmals. nitric oxide (NO): A gas formed by combustion under high temperature and high pressure in an internal combustion engine; it is converted by sunlight and photochemical processes in ambient air to nitrogen oxide. NO is a precursor of ground-level ozone pollution, or smog. (EPA, December 1997) nitrogen dioxide (NO2): The result of nitric oxide combining with oxygen in the atmosphere; major component of photochemical smog. (EPA, December 1997) D-10 Glossary of Terms Appendix D ------- nitrogen export: The annual quantity of total nitrogen produced by nitrogen sources in a watershed that leaves the watershed through a river or stream that connects to other watersheds downstream nitrogen oxide (IMOX): The result of photochemical reactions of nitric oxide in ambient air; major component of photochemical smog. Product of combustion from transportation and stationary sources and a major contributor to the formation of ozone in the troposphere and to acid deposition. (EPA, December, 1997) noncommunity water system: A public water system that is not a community water system. Nontransient noncommunity water systems are those that regularly supply water to at least 25 of the same people at least six months per year but not year-round (e.g., schools, factories, office buildings, and hospitals that have their own water systems). Transient noncommunity water systems provide water in a place where people do not remain for long periods of time (e.g., a gas station or campground). nonhazardous waste: See solid waste. nonisolated intermediaries: An intermediate compound in a chemical manufacturing process that can be a by-product or can be released as a result of the process. nonnative species: A species that has been introduced by human action, either intentionally or by accident, into areas outside its natural geographical range. Other names for these species include. alien, exotic, introduced, and nonindigenous. nonpoint source pollution: Pollution that occurs when rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water runs over land or through the ground, picks up pollutants, and deposits them into rivers, lakes, coastal waters, or ground water. Types of pollution include sediments, nutrients, pesticides, pathogens (bacteria and viruses), toxic chemicals, heavy metals that runoff from agricultural land, urban development, and roads. noxious algae: Toxic algae commonly associated with harmful algae blooms such as red tides. nutrient: Any substance assimilated by living things that promotes growth. The term is generally applied to nitrogen and phosphorus, but is also applied to other essential and trace elements. nutrient enrichment: See eutrophication. o oil and gas production wastes: Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, and production of crude oil or natural gas that are conditionally exempted from regulation as hazardous wastes. > oligotrophic: Pertaining to a lake or other body of water characterized by extremely low nutrient concentrations, often with very limited plant growth but with high dissolved-oxygen levels. organic matter: Plant and animal material that is in the process of decomposing. When it has fully decomposed, it is called "humus." This humus is important for soil structure because it holds individual mineral particles together in clusters. (USDA, NRCS, 2000) organophosphate: Pesticides that contain phosphorus; short-lived, but some can be toxic when first applied. (EPA, December, 1997) outer boundary: In reference to the body, includes skin and body openings. ozone (O3): A very reactive form of oxygen that is a bluish irritating gas of pungent odor. It is formed naturally in the atmosphere by a photochemical reaction and is a beneficial component of the upper atmosphere. It is also a major air pollutant .in the lower atmosphere, where it can form by photochemical reactions when there are conditions of air pollutants, bright sunlight, and stagnant weather. ozone depletion: Destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer, which shields earth from ultraviolet radiation harmful to life. This destruction of ozone is caused by the breakdown of certain compounds that contain chlorine, bromine, or both (chlorofluorocarbons or halons), which occurs when they reach the stratosphere and then catalytically destroy ozone molecules. (EPA, December 1997) ozone hole: A well-defined, large-scale area of significant thinning of the ozone layer. It occurs over Antarctica each spring. ozone layer: The protective stratum in the atmosphere, about 15 miles above the ground, that absorbs some of the sun's ultraviolet rays, thereby reducing the amount of potentially harmful radiation that reaches earth's surface. (EPA, December 1997) ozone precursors: Chemicals that contribute to the formation of ozone. Appendix D Glossary of Terms D-n ------- EFAs Draft Mportpti the ecnmca particulate matter: Solid particles or liquid droplets suspended or carried in the air (e.g., soot, dust, fumes, mist). (EPA, OAR, October 2002) passive smoking: Exposure to tobacco smoke, or the chemicals in tobacco smoke, without actually smoking. It usually refers to a situation where a nonsmoker inhales smoke emitted into the environment by other people smoking. This smoke is known as "environmental tobacco smoke" (ETS). (National Public Health Partnership, 2000) pastureland: A National Resources Inventory land cover/use category of land managed primarily for the production of introduced forage plants for livestock grazing. Pastureland cover may consist of a single species in a pure stand, a grass mixture, or a grass-legume mixture. For the NRI, it includes land that has a vegetative cover of grasses, legumes, and/or forbs, regardless of whether or not it is being grazed by livestock. (USDA, NRCS, 2000). pathogen: Microorganism (e.g., bacteria, viruses, or parasites) that can cause disease in humans, animals, and plants. (EPA, December 1997) pcriphyton: Microscopic underwater plants and animals that are firmly attached to solid surfaces such as rocks, logs, and pilings. (EPA, December 1997) persistent organic pollutants: Chemicals that endure in the environment and bioaccumulate as they move up trough the food chain. They include organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and furans. pesticides: Any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest. Pests can be insects, mice and other animals, unwanted plants (weeds), fungi, or microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses. Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term "pesticide" also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests. Under U.S. law, a pesticide is also any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant. phosphorus: An essential chemical food element that can contribute to the eutrophication of lakes and other, water bodies. Increased phosphorus levels result from discharge of phosphorus-containing materials into surface waters. (EPA, December 1997) photosynthesis: The manufacture by plants of carbohydrates and oxygen from carbon dioxide mediated by chlorophyll in the presence of sunlight. (EPA, December 1997) phytoplankton: That portion of the plankton community composed of tiny plants (e.g. algae, diatoms). (EPA, December 1997) playas: Areas at the bottom of undrained desert basins that are sometimes covered with water. (EPA, OWOW, July 2002) PM2.s: Fine particles that are less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter. PM-i0: Particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter. point source pollution: Effluent or discharges directly from a pipe into a waterway (e.g., from many industries and sewage treatment plants). I pollutant: Generally, any substance introduced into the environment that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource or the health of humans, animals, or ecosystems. (EPA, December 1997) pollution: Generally, the presence of a substance in the environment that, because of its chemical composition or quantity, prevents the .functioning of natural processes and produces undesirable environmental and health effects. Under the Clean Water Act, for example, the term has been defined as the manmade or man-induced alteration of the physical, biological, chemical, and radiological integrity of water andi other media. (EPA, December 1997) polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): A group of synthetic chemicals that can exist as oily liquids and waxy solids. Due to their non-flammability, chemical stability, high boiling point and electrical insulating properties, PCBs were used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications including electrical, heat transfer, and hydraulic equipment; as plasticizers in paints, plastics and rubber products; in pigments, dyes and carbonless copy paper, and many other applications. PCBs can produce toxic effects and are probable carcinogen. (EPA, OPPT, February 2003) pressure: 5>ee stressor. prevalence of disease: That part of the total population affected by a condition or disease. prevalence rate: The total number of persons with a given disease or condition in a specified population at a specified period of time. production capacity: Chlorophyll per unit area for terrestrial ecosystems (including wetlands and riparian areas) and per unit volume for aquatic ecosystems. productivity: The rate at which ecosystems use energy (principally solar energy) to fix atmospheric carbon dioxide. (NRC, 2000) D-12 Glossary of Terms Appendix D ------- R radioactive waste: Garbage, refuse, sludge, and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material that must be managed for its radioactive content (DOE, July 1999). Types of radioactive waste include high-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, low-level waste, mixed low-level waste, and contaminated media. radon (Rn-222): A naturally occurring radioactive gas that has no color, odor, or taste and is chemically inert. Radon comes from the radioactive decay of uranium in soil, rock, and ground water and is found all over the U.S. It has a half-life of 3.8 days, emitting ionizing radiation (alpha particles) during its radioactive decay to several radioactive isotopes known as "radon decay products." It gets into indoor air primarily from soil under homes and other buildings. Radon is a known human lung carcinogen and represents the largest fraction of the public's exposure to natural radiation. rangelands: A National Resources Inventory land cover/use category on which the climax or potential plant cover is composed principally of native grasses, grasslike plants, forbs or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing, and introduced forage species that are managed like rangeland. This would include areas where introduced hardy and persistent grasses, such as crested wheatgrass, are planted and such practices as deferred grazing, burning, chaining, and rotational grazing are used, with little or no chemicals or fertilizer being applied. Grasslands, savannas, many wetlands, some deserts, and tundra are considered to be rangeland. Certain communities of low forbs and shrubs, such as mesquite, chaparral, mountain shrub, and pinyon-juniper, are also included as rangeland. (USDA, NRCS, 2000). rare and at-risk species: Rare species are those that are particularly vulnerable to both human-induced threats and natural fluctuations and hazards. At-risk species are those classified by the Association for Biodiversity Information as vulnerable or more rare. RCRA hazardous waste: Applies to certain types of hazardous wastes that appear on EPA's regulatory listing (RCRA) or that exhibit specific characteristics of ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity, or excessive toxicity. red tide: A common name for the phenomenon where certain phytoplankton species contain reddish pigments and "bloom" such that the water appears to be colored red. regional and continental areas: Heterogeneous areas at regional (e.g, Southeast) and continental scales composed of a cluster or mosaic of interacting ecosystems. Regional and continental ecosystems are not characterized primarily by a dominant land cover type such as forests, farmlands, grasslands or urban areas, but rather include many or all these ecosystems at these larger spatial scales. Regional and continental ecosystems reflect the underlying landscape patterns at these larger scales. relative risk: A measurement of the chance of contracting a disease in those who have been exposed to a risk factor compared with the risk for those who have not been exposed. remediation: Cleanup or other methods used to remove or contain a toxic spill or hazardous materials from a contaminated site. reserved forest land: Forested land withdrawn from timber utilization through statute, administrative regulation, or designation. (USDA, Forest Service, April 2001) richness: A measure of species diversity, which usually decreases with impairment. It is based on the number of distinct taxa (at a level selected to identify, e.g., order, family, species); can be the total number of taxa, or the number in an identified group (e.g., number of mayfly taxa). rill: A small channel eroded into the soil by surface runoff; can be easily smoothed out or obliterated by normal tillage. (EPA, December 1997) riparian area: The area adjacent to streams and rivers, important as buffers to runoff. Many riparian areas include wetlands. riparian wetland: A wetland along a stream or river. riparian zone: A 30-meter buffer on each side of a stream or river. risk: The probability that a health problem, injury, or disease will occur. risk factor: A characteristic (e.g., race, sex, age, obesity) or variable (e.g., smoking, occupational exposure level) associated with increased probability of an adverse effect. (EPA, December 1997) runoff: That part of precipitation, snowmelt, or irrigation water that runs off the land into streams or other surface water. It can carry pollutants from the air and land into receiving waters. (EPA, December 1997) rural transportation land: A National Resources Inventory land cover/use category that consists of all highways, roads, railroads, and associated right-of-ways outside urban and built-up areas; including private roads to farmsteads or ranch headquarters, logging roads, and other private roads, except field lanes. (USDA, NRCS, 2000) Appendix D Glossary of Terms D-13 ------- s secondhand smoke: See environmental tobacco smoke. sediment transport: The movement of sediment in rivers and streams. sedimentation: the process of forming or depositing sediment; letting solids settle out of wastewater by gravity during treatment. self-supplied water: Water not drawn from the public water supply. silica: An inorganic compound mined from the earth; has been found to be associated with lung cancer (Steenland, 1997). Silica is used in foundries, pottery making, brick making, and sand blasting. silviculture: The science of producing and tending a forest; the theory and practice of control/ing forest establishment, composition, and growth. (Matthews, 1989) sludge: Solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial, or industrial waste water facility. small built-up areas: A National Resources Inventory land cover/use category consisting of developed land units of 0.25 to 10 acres, which meet the definition of urban and built-up areas. (USDA, NRCS, 2000) smart growth: The management of "urbanization"' that seeks to serve the economy, the community, and the environment. Smart growth seeks to foster healthy communities, a clean environment, economic development and jobs, and strong neighborhoods with a range of housing options. softwood: Coniferous trees, usually evergreen, that have needles or scale-like leaves. (USDA, Forest Service, November 2002) solid waste: Nonliquid, nonsoluble materials ranging from municipal garbage to industrial wastes that contain complex and sometimes hazardous substances. Solid wastes also include sewage sludge, agricultural refuse, demolition wastes, mining residues, and liquids and gases in containers. (EPA, December 1997) species richness: The absolute number of species in an assemblage or community. spent nuclear fuel: Nuclear reactor fuel that has been used to the extent that it can no longer effectively sustain a chafn reaction. (EPA, December 2002) spray drift: The physical movement of a pesticide through air at the time of application, or soon thereafter, to any site other than that intended for application. sprawl: See urban sprawl. squamous cell carcinoma: A type of skin cancer, usually curable if treated in time. stationary source: A place or object from which pollutants are released and that stays in one place. These sources include many types of facilities, including power plants, gas stations, dry cleaners, incinerators, factories, and houses. stressor: A physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce adverse effects on ecosystems or human health. (EPA, December 1997) submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV): Rooted vegetation that grows under water in shallow zones where light penetrates. (EPA, CBP, October 2002) Superfund: The program operated under the legislative authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability'Act (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) that funds and carries out EPA solid waste emergency and long-term removal and remedial activities. These activities include establishing the National Priorities List, investigating sites for inclusion on the list, determining their priority, and conducting and/or supervising cleanup and other remedial actions. (EPA, December 1997) Superfund site: Any land in the U.S. that has been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by EPA as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human health, the environment, or both. surface eythemal: Sun-burning UV radiation at earth=s surface. surface water: Water in rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, estuaries, and wetlands (found at the surface, in contrast to ground water). sustainability: Long-term management of ecosystems to meet the needs of present human populations without interruption, weakening, or loss of the resource base for future generations. (Environment Canada, 1997) D-14 Glossary of Terms Appendix U ------- T troposphere: The layer of the atmosphere closest to the earth's surface. (EPA, December 1997) thermoelectric water use: Use of water for cooling in the generation of electric power. threatened and endangered species: Those species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range or are likely to become endangered in the future. (Crondahl, etal, July 1997) threshold: 1 .The lowest dose of a chemical at which a specified measurable effect is observed and below which it is not observed. 2.The dose or exposure level below which a significant adverse effect is not expected. (EPA, December 1997) timber land: Forest land that is capable of producing crops of industrial wood (at least 20 cubic feet per acre per year in natural stands) and not withdrawn from timber use by statute or administrative regulation. (USDA, Forest Service, April 2001) total off-site releases: The total annual amount (in pounds) of a toxic chemical transferred from a facility to publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or to an off-site location (non-POTW). (EPA, TRI, November 2002) total on-site releases: The total annual release quantities (in pounds) of a chemical to air, water, on-site land, and underground injection wejls. (EPA, TRI, November 2002) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI): A publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain covered industries and federal facilities. TRI was established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. - (EPA, TRI, December 2002) toxic substance: Any substance that presents a significant risk of injury to health or the environment through exposure. toxic waste: A waste that can produce injury if inhaled, swallowed, or absorbed through the skin. (EPA, December 1997) transuranic waste: A category of radioactive waste. It contains elements that have atomic numbers higher than uranium (92), such as plutonium; results primarily from past nuclear weapons production and cleanup of nuclear weapons facilities. trophic status: Classification of a lake or water body as eutrophic, oligotrophic, mesotrophic, or hypertrophic. U ultraviolet (UV) radiation Radiation from the sun that can be useful or potentially harmful. UV radiation from one part of the spectrum (UV-A) enhance plant life. UV radiation from other parts of the spectrum (UV-B) can cause skin cancer or other tissue damage. The ozone layer in the atmosphere partly shields earth from UV radiation reaching the surface. (EPA, December 1997) underground storage tanks: Tanks and their underground piping that have at least 10 percent of their combined volume underground. urban and built-up areas: A National Resources Inventory land cover/use category consisting of residential/ industrial, commercial, and institutional land construction sites; public administrative sites; railroad yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary structures and spillways; small parks (less than 10 acres) within urban and built-up areas; and highways, railroads, and other transportation facilities if they are surrounded by urban areas. Also included are tracts of less than 10 acres that do not meet the above definition but are completely surrounded by urban and built-up land. (USDA, NRCS, 2000) urbanized areas (UAs) and urban clusters (UCs): Densely settled areas consisting of core census block groups that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and other surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile. UAs contain 50,000 or more people; UCs contain at least 2,500 people but fewer than 50,000. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001) urban and suburban areas: Places where the land is primarily devoted to buildings, houses, roads, concrete, grassy lawns, and other elements of human use and construction. .Urban and suburban areas, in which about three-fourths of all Americans live, span a range of density, from the city center-characterized by high-rise buildings and little green space-to the suburban fringe-where development thins to a rural landscape. This definition does not include all developed lands, for example, small residential zones, the area of rural interstate highways, farmsteads, and the like, which are "developed but are not sufficiently built up to be considered "urban or suburban." (The Heinz Center, 2002) urbanization: The concentration of development in relatively small areas (cities and suburbs). The U.S. Census Bureau defines "urban" as areas with densities of people above 1.5 people per acre. Appendix D Glossary of Terms D-15 ------- • • • ••<•• ..•, .-'.:: :.,.i,;: : V-Z vehicle miles traveled: A measure of the extent of motor vehicle operation; the total number of vehicle miles traveled by all vehicles within a specific geographic area over a given period of time. Vehicle miles traveled and other variables are used to estimate air pollutant emissions. wetland ecosystems: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. vernal pools: Seasonal wetlands that occur under the Mediterranean climate conditions of the West Coast. They are covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to spring but may be completely dry for most of the summer and fall. These wetlands range in size from small puddles to shallow lakes and are usually found in a gently sloping plain of grassland. Beneath vernal pools lies either bedrock or a hard clay layer in the soil that helps keep water in the pool. volatile organic compounds: Chemicals, such as gasoline and perthloroethylene (a dry cleaning solvent) that contain carbon and vaporize readily. waste minimization priority chemicals: A group of 30 chemicals—3 metals (lead, mercury, and cadmium) and 27 organic compounds—identified as the highest priority for reduction in industrial and hazardous waste. water clarity: A measure of how clear a body of water is; measured In the distance light penetrates into the water. water quality criteria: Levels of water quality expected to render a body of water suitable for its designated use. Criteria are based on specific levels of pollutants that would make the water harmful if used for drinking, swimming, irrigation, fish production, or industrial processes. (EPA, December 1997) water qualify standards: State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient standards for water bodies. The standards define the water quality goals of a water body by designating the uses of the water and setting criteria to protect those uses. The standards protect public health and welfare, enhance the quality of the water, and provide the baseline for surface water protection under the Clean Water Act. waterborne disease outbreak: is defined as an event in which (1) more than two persons have experienced an illness after either the ingestion of drinking water or exposure to water encountered in recreational or occupational settings, and (2) epidemiologic evidence implicates water as the probable source of illness. watershed: An area of land from which all water that drains from it flows to a single water body. D-16 Glossary of Terms Appendix D ------- Appendix E References ------- Chapter 1: CJeaner Air CNN.com. "Asian Brown Cloud" poses global threat. August 12, 2002 (August 12, 2002; http://mm.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/ asiapcf/south/08/12/asia.haze.glb/index.html). Centers for Disease Control. Blood lead levels in young children - United States and selected states, 1996-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 49 (SO): 1133 (2000). Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. Asthma prevalence, health care use and mortality, 2000-2001. January 28, 2003. (February 14, 2003; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ products/pubs/pubd/hestats/asthma/asthma.htm). DcMora, S, S. Demers, and M. Vemet The Effects ofUV Radiation in the Marine Environment, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Friedman, Michael S., K.E. Powell, L Hutwagner, LM. Graham, and W.G. Teague. Impacts of changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympics Games in Atlanta on air qualify and childhood asthma. The Journal of the American Medical Association 285 (7): 897-905 (2001). Hackshaw, A.K. Lung cancer and passive smoking. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 7 (2): 119-136 (1998). Mannino, D.M,, J.E. Moorman, B. Ingsley, D. Rose, and J. Repace. Health effects related to environmental tobacco smoke exposure in children in the United States: data from the third National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey. Archives ofPediatric and Adolescent Medicine 155 (1): 36- 41 (2001). McConnell, R.K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S.J. London, T. Islam, W. Gauderman, A, James, M. Edward, H.G. Margolis, and J.M. Peters. Asthma in exercising children exposed to ozone: a cohort study. The lancet 359: 386-391 (2002). Montzka, S A, J.H. Butler, J.W. Elkins, T.M. Thompson, A.D. Clarke, and L.T. Lock. Present and future trends in the atmospheric burden of ozone-depleting halogens. Nature 398: 690-694 (1999). National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Acid Deposition: State of Science and Technology. Volume II. Aquatic Processes and Effects, Washington, DO National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, 1991. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ozone Levels Over North America - NIMBUS- 7/TOMS. March 1979 and March 1994. (January 24, 2003; http://epa.gov/ozone/science/glob_dep.htm\). National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Advanced Supercomputing Division. August 14, 2002. (August 14, 2002; http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone.html). National Research Council. Health Effects of Exposure to Radon: BEIR VI; Sixth Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1998. Northeast Slates for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). Why clean air? 2003. (August, 2002; http://www.nescaum.org/ cleanair.html). Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of American Medical Association 287: 1132-1141 (2002). Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002, Executive Summary, Report No. 47. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, 2003. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, September 2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration, Climate Monitoring &. Diagnostics Laboratory. Haolcarbons and other Atmospheric Trace Species (HATS). 2002. March 18, 2003; http://www.emdl.noaa.gov/hats/graphs/graphs.html). United Nations Environment Programme. Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion: 1994 Assessment, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme, Secretariat for The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, November 1994. United Nations Environment Programme. Production and Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances under the Montreal Protocol 1986- 2000, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme, Secretariat for The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layeir and The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, April 2002. United States-Canada Air Quality Committee. Ground-Level Ozone: Occurrence and Transport in Eastern North America; A Report by the United States-Canada Air Quality Committee; Subcommittee 1: Program E-2 References Appendix t ------- Monitoring and Reporting, Washington, DC and Ottawa, Ontario: International Joint Commission, March 1999. United States Code. Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, Title 1: Air Pollution Prevention and Control. 42 U.S.C 7408 and 7409. U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 1999, NCES 2000-032. June 2000. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics. Healthy People 2000 Final Review, DHHS Publication No. 01 -0256. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service, October 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides, EPA 600-P-82-020a-c. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, 1982. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Second Addendum to the Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides (T982): Assessment of Newly Available Health Effects Information, EPA-4SO- 5- 86-012. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Program, Office of Program Development, Office of Air and Radiation, August 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Non-occupational Pesticide Exposure Study, EPA-600-3-90-003. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, January 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Residential Radon Survey: Summary Report, EPA-402- R-92-011. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, October 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, EPA 600-6-90- 006 F. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, December 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Oxides of Nitrogen, EPA 600-8-91 - 049aF-cF Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, August 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Map of radon zones. EPA 402-F-93-013. September 1993. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/ radon/zonemap.html). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Standardized EPA Protocol.for Characterizing Indoor Air Quality in Large Office Buildings, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Air and Radiation, June 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supplement to the Second Addendum (1986) to the Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides (1982): Assessment of New Findings on Sulfur Dioxide Acute Exposure Health Effects in Asthmatic Individuals, EPA 600-FP-93- 002. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, August 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Petroleum Refinery-NESHAP, EPA 452-R-9S-004. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, July 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, EPA 600-P-95- 001 aF-cF.3v. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, April 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants, EPA 600-P-93-004aF-cF. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment July 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Proposed Regional Haze Rule, Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, July 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to Congress, EPA-452-R-97-003. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development, December 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 50: National ambient air quality standards for particulate matter; final rule. Federal Register 62 (138): 2-102 (1997). Appendix £ References E-3 ------- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Qualify and Emissions Trends Reports, 1997, EPA 454-R-98-016. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Benefits and Costs of the Chan AirAci: 1990 to 2010. final Report to Congress, EPA 410-R-99- 001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Policy, November 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide, EPA 600-P-99-001F. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S: Environmental Protection Agency, Office Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment. June 2000. U.S, Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA 454-R-01 -004. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality • Planning and Standards, March 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2000 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-01 -002. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Qualify Planning and Standards, September 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Trends: Metropolitan area trends, Table A-17. 2001. (February 25, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/ airtrends/metro.html). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Pariiculate Matter, Third External Review Draft, Volume II, EPA 600-P- 99-002bC Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, April 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Cos Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2000, EPA 430-R-02-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, April 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Technology Transfer Network. National air toxic assessment: summary of results. September 18, 2002 (January 27, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/risksum.html). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 200) Status and Trends, EPA 4S4-K-02-001. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Acid Rain Program: 2001 Progress Report, EPA 430-R-02- 009. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, November 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 50: National ambient air quality standards for ozone: final response to remand; final rule. Federal Register 68 (3): 614-645 (2003). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Response of Surface Water Chemistry to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA 620-R-03- 001. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, January 2003. U.S. General Accounting Office. Pesticides: Use, Effects, and Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools, CAO/RCED-00-17. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, 1999. U.S. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Health Effects of Indoor Allergens. Indoor Allergens: Assessing and Controlling Adverse Health Effects, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993. U.S. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Assessment of Asthma and Indoor Air. Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures, Executive Summary, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. E-4 References Appendix E ------- ^ U.S. International Trade Commission. 7993. Synthetic Organic chemicals; U.S. Production and Sales, Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1994. Wingo, Phyllis A., Ries, Lynn A.C., Giovino, Gary A., et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1996, with a special section on lung cancer and tobacco smoking. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 91 (8): 675-690 (1999). (Chapter 2: "Purer Water Alley, W.M., T.E. Reilly, and O.L. Franke. Sustainabilify of Ground-water Resources, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1186. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey, 1999. Baker, L.A., A. Herlihy, P. Kaufmann, and J. Eilers. Acid lakes and streams in the United States: the role of acid deposition. Science 252:1151-1154(1991). Batiuk, R.A., P. Bergstrom, M. Kemp, E. Koch, L. Murray, J.C. Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, C. Gallegos, L. Karrh, M. Naylor, D. Wilcox, K.A. Moore, S. Ailstock, and M. Teichberg. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Water Quality and Habitat- Based Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Second Technical Synthesis, CBP-TRS 245-00, EPA 903-R-00-014. Annapolis, MD: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, 2000. Boesch, D.F., R.B. Brinsfield, and R.E. Magnien. Chesapeake Bay eutrophication: scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration, and challenges for agriculture. Journal of Environmental Quality 30: 303- 320 (2001). Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G. Farrow. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation's Estuaries, Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 1999. Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, and E.R. Long. Synoptic measures of sediment contamination, toxicity, and infaunal community composition (the sediment quality triad) in San Francisco Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 37: 75-96 (1987). Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science and Technology Council. Integrated Assessment ofHypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, 2000. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia: Land and Sea Interactions, Report 134. Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, June 1999. Appendix References E-5 ------- Cowardin, LM., V. Garten EC. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FW/OBS- 79/31. Washington, DO U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979. Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000. Dahl, T.E. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990. Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, Mid-1970s to Mid-1980, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991. Danielson, T. J. Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheets, EPA 843-F-98- 001 a-j. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division, July 1998. Davis, D.G. North American Birds - A Rough Assessment of Wetland Dependency., unpublished. Preparation for a presentation given at the Wetlands, Migratory Birds, and Ecotourism Workshop in Newburyport, Massachusetts, October 24, 2000. Day Boylan, K. and D.R. Maclean. Linking species loss with wetland loss. National Wetlands Newsletter 19 (6), (Nov/Dec 1997). Diaz, RJ. and R. Rosenberg. Marine benthic hypoxia: a review of its ecological effects and the behavioural responses of benthic macrofauna. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 33: 245-303 (1995). Duda, A.M. Municipal point source and agricultural nortpoint source contributions to coastal eutrophication. Water Resources Bulletin 18: 397-407 (1982). Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Great Lakes, An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book, Toronto, Ont: Government of Canada and Chicago, IL: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, 1995. Fisher, S.G. Stream ecosystems of the western United States. In C.E. Gushing, K.W. Cummings, G.W. Minshall (eds.), River and Stream Ecosystems, Ecosystems of the World 22, New York, NY: Elsevier Press, 1995. Prayer, W.E., TJ. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and RA. Graybill. Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United States, WSO's to 1970's, Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, 1983. Gilliom, R.J., D.K. Mueller, J.S. Zogorski, and SJ. Ryker. A national look at water quality. Water Resources Impact 4: 12-16 (2002). Houser, L.S. a'nd F.J. Silva. National Register of Shellfish Production Areas, PHS Publication No. 1500. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Division of Environmental! Engineering and Food Protection, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, 1966. Hoxie, N.J., J.P. Davis, J.M. Vergeront, R.D. Nashold, and K.A. Blair. Cryptosporicliosis - associated mortality following a massive waterborne outbreak in Milwaukee, Wl. American Journal of Public Health 87 (12): 2032-2035 (1997). Kaufmann, PR., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. Surface waters: Quantifying Physical Habitat in Wadeable Streams, EPA 620-R-99-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, July 1999. National Atmospheric Deposition Program, Mercury Deposition Network. Total Mercury Wet Deposition, 2001. 2001. (March 25, 2003; http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/maps/2001/01 MDNdepo.pdf) National Atmopheric Deposition Program, National Trends Network. Nitrate ion wet deposition, 2001. 2001. (March 25, 2003; http://nadp.swsMiuc.edu/isopleths/maps2001/no3dep.pdf) National Atmopheric Deposition Program, National Trends Network. Ammonium ion wet deposition, 2001. 2001. (March 25, 2003; http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps20.01/hh4dep.pdf) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 1990 National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters, Rockville, MD: ORCA Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, 1991. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 1995 National Shellfish Register of Classified Crowing Waters, Silver Spring, MD: ORCA, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, 1997. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Population: distribution, density and growth, NOAA's State of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD. 1998. (February 2003; http://state-of-coast noaa.gov/bulletins/html/pop_01/pop.html). National Research Council. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000. ' " _ . Nixon, S.W. Coastal marine eutrophication: a definition, social causes, and future concerns. Ophelia 41: 199-219 (1995). E-6 References Appendix t ------- 'ocurnem Paul, J.F., J.H. Gentile, K.J. Scott, S.C Schimmel, D.E. Campbell, and R.W. Latimer. EMAP - Virginian Province Four-year Assessment Report (1990-1993), EPA 620-R-99-004. Narragansett, Rl: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division. October 1999. Peierls, B.L., N.F. Caraco, M.L. Pace, and JJ. Cole. Human influence on river nitrogen. Nature 350: 386-387 (1991). Peterson, S.A., N.S. Urquhart, and E.B. Welch. Sample representativeness: a must for reliable regional lake condition estimates. Environmental Science and Technology 33 (10): 1559-1565 (1999). Rippey, S.R. Infectious diseases associated with molluscan shellfish consumption. Clinical Microbiology Review 7 (4): 419-425 (1994). Schindler, D.W. Evolution of phosphorus limitation in lakes. Science 179: 260-262 (1977). Schlesinger, W.H. Biogeochemistry: An Analysis ofClobal Change, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1997. Solley, W.B., R.R. Pierce, and H.A. Perlman. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey, 1998. Smith, R.A., G.E. Schwarz, and R.B. Alexander. Regional interpretation of water-quality monitoring data. Water Resources Research 33: 2781-2798 (1997). Stoddard, J. L, A. D. Newell, N. S. Urquhart, and D. Kugler. The TIME project design: II. Detection of regional acidification trends. Water Resources Research 32: 2529-2538 (1996). Stoddard, J. L, C. T. Driscoll, S. Kahl, and J. Kellogg. Can site-specific trends be extrapolated to a region? An acidification example for the Northeast. Ecological Applications 8: 288-299 (1998). The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, September 2002. Thrush, W.J., S.M. McBain, and L.B. Leopold. Attributes of an alluvial river and their relation to water policy and management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97 (22): 11858-11863 (2000) Turner, R.E. and N.N. Rabalais. Changes in Mississippi River water quality this century, implications for coastal food webs. BioScience 41:140-147(1991). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory, December 1999, revised December 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1985 National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine .Waters, Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessments Division and Kingstown, Rl: Food and Drug Administration, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters, 1974, Denver, CO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement, National Enforcement Investigations Center, 1975. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Criteria for Water - 1986, EPA 440-5-86-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, November 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between Land and Water, EPA 843-K-95-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, December 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates, Report Contents and Supplement, EPA 841 -B- 97-002A and EPA 841-B-97-002B. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, September 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Report to Congress, Volume I, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, December 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, EPA 822-R-98-002. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, June 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters, EPA 600- R-98-079. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, March 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 25 Years of the Safe Drinking Water Act: History and Trends, EPA 816-R-99-007. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, December 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters. Third Report to Congress, EPA 453-R-00-005. Appendix ;t References E-7 ------- Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, June 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment, EPA 903-R-OO- 015. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Region 3, August 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, EPA 822-R-00-012. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, October 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA). June 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. National listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) Mercury Fish Tissue Database. June 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report, EPA 620-R-01-005. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, September 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Maps: Linking Air Deposition and Fish Contamination on a National Scale, EPA 823-F-01 - 026. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, November 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey: Second Edition, DRAFT, EPA 823-R- 01 -01. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, December 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Function and Values of Wetlands fact Sheet, EPA 843-F-01 -002c. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, March 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001 National Listing of Fish and WiWfe Advisories, EPA 823-F-02-010. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, May 2002. 2002b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Update: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories, EPA 823-F-02-007. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, May 2002. 2002a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 Toxics Release Inventory Public Data Release Report, EPA 260-S-02-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, May 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Beach Watch Program: 2001 Swimming Season, EPA 823-F-02-006. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, May 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology-Toward a Compendium of Best Practices, First Edition, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, July 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Response of Surface Water Chemistry to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA 620-R-03- 001. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmentcil Effects Research Laboratory, January 2003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. National Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet. March 10, 2003. (February 14, 2003; http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment, MAIA - Estuafies 1997- 98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003. Narragansett, Rl: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, May 2003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version (SDWIS/FED). 2003. U.S. Fish ami Wildlife Service. 2007 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, National Overview, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, October 2002. U.S. Food aind Drug Administration. 1971 National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters, Davisville, Rl: Public Health Service, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Northeast Technical Services Unit, 1971. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations: Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish Crowing Areas, 1993 Revision, Washington, DC: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 1993. U.S. Geological Survey. Strategic Directions for the U.S. Geological Survey Ground-Water Resources Program: A Report to Congress. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, November 30, 1998. U.S. Geological Survey. The Qualify of Our Nation's Water, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 116-99. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 1999. U.S. Geological Survey. Report to Congress, Concepts for National Assessment of Water Availability and Use, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1223. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 2002. E-8 References Appendix t ------- CJnapter 3: "Better "Protected Land: Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. CERCLA priority list of hazardous substances. 2001. (September 2002; http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/clist.html). Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Fact Sheet: Land Ownership in Alaska. March, 2000. (September 2002; http://www. dnr.state. ak. us/mlw/factsht/land_own.pdf). Amdur, M.O., J. Doull and C.D. Klassen (Eds.). Toxicology: the Basic Science of Poisons. NY: Pergamon Press, 1996, 1033 Battaglin W. A., and D.A. Coolsby. Spatial Data in Geographic Information System Format on Agricultural Chemical Use, Land Use, and Cropping Practices in the United States, Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4176. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Geological Survey, 1994. Beaulac, M.N. and K.H. Reckhow. An examination of land use-nutrient relationships. Water Resources Bulletin 18 (6): 1013-1024 (1982). Blondell, J.M. Updated Review of Rodenticide Incident Reports Primarily Concerning Children, Memorandum to Dennis Deziel and Michael McDavit, June 3, 1999. Brewer, Cynthia A. and Trudy A. Suchan. Mapping Census 2000: The Geography of U.S. Diversity. U.S. Census Bureau, Census Special Reports, Series CENSR/01 -1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. June 2001. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Pesticide Use Reporting: An Overview of California's Unique Full Reporting System, Sacramento, California: California Department of Pesticide Regulation, May, 2000. (March 12, 2003; http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/ docs/pur/purovrvw/tabofcon.htm) Calvert, G.M., Barnett, M., Blondell, J.M., Mehler, LN. and Sanderson, W.T. "Surveillance of pesticide- related illness and injury in humans." In Krieger, R. (ed.), Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. 2nd edition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1999. Council on Environmental Quality. The 24th Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, 1993. (May 21, 2003; http://ceq.eh.doe/gov/nepa/reports/1993/toc.htm) Daberkow, S., H. Taylor, and W. Huang. "Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators: Nutrient Use and Management." September, 2000. In Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, Agricultural Handbook No. AH722. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, February 2003, 4.4.1 -4.4.49. Flemming, M.D. A Statewide Vegetation Map of Alaska Using a Phenological Classification ofAVHRR Data, Anchorage, AK: 1996 Alaska Surveying and Mapping Conference, February 1996. General Accounting Office^ Superfund: Extent of Nation's Potential Hazardous Waste Problem Still Unknown, GAO/RCED-88-44. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, December 1, 1987. General Services Administration. "Summary report on real property owned by the United States throughout the world." 1999. In Statistical Abstract of the United States 2001: The National Data Book, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. Gianessi, L.P., and J.E. Anderson. Pesticide Use in US Crop Production: National Data Report, Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, February 1995. Gianessi, L.P., and M.B. Marcelli. Pesticide Use in U.S. Crop Production: 1997, National Summary Report, Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, November 2000. Goebel, J.J. "The National Resources Inventory and its role in U.S. agriculture." In Proceedings of the Conference on Agricultural Statistics Organized by the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Under the Auspices of the International Statistical Institute, 1998. Goldstein, N. 12th annual Biocycle nationwide survey: the state of garbage in America. Biocycle journal of Composting and Organics Recycling 41 (4): 30-40 (April 2000). Goss, D.W. Pesticide Runoff Potential,1990-1995. Pesticide Loss Database. Temple, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. August 24, 1999. (September 2002; http://www.epa.gov/iwi/1999sept/ ivl2a_usmap.html). ' Hellkamp, A.S., S.R. Shafer, C.L Campbell, J.M. Bay, D.A. Fiscus, G.R. Hess, B.F. McQuaid, MJ. Munster, G.L Olson, S.L Peck, K.N. Easterling, K. Sidik, and M.B. Tooley. Assessment of the condition of agricultural lands in five mid-Atlantic states. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51: 317-324 (1998). Klopatek, J.M., R.J. Olson, C.J. Emerson, and J.L. Jones. Land-use conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States. Environmental Conservation 6: 191-199 (1979). Appendix £ References E-9 ------- Kniscl, W.G. (ed.). GLEAMS: Gnaundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems, Version 2.JO, Publication No. 5. Tifton, CA: Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, 1993. Smith, W.B., J.S. Vissage, D.R. Darr, and R.M. Sheffield. Forest Statistics of the United States, 7997, General Technical Report NC-219. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 2001,191. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the lands, Wafers, and Living Resources of the United States, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, September 2002. U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States 2001: The National Data Book, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000: redistricting data (PL 94-171) summary file. March 1, 2001. (February 26, 2003; http://www.census. gov/clo/www/redis tricting. html). U.S. Census Bureau. Corrected Lists of Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters. November 25, 2002. (March 2003; http://vfww.census.gov/ geo/www/ua/ua_state_corKtxt and http://Vfww.census.gov/geo/wvw/ua/ ttc_ftate_corr.txt) U.S. Congress. Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields RevHalbalion Act, Public Law 107- 118 (H.R. 2869),Washington, DC: January, 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory, Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory. 1992. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. America's Private Land: A Geography of Hope, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory, December 1999, revised December 2000. 2000a U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory 1997, revised December 2000: Change in Average Annual Soil Erosion by Water on Cropland and CRP Land, 1982-1997. 2000 (January 2003; ht(p://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5060.html). 2000f. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory 1997, revised December 2000: Total Wind and Water Erosion, 1997. 2000 (January 2003; http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5083.html). 2000g. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Natural Resources Inventory, 1997, revised December 2000: Percent Change in Cropland Area, 1982-1997. December 2000b. (January 2003; http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ land/meta/mS874.html).200Qe U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised December 2000: Acres of Non-Federal Developed Land, 1997. December 2000c. (January 2003; http://www.nKS.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m4974.html). 2000b U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. Natural Resources Inventory, 1997, revised December 2000: Acres of Cropland. December 2000d. (January 2003; http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ technical/land/meta/m4964.html).2QQOd U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised December 2000: Land Development, 1982-1997. December 2000e. (January 2003; http://www.ii rcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5009.html). 2000c i • \ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997 National Resources Inventory Highlights. January 2001. (February 2003; http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/ pubs/97highlights.pdf). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. U.S. Forest Facts and Historical Trends, Brochure #FS-696. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Pesticide Data Program: Annual Summary Calendar Year 2000, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Draft Resource Planning and Assessment Tables. August 12, 2002. (September 2002; http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801 /FIADB/rpaJabler/ Draft_RPA_2002_Forest_Resource_Tables.pdf). E-10 References Appendix E ------- 'ocumer 3551 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. GDP and Other Major NIPA Series, 1929-2002. 2002. (February 2003; http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/ARTICLES/2002/08August/0802GDP_& Other_Major_NIPAs-.pdf) U.S. Department of Defense. Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress. 2001. (November 2002; http://63.88.245.60/derparcjy01/ derp/irtdexTen. htm). U.S. Department of Energy. Status Report on Paths to Closure, DOE EM-0526. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, March 2000. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management and Office-of Long-Term Stewardship. A Report to Congress on Long- term Stewardship Volume I - Summary Report, DOE EM-OS63. January 2001. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. Summary Data on the Radioactive Waste, Spent Nuclear Fuel, and Contaminated Media Managed by the U.S. Department of Energy, April 2001. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. United States country analysis brief. November 2002. (January 2003; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html). U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. Central Internet Database. 2002. (January 2003; http://cid.em.doe.gov). U.S. Department of the Interior. Rangeland Reform '94, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Washington, DC: Bureau of Land Management, 1994. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Frequently asked questions on the Abandoned Mine Lands Cleanup Program. August 9, 2002. (January, 2003; http://wwMblm.gov/aml/ faqs.htm). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Report to Congress, Solid Waste Disposal in the United States, Volumes l-ll, EPA 530-SW-88- 011 (B). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, October 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium - National Land Cover Data. 1992. (February 19, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality 1994 Inventory Report to Congress: Ground Water and Drinking Water Chapters, EPA 813-R-96-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, June 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress (305(b)), EPA 841 -R-97-008. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, December 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Number of NPL Site Actions and Milestones by Fiscal Year. March 26, 2003 (April 3, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfy/htm) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Pesticide Runoff Potential - 1990-1995. August 24, 1999. (September 2002; http://www.epa.gov/iwi/! 999sept/ivl2a_usamap.html) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Sediment runoff potential-1990-1995. August 24, 1999. (September, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/iwi/!999sept/iv12c_usmap.html) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals; final rule. 40 CFR Part 372: Federal Register 64 (209), October 29, 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RCRA Orientation Manual, EPA S30-R-0-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, June 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality 1998 Inventory Report to Congress: Ground Water and Drinking Water Chapters, EPA 816-R-00-013. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, August 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Surface Impoundments in the United States, EPA 530-R-01 -DOS. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, March 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, EPA 530-R-01 -009. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, June 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage 1998 and 1999 Market Estimates, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, August 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Biopesticides registration action document: Bacillus thuringiensis plant-incorporated protectants. October 16, 2001. (January 2003; http://www. epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad. htm). Appendix E References E-11 ------- £fAs Draft Report ------- Chapter 4: Human Health Adams, P., G.E. Hendershot, and M. Maraho. Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey. 1996. Vital and Health Statistics 10: 82, 92, 94 (1999). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public health statement for chromium. 2000. (February 27, 2003; http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionsprofiles/ps7.html). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control. ToxFAQ's: chromium. 2001. (April 21, 2003;; http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts7.html). Akinbami, L.J. and K.C. Schoendorf. Trends in Childhood Asthma: Prevalence, Health Care Utilization and Mortality. Pediatrics 110: 315- 332 (2002). , American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. • Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices, 6th Edition, Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH. 1991. American Heart Association. 2007 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update, Dallas, TX: American Heart Association, 2001, 5-9, 13-16. American Lung Association. Breathless, in America: background on COPD. 2001. (April 5, 2002; http://www.lungusa.org/'press/lung_dis/ asn_copdback.html). American Lung Association, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and The American Medical Association. Indoor Air Pollution: An Introduction for Health Professionals, Publication No. 1994-523-217/81. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994. Anderson, R.N. Deaths: Leading causes for 1999. National Vital Statistics Report 49 (11): 8 (2001). California Department of Developmental Services. Changes in the population of persons with autism and pervasive developmental disorders in California's developmental services system: 1987 through 1988: a report to the legislature. 1999. (April 13, 2002; http://www.cahwnet.gov/autism/pdf7autism_report_1999.pdf). Caraballo, R.S., G.A. Giovino, T.F. Pechacek, P.O. Mowery, RA. Richter, W.J. Strauss, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in serum cotinine levels of cigarette smokers: third national health and nutrition examination survey. 1988-1991. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 135-139 (1998). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing lead poisoning in young children. 1991. (April 12, 2002; http://aepo-xdv- www.epo.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000029/p0000029.asp). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Current trends in autopsy frequency—United States, 1980- 1985. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 37 (12): 191-194 (1998). 1998a. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gastrointestinal infections. 1998. (March 27, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/ INFECT/gi_excerpt.htm). 1998b. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: final 1997 reports of notifiable diseases. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 47 (34): 717-718 (1998). 1998c. . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Decline in Deaths from Heart Disease and Stroke, United States, 1990-1999, Washington, DC: Centers for Disease Control, 1999. 1999a. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: final 1998 reports of notifiable diseases. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48 (36): 804-805, 815-822 (1999). 1999b. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic diseases and their risk factors: the nation's leading causes of death (1999), Atlanta, GA: NCCDHP, 2000. 2000a. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Consequences of delayed diagnosis of Rocky Mountain spotted fever in children-West Virginia, Michigan, Tennessee, and Oklahoma, May-July 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 49 (39): 885-888 (2000). 2000b. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: final 1999 reports of notifiable diseases. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 49 (37): 841 (2000). 2000c. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: West Nile virus activity—Eastern United States, 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 49 (46): 1044-1047 (2000). 2000d. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cholera. 2001. (November 19, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/ . diseaseinfo/cholera_g.htm). 2001 a. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7. 2001. (November 19, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/ dbmd/diseaseinfo/escherichiacoli_g.htm). 2001 b. Append x References E-13 ------- _Jt Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. 2001. (May 21, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report/PDF/CompleteReport.pdf). 2001 c. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: final 2000 reports of notifiable diseases. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50 (33): 712 (2001). 2001 d. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of disabilities and associated health conditions among adults—United States, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report SO: 120-125 (2001). 2001 e. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Salmonellosis. 2001. (November 19, 2002; http://wvfw.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/ salmoneltosK_g.htm). 2001 f. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shigellosis. 2001. (November 19, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/ shigelhsis_g.htm). 2001 g. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Typhoid fever. 2001. (November 19, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/ typhoidfever_g,htm). 2001 h. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet 2002. (February 26 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/ pubs/cstimatesMm). 2002a. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: final 2001 reports of notifiable diseases. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51 (32): 710 (2002). 2002b. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rocky Mountain spotted fever, epidemiology. 2002 (June 6, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/ dvrd/rmsf/epidemlology.htm). 2002c. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Viral hepatitis. 2002. (November 19, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncedod/diseases/ hepaUth/index-htm). 2002d. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Viral hepatitis surveillance: disease burden from hepatitis A, B, and C in the United States. 2002. (November 19, 2002: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/ diseases/hepatitis/resource/dz_burden02.htm) 2002e. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. West Nile virus update: current case count, 2002. 2002. (November 14, 2002: http://wwvf.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/wncount.htm). 2002f. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Asthma's impact on children and adolescents. 2002. (March 25, 2002; http;//www.cdc,gov/nceh/airpollution/asthma/children.htm). 2002g. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, NCEH Publication No. 03-0022. Atlanta, CA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 2003. 2003a. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Asthma prevalence, health care use and mortality, 2000-2001. 2003. (April 21, 2003; http://vfiHw.cdc.gov/nchs/producis/pubs/pubd/hesiats/asthma/ asthma.htm). 2003 b. '. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Birth defects. Undated. (April 21, 2003; http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/bd). 2003c. Centers for Disease Control. Radiation facts. (May 17, 2003; http://www.btcdc.gov/radiation/facts.asp). 2003d. Checkoway, H. and Nelson, L. Epidemiologic approaches to the study of Parkinson's disease etiology. Epidemiology 10: 327-336 (1999). Churchill,}., and W. Kaye. Recent chemical exposures and blood volatile organic compound levels in a large population-based sample. Archives of Environmental Health 56 (2): 157-166 (2001). Clayton, CA., E.D, Pellizzari, R.W. Whitmore, R.L Perritt, and J.J. Quackenboss. National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS): distributions and associations of lead, arsenic and volatile organic compounds in EPA region 5. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9: 381 -392 (1999). Craun, G.F. "Chapter 5: Statistics of Waterborne Outbreaks in the U.S. (1920-1980)" In G.F. Craun, (ed.) Waterborne Diseases in the United States, Boca Raton: FL, CRC Press, Inc., 1986, 74-155. Craun, G.F. and R.L Calderon. "Waterborne Outbreaks in the United States, 1971 -2000." In Frederick W. Pontius (ed.), Drinking Water Regulation and Health, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2003, 40- 56. Crinnion, W.J. Environmental medicine, part one: the human burden of environmental toxins and their common health effects. Alternative Medicine Review 5 (1): 52-63 (2000). Dockery D.W. and Pope, C.A. "Outdoor Air I: Particulates." In K. Steenland and D.A. Savitz (eds.), Topics in Environmental Epidemiology, New York, NY: Oxford.University Press, 1997, ' Doll, R., and R. Peto. The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today, New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Eberhardt, M.S., D.D. Ingram, D.M. Makuc, et al. Health, United States, 2001: With Urban and Rural Health Chartbook, Hyattsville, MD: Natiorial Center for Health Statistics, 2001,161-163. E-14 References Appendix £ ------- eqn n i cat l ocu rneii pG ti ron Eiseman, E., and S. Haga. A National Resource of Human Tissue Samples, ISBN 0-8330-2766-2. Arlington, VA: RAND, 1999. Fombonne, E. Is there an epidemic of autism? Pediatrics 107: 411 -412 (2001). Fox, K. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, personal communication, 2003. Franzen, C, and A. Muller. Cryptosporidia and microsporidia— waterborne diseases in the immunocompromised host. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 34: 245-262 (1999). Friis, R.H. and T.A. Sellers, Epidemiology for Public Health Practice, Second Edition. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc., 1999. Gayle, A. and E. Ringdahl. Tick-borne diseases. American Family Physician 64: 461 -466 (2001). GLOBOCAN 2000. Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide, Version 1.0., IARC CancerBase No. J. [Computer software.] Lyon: IARC Press, 2001. Guerrant, R.L. Cryptosporidiosis: an emerging, highly infectious threat. Emerging Infectious Diseases 3 (1):-51-57 (1997). Hanzlick, R. National autopsy data dropped from the National Center for Health Statistics Database. Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (10): 886 (1998). Holman, R.C, CD. Paddock, A.T. Curns, J.W. Krebs, J.H. McQuiston, and J.E. Childs. Analysis of risk factors for fatal Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever: evidence for superiority of tetracyclines for therapy. Journal of Infectious Diseases 184: 1437-1444 (2001). Horga, M. A. and A. Fine. West Nile virus. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 20: 801 -802 (2001). Hoyert, D.L. and H.M. Rosenberg. Mortality from Alzheimer's disease: an update.National Vital Statistics Report 47: 5 (1999). Hoyert, D.L, E. Arias, B.L Smith, S.L Murphy, and K.D. Kochanek. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Report 49: 6-9 (2001). International Center for Tropical Disease Research Network. 10th Anniversary: tropical diseases. 2002. (November 19, 2002; http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/pdf/factsheet.pdf). International Programme on Chemical Safety. Global Assessment of the State-of-the-Science of Endocrine Disrupters, WHO/PCS/EDC/02.2. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety, 2002. Iversen, P. Autism: what does the future hold for, what can we learn from the past, and what can we do right now? California Pediatrician Fall: 1 -3 (2000). Kay, D., A. Pruss, and C Corvalan. Methodology for assessment of environmental burden of disease; report on the ISEE session on environmental burden of disease, Buffalo, August 22, 2000. (May 19, 2002; http://www.who.int/peh/burden/methodohgyhtm.htm). Kramarow, E., H. Lentzner, R. Rooks, J. Weeks, S. Saydah. Health, United States, 1999: With Health and Aging Chartbook, Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1999. Macintosh, D.L, L.L. Needham, K.A. Hammerstrom, and RB. Ryan. A longitudinal investigation of selected pesticide metabolites in urine. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9: 494-501 (1999). Mannino, A.M., and B.L Smith. Deaths: preliminary data for 2000. National Vital Statistics Report 53 (49): 3 (2001). .Mannino, D.M, D.M. Huma, L.J. Akinbami, et al. Surveillance for asthma - United States, 1980-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries 51 (SS-1): 8, 9, 13 (2002). Martin, J.A., B.E. Hamilton, S.J. Ventura, F. Menacker, and M.M. Park. Births: Final data for 2000. National Vital Statistics Report 50 (5): 16,79 (2002). Moore, G.W., J.J. Berman, R.L. Hanzlick, J.J. Buchino, and G.M. Hutchins. A prototype internet autopsy database: 1625 consecutive fetal and neonatal autopsy facesheets spanning twenty years. 1996. (March 1, 2002; http://www.autopsydb.org/protoiad.htm). Nadakavukaren, A. Our Clobal Environment: a Health Perspective, Fifth Edition, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc, 2000. National Academy of Engineering. Greatest engineering achievements of the 20th century. 2000. (February 28, 2003; http://greatachievements.org). National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1983. National Research Council. Measuring Lead Exposure in infants, Children, and Other Sensitive Populations, Washington DC: National Academies Press, 1993. National Research Council. Arsenic in Drinking Water. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999. Appendix EL References E-15 ------- lecnnica JSL National Research Council. Toxkological Effects of Methylmercury, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2000. National Cancer Institute. Health disparities. 2002. (January 30, 2003; fittp://surveillance.cancer.gov/disparities). National Cancer Institute. Dictionary. Undated. (April 18, 2003;, http://cancer.gov/dictionary). National Center for Educational Statistics. Digest of education statistics. 2001. (February, 18, 2003; http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2002/digest2001 /tables/dt052.asp). National Center for Environmental Health. CDC's lead poisoning prevention program. 1998. (April 12, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ nceh/Lead/fadsheeis/leadfacts.pdf). National Center for Health Statistics. Healthy People 2000 Final Review, PHS 2001 -0256 ed. Hyattsville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2001. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Particulate air pollution and cardiovascular morbidity. 2000. (April 3, 2002; hUp://wvm.arb,ca.gov/research/cardio/cardio.htm). National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Kidney and urologic diseases statistics for the United States. 2001. (April 5, 2002; http://wwv.niddk.nih.gov/health/kidney/pubs/kustats/ kustats.htm). National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Parkinson's disease backgrounder. 2002. (May 13, 2002; http://www.ninds.nih. gov/health_and_medical/pubs/parkinson's_disease_backgrounder.htm). Orban, J.E., J.S. Stanley, J.G. Schwemberger, and J.C. Remmers. Dioxins and dibenzofurans in adipose tissue of the general U.S. population and selected subpopufations. American Journal of Public Health 84: 439-445 (1994). Orloski, KA, E.B. Hayes, G.L. Campbell, and D.T. Dennis. Surveillance for Lyme disease-United States, 1992-1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries 49 (SS-1): 4 (2002). Paddock, C. D., P.W. Greer, T.L Ferebee, J. Jr. Singleton, D.B. McKechnie, TA Treadwell, et al. Hidden mortality attributable to Rocky Mountain spotted fever: immunohistochemical detection of fatal, serologically unconfirmed disease. Journal of Infectious Diseases 179:1469-1476 (1999). Pastor, P.N., D.M. Makuc, C. Reuben, and H. Xia, et al. Chartbook on Trends in tiie Health of Americans. Health, United States, 2002, Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2002. Pellizzari, E.D1., R. Fernando, G.M. Cramer, G.M. Meaburn, and K. Bangerter. Analysis of mercury in hair of EPA region V population. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9: 393-401 (1999). Peterson, C.A. and R.L Calderon. Trends in enteric disease as a cause of death in the United States, 1989-1996. American Journal of Epidemiology 57: 58-65 (2003). Pirkle, J.L, K.M. Flegal, J.T. Bernert, D.J. Brady, R.A. Etzel, and K.R. Maurer. Exposure of the U.S. population to environmental tobacco smoke: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 19S1 .Journal of the American Medical Association 275: 1233- 1240 (1996). Pirkle, J.L, R.B. Kaufmann, D.J. Brody, T. Hickman, E.W. Gunter, and D.C Pashal. Exposure of the U.S. population to lead: 1991-1994. Environmental Health Perspectives 106: 745-50 (1998). Pruss, A., C.F. Corvalan, H. Pastides, and A.E. De Hollander. Methodologic considerations in estimating burden of disease from environmental risk factors at national and global levels. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 7: 58-67 (2001). Rappole, J. H., S.R. Derrickson, and Z. Hubalek. Migratory birds and spread of West Nile virus in the Western Hemisphere. Emerging Infectious Diseases 6: 319-328 (2000). Ries, L.A.G., M.P. Eisner, C.L. Kosary, et al., eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1998. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2001. Rom, W.N. Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2nd Edition, Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. 1992 Schmidt, C. W. Poisoning young minds. Environmental Health Perspectives 107: A302-A307 (1999). Shapiro, E. D. and M.A. Gerber. Lyme disease. Clinical Infectious Diseases 31: 533-542 (2000). Smith, K.R., Corvalan, C.F., and Kfellstrom, T. How much global ill health is attributable to environmental factors? Epidemiology 10: 573-584 (1999). The Pew Environmental Health Commission, The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health. Transition report to the new administration: Strengthening our public health defense against environmental threats. 2001. (May 27, 2002; http://pewenvirohealth.jhsph.edU/html/reports/5 Pager.pdf). E-16 References Appendix t ------- Teen ft icy Do^ United Nations. Demographic Yearbook 1999, New York: United Nations, 2001,479-506. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Children's Health Protection,. December 2000. 2000c. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Eliminating childhood lead poisoning: a federal strategy targeting lead paint hazards. 2000. (February 20, 2003; http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/ reports/fedstrategy2000.pdf). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulation of fuels and fuel additives: control of lead additives in gasoline. Federal Register 38 (234): 33733-33741 (December, 6 1973). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. EPA 600-8-83-028aF. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, EPA 600-6-90- 006 F. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, December 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's report on environmental health threats to children. 1996. (May 23, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/ epadocs/child.htm). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Plan for Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection Byproducts In Drinking Water, EPA 600-R- 97-122. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, November 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Children's Environmental Health Yearbook, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Children's Health Protection. June 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 10-12, 1999, M/DBP (microbial/disinfection byproducts) stage 2 FACA: health effects workshop meeting summary. 1999. (November 21, 2002; http://www. epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/st2feb99 .html). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radiation: risks & realities - what is radiation? 2000. (June 2, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/ radiation/docs/risksandrealities/rrpage2.html). 2000a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide, EPA 600-P-99-001 F. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment. June 2000. 2000b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, America's Children and the Environment - a First View of Available Measures, EPA 240-R-00-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Handbook of Croundwater Policies for RCRA Corrective Action (updated 4/20/2000), EPA 530- D-00-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 2000d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fact sheet: drinking water standard for arsenic, EPA 815-F-OO- 015. 2001. (November 24, 2002; http://wwwepa.gov/safewater/ars/ars_mle_fadsheet.html). 2001 a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticides: regulating pesticides—Persistent organic pollutants (POPs). 2001. (May 21, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/pops.htm). 2001 b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Priority Rulemaking: Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules, EPA 816-F-01 - 012. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, June 2001 a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA 454-R-01 -004. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, March 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ionizing radiation. 2002. (February 18, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/ radon/radon.htm). 2002a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. Radon. 2002. ()une 6, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/radon/radon.htm). 2002b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking water contaminants: disinfection by-products. 2002. (November 21, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/safewater/hfacts.html). 2002c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Third External Review Draft, Volume II, EPA 600-P- 99-002bC Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, April 2002. 2002d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Current Drinking Water Standards, EPA 816-F-02-013. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 2002. 2002e. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002, EPA 822- R-02-047. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 2002f. Appendix t References E-17 ------- .r.n.A^iF\ •§ r '-"J?"!!^^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Consumer factsheet on hexachlorobenzene. 2002. (May 8, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/ safewater/dwh/c-soc/hexachh.html). 2002g. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radiation information: common questions, clear answers. (May 17, 2003; hUpt//www.epa.gov/radiatfan/faqs.htm). 2002h. US. Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding radiation: _ ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. (May 17, 2003; bllp;//wvw.epa.gov/radiation/understand/ionize_nonionize.htm). 20021 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding radiation: health effects. (May 17, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/radiation/ undentand/healthjsffectsMm). 2002). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding radiation: exposure pathways. (May 17, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/radiation/ undmtand/pathwaysMm). 2002k. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, America's Children and the Environment - Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses, Second Edition, EPA 240-R-03-001. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Children's Health Protection, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, February 2003. 2003a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hexachlorobenzene. 2003. (May 8,2003; hUp://wwY.epa,gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hexa-ben.htmI). 2003b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hexachlorobenzene. 2003. (May 8, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt/hexa.htm). 2003 c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA map of radon zones. 2003. (February 27, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/iaq/ radon/zonemap.html). 2003d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment, EPA-630-P-02- 001 F. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment - Forum, 2003, (Available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/ recordisplay.cfm?deid=54944) 2003e. Walker, D. H. tick-transmitted infectious diseases in the United States. Annual Review of Public Health 19: 237-269 (1998). Whipple G.C. Influence of Public Water-Supplies on the Typhoid fever Death-Rates of Cities. In Typhoid Fever - Its Causation, Transmission and Prevention, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1908, 228-270. World Health Organization. Typhoid fever, 1997. Fact sheet N149. (February 1, 2003; http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/factl49.html) World Health Organization. Environmental burden of disease. 2002. (April 11, 2002; http://www.who.int/peh/burden/burdenindex.htm). World Resources Institute, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme, and World Bank. World Resources 1998-99, London: Oxford University Press, 1998, 10. Yazbak, F.E. Autism 99: a national emergency. 1999. (April 13, 2002; http://www.garynull.com/Documents/autism_99.htm). E-18 References Appendix t -------An error occurred while trying to OCR this image. ------- Ef/\s Draft "Rifaprt oil the Ehvirbrirnent 20(3-3 II Tlcnnical Docurnefit 1 "I : " . M . ' , . i i ' • I 'II : ' « '111 i a-ti; •. • ;...'•. ; :'••'•• • . '.,..:;';. : ..; i:N 1 Forman, T.T. and M. Godron. Landscape Ecology, New York: Wiley, 1986. Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and F.A. Craybill. Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United States, WSO's io 7970's, Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, 1983. Gallagher, E., and K. Keay. "Organism sediment contaminant in Boston Harbor." In K. Stolzenbach and E. Adams (eds.). Contaminated Sediment in Boston Harbor, Boston, MA: MIT Sea Grant Press, 1998. Galloway,]., and E. Cowling. Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change. Ambio 31: 64-71 (2002). Grime, J.P. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the debate deepens. Science 277:1260-1261 (1997). Grimm, N.B., L Baker, and D. Hope. "An ecosystem approach to understanding cities: familiar foundations and uncharted frontiers." In A.R. Berkowitz, K.S. Hollweg, and C.H. Nilon (eds.). Understanding Urban Ecosystems: A New Frontier for Science and Education, Springer- Verlag: New York, 2002,95-114. Hadidian, J., J. Sauer, C. Swarth, R Handly, S. Droege, C. Williams, J. Huff, and G. Didden. A citywide breeding bird survey for Washington, DC Urban Ecosystems 1: 87-102 (1997). Hellkamp, AS., J.M. Bay, C.L Campbell, K.N. Easterling, D.A. Fiscus, G.R. Hess, B.F. McQuaid, M.J. Munster, G.L. Olson, S.L. Peck, S.R. Shafer, K. Sidik, and M.B. Tooley. Assessment of the condition of agricultural lands in six mid-Atlantic states. Journal of Environmental Quality 29: 79-804 (2000). Herlihy, A.T., D. Larsen, S. Paulsen, N. Urquhart, and B. Rosenbaum. Designing a spatially balanced, randomized site selection process for regional stream surveys: the EMAP mid-Atlantic pilot study. Environmental Monitoring Assessment 63: 95-113 (2000). Hess, G.R., A.S. Hellkamp, S.R. Shafer, B.F. McQuaid, M.J. Munster, S.L. Peck, and C.L Campbell. A conceptual model and indicators for assessing the ecological condition of agricultural lands. Journal of Environmental Quality 29 (3): 728-737 (2000). Hodgson, J.G., K. Thompson, P.J. Wilson, and A. Bogaard. Does biodiversity determine ecosystem function? The Ecotron experiment reconsidered. Functional Ecology 12: 843-848 (1998). Holland, A.F., A. Shaughnessey, and M.H. Heigel. Long-term variation in mesohaline Chesapeake Bay benthos: spatial and temporal patterns. Estuaries 10: 227-245 (1987). Holland, A.F., A.T. Shaughnessey, LC. Scott, V.A. Dickens, J.A. Ranasinghe, and J.K. Summers. Progress Report: Long-term Benthic Monitoring and Assessment Program for the Maryland Portion of the Chesapeake Bay (July 1986-Octoberl987), Maryland Power Plant Research Program and Maryland Department of the Environment, Office of Environmental Programs PPRP-LTB/EST-88-1. Columbia, MD: Versar Inc., ESM Operations, 1988. International Programme on Chemical Safety. Global Assessment of the State-of-the-Science of Endocrine Disrupters, WHO/PCS/EDC/02.2. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety, 2002. Judy, R.D., Jr., P. Seeley, T. Murray, S. Svirsky, M. Whitworth, and L. Ischiger. 7982 National Fisheries Survey, FWS/OBS-84/06. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984. Kaiser, J. Great Smokies species census underway. Science 284 (5421): 1747-1748 (1999). Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters, A Method and Its Rationale, Special Publication No. 5. Champaign, IL: Illinois Natural History Survey, 1986. Karr, J.R., L.S, Fore, and E.W. Chu. Making Biological Monitoring More Effective: Integrating Biological Sampling with Analysis and Interpretation, Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, 1997. Kaufmann, RR., A.T. Herlihy, M.E. Mitch, and W.S. Overton. Chemical characteristics of streams in the Eastern United States: I: Synoptic survey desig;n, acid-base status and regional chemical patterns. Water Resources Research 27: 611-627 (1991). Kaufmann, FIR., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. Surface Waters: Quantifying Physical Habitat in Wadeable Streams, EPA 620-R-99-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, July 1999. Kinzig, A.P. and J.M. Grove. "Urban-suburban ecology." In S. Levin (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, New York, NY: Academic Press, 2001, 733-746. Klemm, D.J., K.A. Blocksom, W.T. Thoeny, F.A. Fulk, A.T. Herlihy, P.R. Kaufmann, I5.M. Cormier. Methods development and use of macroinvertebrates as indicators of ecological conditions for streams in the mid-Atlantic Highlands region. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 78 (2): 169-212 (2002). Klemm, D.J., K.A. Blocksom, F.A. Fulk, A.T. Herlihy, R.M. Hughes, P.R. Kaufmann, D.V. Peck, J.L Stoddard, W.T. Thoeny, M.B. Griffith, and W.S. Davis. Development and evaluation of a Macroinvertebrate E-20 References Appendi x ------- Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) for regionally assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams. Environmental Management 31 (5): 656-669 (2003). Klopatek, J.M., R.J. Olson, CJ. Emerson, and J.L. Joness. Land-use conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States. Environmental Conservation 6: 191 -199 (1979). Knight, R. and P. Landres. (eds.). Stewardship Across Boundaries, Washington, DC: Island Press. 1998. Landers, D.H., W. S. Overon, R. Linthurst, and D. Brakke. Eastern lake survey - regional estimates of lake chemistry. Environmental Science Technology 22: 128-135 (1988). Lindenmeyer, D.B., C Margules, and D. Botkin. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 10: 941-950 (2000). Linthurst, R.A., D.H. Landers, J.M. Eilers, RE. Kellar, D.F. Brakke, W.S. Overton, R. Crowe, E.P. Meier, P. Kanciruk, and D.S. Jefferies. Region chemical characteristics of lakes in North America - II: eastern United States. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 31: 123-129 (1986). Liu, B.Y., M.A. Hearing, C. Baffaut, and J.C. Ascough II. The WEPP watershed model: III. Comparisons to measured data from small, watersheds. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 40(4):945-951 (1997), Matson, PA, W.}. Parton, A.C., Power, and M.J. Swift. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277: 504-509 (1997). McCormick, FH., R.M. Hughes, P.R. Kaufmann, D.V. Peck, J.L Stoddard, and A.T. Herlihy. Development of an index of biotic integrity for the mid-Atlantic Highlands region. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130: 857-877 (2001). McQuaid, B.F., and Olson, G.L "Indices of Piedmont soils under different management systems." In R. Lai et al. (eds.), Advances in Soil Science - Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1998, 427-434. Messer, J.J. "Indicators in regional ecological monitoring and risk assessment." In D. H. McKenzie et al. (eds.), Ecological Indicators, Volume 1, Essex, England: Elsevier Science, 1992, 135-146. Messer, J.J., D.H. Landers, R.A. Linthurst, and W.S. Overton. Critical design and interpretive aspects of the National Surface Water Survey. Journal of Lake Reservoir Management 3: 463-469 (1986). Messer, J.J., C.W. Ariss, J.R. Baker, S.K. Drouse, K.N. Eshlemann, A.J. Kinney, W.S. Overton, J.J. Sale, and R.D. Schonbrod. Stream chemistry in the southern Blue Ridge: feasibility of a regional synoptic stream sampling approach. Water Resource Bulletin 24: 821 -829 (1988). Moore, K.A., DJ. Wilcox, and R.J. Orth. Analysis of the abundance of submersed aquatic vegetation communities in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23 (1): 115-127 (2000). Naeem, S., D. Byers, S.F. Tjossem, C. Bristow, and S. Li. Plant neighborhood diversity and production. Ecoscience 6: 355-365 (1999). Naiman, R.J. and M.G. Turner. A future perspective on North America's fresh water ecosystems. Ecological Applications 10: 958- 970 (2000). National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Acid Deposition: State of Science and Technology. Volume II. Aquatic Processes and Effects, Washington, DC: National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, 1991. National Research Council. Striking a Balance: Improving Stewardship of Marine Areas, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1997. National Research Council. Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward Sustainability, Washington DC: National Academies Press, 1999. National Research Council. Ecological Indicators for the Nation, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000. MatureServe. NatureServe Explorer, an online encyclopedia of life. 2002. (February 2003; http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/). Nixon, S.W., Hunt, C.D., and Nowicki, B.L. "The retention of nutrients (C, N, P), heavy metals (Mn, Cd, Pb, Cu), and petroleum hydrocarbons by Narragansett Bay." In P. Lasserre and J.M. Martin (eds.), Biogeochemical Processes at the Land-Sea Boundary, New York, NY: Elsevier, 1986, 99-122. Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity, Washington, DC: Island Press, 1994. Nowak, D., K. Civerelo, S.T. Rao, G. Sistla, C.,Luley, and D. Crane. A modeling study of the impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmospheric • Environment 34: 1601 -1613 (2000). O'Connell, T.J., L.E. Jackson, and R.P. Brooks. A bird community index of biotic integrity for the mid- Atlantic Highlands. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51: 145-156 (1998). O'Connell, T.J., L.E. Jackson, and R.P. Brooks. Bird guilds as indicators of ecological condition in the central Appalachians. Ecological Applications 10: 1706-1721 (2000). O'Connell, T.J., J.A. Bishop, and R.R Brooks. The North American Breeding Bird Survey as Source Data for Assessments of Ecological Condition with the Bird Community Index, Final Report to the U.S. Geological Survey - Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Report No. 2002-03. University Park, PA: Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, 2002. Appendix t References E-21 ------- "T~7:™r . ; ! El" :,' '~!l:i! '•,*:• ;:;;: '•'''••• '\|:\| >'-ft&te.s,&t laMs law \|:,:.^j;...'}-.•:.:.;,•,j': .;•;£;!; ;; ...&£: Odum, E.P. Fundamentals of Ecology, Third Edition, Philadelphia, PA: W,B. Saunders Company, 1971. Olsen, A.R., J. Sedransk, D. Edwards, C.A. Gotway, W. Liggett, S. Rathbun, K.H. Reckhow, and LJ. Young, Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54:1-45 (1999). O'Neill, R.V., T.f. Allen, and D.L Deangelis. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems, Princeton, Nj: Princeton Press. 1986. Paul, J.F., J.H. Gentile, K.J. Scott, S.C. Schimmel, D.E. Campbell, and R.W. Latimer. EMAP - Virginian Province Four-year Assessment Report (1990-1993), EPA 620-R-99-004. Narragansett, Rl: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, October 1999. Pearson, T.H., and R. Rosenberg. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 16: 229-311 (1978). Peterson, SA, D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen, and N.S. Urquhart. Regional lake trophic patterns in the northeastern United States: three approaches. Environmental Management 22 (5): 789-801 (1998). Pickett, S.T.A., M.L Cadenasso, J.M. Grove, C.H. Nilon, R.V. Pouyat, W.C. Zipperer, and R. Costanza. Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecology, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 127-157 (2001). Rabalais, N.N., and R.E. Turner, (eds). Coastal Hypoxia: Consequences for Living Resources and Ecosystems, Coastal and Estuarine Studies 58. Washington DO American Geophysical Union, 2001 : Reed, R.C. and L Young. Seasonal vegetation characteristics of the United States. Ceocarto International 12: 65-71 (1997). Renard, K.G, G.R. Foster, GA Weesies, O.K. McCool, and D.C Yoder. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Raised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), Agriculture Handbook No. 703. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997. Rhoads, D.C, RL McCall, and J.Y. Yingst. Disturbance and production on the estuarine sea floor. American Scientist 66: 577-586 (1978). Riiters, K.H., J.D. Wickham, R.V. O'Neill, K.B. Jones, E.R. Smith, J.W. Coulston, T.G. Wade, and J.H. Smith. Fragmentation of Continental United States Forests. Ecosystems 5: 815-822 (2002). Rosswall, T., Ft. Woodmansee, and P. Risser. Scales and Global Change: Spatial and Temporal Variability in Biospheric and Geospheric Processes, Scope 35. New York City, NY: John Wiley, 1988. Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hampson, L.S. Morse, S. Garner-Price, and C.C. Jones. Anatomy of an oil spill: long-term effects from the grounding of the barge Florida off West Falmouth, Massachusetts. Journal of Marine Research 38: 265-380 (1980). Skelly, J.M., D.D. Davis, W. Merrill, E.A. Cameron, H.D. Brown, D.B. Drummond, and L.S. Dochinger. Diagnosing Injury to Eastern Forest Trees'™, University Park, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and Penn State University, 1987. Skidmore, E.L., and N.P. Woodruff. Wind Erosion Forces in the United States and Their Use in Predicting Soil Loss, Agriculture Handbook No. 346. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1968, 42. Smith, W.B., J.S. Vissage, D.R. Darr, and R.M. Sheffield. Forest Statistics of the United States, 1997, General Technical Report NC-219. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 2001, 191. Stein, B.A. States of the Union: Ranking America's Biodiversity, Arlington, VA: NatureServe, 2002. Stoddard, J, L, A. D. Newell, N. S. Urquhart, and D. Kugler. The TIME project design: II. Detection of regional acidification trends. Water Resources Research 32: 2529-2538 (1996). Stoddard, J. L, C. T. Driscoll, S. Kahl, and J. Kellogg. Can site-specific trends be extrapolated to a region? An acidification example for the Northeast. Ecological Applications 8: 288-299 (1998). Stoddard, J.L, D.S. Jeffries, A. Lukewille, T.A. Clair, P.J. Dillon, C.T. Driscoll, M. Forsius, M. Johannessen, J.S. Kahl, J.H. Kellogg, A. Kemp, J. Mannip, D. Monteith, P.S. Murdoch, S. Patrick, A. Rebsdorf, B.L Skjelkvale, M. Stainton, T.S. Traaen, H. van Dam, K.E. Webster, J. Wieting, arid A. Wilander. Regional trends in aquatic recovery from acidification in North America and Europe. Nature 401 (6753): 575-8 (1999). Stoddard J.L., T.S. Traaen, B.L. Skjelkvale, and M. Johannessen. Assessment of nitrogen leaching at UN/ECE ICP-Waters sites (Europe and North America). Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 130: 781-86(2001). Stolte, K., B. Conkling, S. Campbell, and A. Gillespie. Forest Health Indicators - Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, FS-746. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, October 2002. Suter, G.W. Ecological Risk Assessment, Chelsea, Ml: Lewis Publishers, 1993. E-22 References Appendix t ------- Sutton, R.F. So/7 Properties and Root Development in Forest Trees: A Review, Information Report O- X-413. Sault Ste. Marie, Ont: Forestry Canada, Great Lakes Forestry Centre, 1991. The H. John Heinz 111 Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, September 2002. Tilman, D. and J.A. Downing. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367: 363-365 (1994). Turner, M.G. Landscape Ecology: The effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171 -197 (1989). U.S. Census Bureau. 2000 Census of Population and Housing Characteristics, PCH-1 -1. Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory, December 1999, revised December 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Resources Inventory: Highlights, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, January 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. U.S. Forest Facts and Historical Trends, Brochure #FS-696. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Draft Resource Planning and Assessment Tables. August 12, 2002. (September 2002; http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801 /FIADB/rpaJabler/ Draft_RPA_2002_Forest_Resource_Tables.pdf). U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, November 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forthcoming, 2003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Quality of our Nation's Waters, A Summary of the National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress, EPA 841 -S-00-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, June 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Criteria for Water - 1986, EPA 440-S-86-001. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, November 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants, EPA 600-P-93-004aF-cF. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment. July 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Special Report on Environmental Endocrine Disruption: An Effects Assessment and Analysis, EPA 630-R-96-012. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, December 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries, EPA 600-R-98-147. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, September 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Birds Indicate Ecological Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, EPA 620-R-00-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, June 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment, EPA 903-R-OO- 015. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, Office of Research and Development, August 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report, EPA 620-R-01 -005. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, September 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition, EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, June 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory - 2000 Report, EPA 841 -R- 02-001. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, August 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Response of Surface Water Chemistry to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA 620-R-03- 001. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, January 2003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment, MAIA - Estuaries 1997- 98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003. Narragansett, Rl: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, May 2003. /Appendix t References E-23 ------- U.S. General Accounting Office. Western National Forests: Nearby Communities Are Increasingly Threatened by Catastrophic Wildfires, GAO/T-RCED-99-79. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1999. U.S. General Accounting Office. Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data, GAO/RCED-00- 54. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 2000. U.S. Geological Survey. National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, national synthesis. 2002. (February 2003; hUp://water.usgs.gov/nawcia/natsyn.html). Valigura R., R. Alexander, M. Castro, T. Meyers, H. Paerl, P. Stacey, and R. Turner (eds.) Nitrogen Loading in Coastal Water Bodies - An Atmospheric Perspective, Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union, 2000. Van Dolah, R.F., J.L Hyland, A.F. Holland, J.S. Rosen, and T.R. Snoots. A benthic index of biological integrity for assessing habitat quality in estuaries of the southeastern United States. Marine Environmental Research 48:269-283 (1999). Vitousek, P., H. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. Melillo. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277: 494-499 (1997). Vitousek, P., S. Hattenschwiller, L Olander, and S. Allison. Nitrogen and nature. Ambio 31: 97-101 (2002). Vogelmann, J., S.M. Howard, L Yang, C.R. Larson, B.K. Wylie, and N.V. Driel. Completion of the 1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States from Landsat Thematic Mapper data and ancillary data sources. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 67 (6): 650-662 (2001). Wardle, D.A., M.A. Huston, J.P. Grime, F. Berendse, E. Gamier, W.K. Lauenroth, H. Setala, and S.D. Wilson. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: an hisue in ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 81: 235-239 (2000). Weathers, K.C., M.L Cadenasso, and S.T.A. Pickett. Forest edges as nutrient and pollutant concentrators: potential synergisms between fragmentation, forest canopies, and the atmosphere. Conservation Biology 15: 1506-1514 (2001). Weisberg, S.B., J.A. Ranasinghe, D.M. Dauer, L.C. Schaffner, R.J. Diaz, and J.B. Frith<;en. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B- IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20: 149-158 (1997). Wickham, J.D,, R.V. O'Neill, K.H. Riitters, E.R. Smith, T.G. Wade, and K.B. Jones. Geographic targeting of increases in nutrient export due to future urbanization. Ecological Applications 12 (I): 93-106 (2002). Winter, T.C. The concept of hydrologic landscapes. Journal American Water Resources Association 37: 335-349 (2001). World Resources Institute. World Resources 2000-2007 People and Ecosystems: the Fraying Web of Life, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2000. Yoccoz, N.G., j.D. Nichols, and T. Bouliner. Monitoring biological diversity in space and time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 446- 453 (2001)._ E-24 References Appendix E ------- Techri tal Document Jt feport orv the Ehvijronrnent 2003 - ', - :-"• " I '-".''"'. '"-'• "-;":' .". ';. ':'. ..'-• : "'. :•..-.''":- "-" :: "•-<'.-..--".-.. -" - erences ror fc Appendix U: Culossary of lerms Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Public Law 83-703. Barber, M.C., (ed.). The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Indicator Development Strategy, EPA 620-R-94-022. Athens, GA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, March 1994. chained dollars - A measure used to adjust for the effects of inflation in the U.S. currency from year to year, such that a consistent monetary value can be understood over time. A chained dollar is based on the average weights of the cost of goods and services in successive pairs of years. It is "chained" because the second year in each pair, with its weights, becomes the first year of the next pair. (DOE, 2001) Ref: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review 1999 - Chained Dollars. February 8, 2001. (June 2, 2003; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/recs/natgas/chained.html). Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State of the Great Lakes 1997. October 27, 1998. (August 13, 2002; http://www. epa.gov/docs/grtlakes/solec/96/stofgl/mdex. htm). Garcia, L.S. Flagellates and ciliates. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 19: vii, 621 -638 (1999). Green, L. W. and Kreuter, M. S. Health promotion planning: An educational and ecological approach. (3rd edition), Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co, 1999. Grondahl, C. and Martin, K. North Dakota's endangered and threatened species. North Dakota State Game and Fish Department's Nongame Program, Version 16JUL97. July 1997. (February 3, 2003; http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/ endanger/endanger.htm). Health Insurance Commission. HIC annual report 2000-1 glossary. 2000-2001. (February 24, 2003; http://www.hic.gov.au/annualreport/ glossary.htm). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis A Contribution of Working Croup I to the Third Assessment Report-of the IPCC, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001. International Union pf Pure and Applied Chemistry, Clinical Chemistry Division Commission on Toxicology. Glossary for Chemists of Terms Used In Toxicology. 1993. (March 6, 2003; h tip://www. sis.nlm. nih.gov/Clossary/main.html). Jackson, Laura E., J.C. Kurtz, and W.S. Fisher. Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators, EPA 620-R-99-005. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, May 2000. Matthews, John D., Silvicultural Systems, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1989. Moffett, M. W. What's "up"? A critical look at the basic terms of canopy biology. Biotropica 32:569-596 (2000). Nadakavukaren, A. Our Global Environment: A Health Perspective, Fifth Edition, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 2000. National Cancer Institute. Asbestos exposure: questions and answers. 2001. (April 5, 2002; http://cis.nci.nih.gOV/fact/3_21 .htm). National Public Health Partnership. National response to passive smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces: a background paper (Commonwealth of Australia). 2000. (November 1, 2002; http://www. dhs. vic.gov. au/nphp/legtools/smoking/passive/section2 .htm). National Research Council. Ecological Indicators for the Nation, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000. Odum, E.P. Fundamentals of Ecology, Third Edition, Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company, 1971. Pidwirny, Michael. Fundamentals of physical geography, online glossary of terms. 1999-2001. (August 13, 2002; http://www.geog. ouc. be. ca/physgeog/physgeoglos/glossary. html). Schneider, D. and N. Freeman. Children's environmental health risks: a state-of-the-art conference. Archives of Environmental Health 56: 103-110(2001). Steenland, K. and L. Stayner. Silica, asbestos, man-made mineral fibers, and cancer. Cancer Causes Control 8: 491 -503 (1997). Texas Environmental Center. Encyclopedia of water terms. 1991. (November 25, 2002; http://www.tec.org/tec/terms2.html). The H.John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, September 2002. Appendix t References E-25 ------- U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States 2007: The National Data Book, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division. Cartographic boundary files: geographic area description. July 2001. (August 13, 2002; bltp://www.census,gov/geo/www/cob/ma_metadata.html#ma). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory, December 1999, revised December 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. U.S. Forest Facts and Historical Trends, Brochure #FS-696. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, April 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nematology Lab. Nematode basics. June 5, 2001. (August 13, 2002; http://www.barc.usda.gov/ psi/nem/what-nem.htm). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern ' Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis. Forest inventory - definition of terms. November 12, 2002. (December 3, 2002; hUp://www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/fidef2.htm). U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. Environmental Management manages four types of radioactive waste. November 10,1997. (March, 7 2003: http://www.em.doe.gov/ empr!mer/emws2.html). U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Radioactive Waste Management. Order 435.1. July, 1999. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. Fact Sheet: Department of Energy Announces Its Preferred Alternatives for Disposal of Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste. December 10,1999. (March, 7 2003; http://www.em.doe.gov/emprimer/emws2, html). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, EPA 175-B-97-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Communications, Education, and Public Affairs, Revised December 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure Factors Handbook, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment March 1998. U.S, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Report to Congress, Solid Waste Disposal in the United States, Volumes l-ll, EPA 530-SW-88- 011 (B). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, October 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board. A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition, EPA SAB-EPEC-02-009. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, June 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Wetlands: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Now wetlands are defined and identified. July 2, 2002. (August 13, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/factn.html). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment: glossary. August 8, 2002.. (August 13, 2002; http://www. epa.gov/maia/html/glossary. html). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National primary drinking water regulations; consumer fact sheet on: Cadmium. September 23, 2002. (August 13, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/c-ioc/ cadmium.htm\). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Global warming site: glossary of climate change terms. October 8, 2002. (November 25, 2002; http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/ globalwarming.nsf/content/glossary.html). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Glossary of terms. October 25, 2002. (February 24, 2003; http://chesapeakebay. net/glossary, htm). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division. Glossary. October 29, 2002. (August 13, 2002; http://www. epa.gov/airmarkets/glossary. html). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TRI Explorer: releases reports metadata. November 12, 2002. (December 9, 2002; http://yosentitel .epa.gov/oiaa/explorers_fe.nsf/7c77bcd2e66feb048S2 S677b006ae6cf/871 c6234f2 bd8ab3852S69SO,OOS231 df ?OpenDocument). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. What is up with our nation's waters? Technically speaking - glossary of terms. November 2:0, 2002. (December 3, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/ owow/'monitoring/'nationswaters/'glossary, html). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Groundwater Drinking Water. Groundwater and drinking water: drinking water glossary. November 26, 2002. (December 3, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/safewater/glossary.htm). E-26 References Appendix t ------- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radiation information: radiation terms. December 3, 2002. (December 3, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/radiation/terms/index.html). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program.; What is TRI? December 9, 2002. (December 9, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/tri/). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. PCBs Home Page. February 3, 2003. (March 7, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment: habitat loss. 2003. (August 13, 2002; http://www. epa.gov/maia/html/habitat. html). U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Seafood. National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance, 1999 revision. November 3, 2000. (August 13, 2002; http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/flear/nssporpd.html). U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated use of water in the United States in 1990, glossary of water - use terminology. April 10, 1996. (November 25, 2002; http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wuglossary.html). Appendix £ References E-27 ------- ------- Appendix P: I / .; .-••;• • • : '• - •'.:•• • I '.• ;-. ' , -.' '; '!' . : •: '' ."•'•" '".:;^ '•' '••;-'"!:-'-t; Background amf ------- ——. „ —i—--— ^- ~"~" • .i i _. i«^^^^^^ rW^PiiPi On November 13, 2001, Administrator Christine Todd Whitman directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undertake an Environmental Indicators Initiative (Ell), bringing together national, regional, and program office indicator efforts to produce a Draft Report on the Environment (ROE)and a Draft Report on the Environment Technical Document (ROE TD). This report is the first step In a multi-year process to identify indicators indicators to measure progress toward environmental and human health goals, to identify data gaps and discuss challenges in filling those gaps, and to ensure the Agency's accountability to the public The ROETD contains the scientific and technical information from which the ROE was developed. Report leadership/Partnerships Administrator Whitman's chief of staff assembled and chaired a steering committee, comprising senior career officials from EPA program, support, and regional offices, to guide the report development. The Offices of Environmental Information (OEI) and Research and Development (ORD) were charged with leading an integrated process to produce the ROE and the ROE TD. Key staff representatives acted as "theme" or chapter leads, serving as liaisons with subject matter experts throughout EPA. Other federal agencies and tribal and state governments also assisted in reviewing the report and draft development. Report Foundation-Trie Questions The process began with a concerted effort across EPA to identify significant environmental questions both of interest to the public and fundamental to EPA's mission to protect the environment and human health. A series of six workshops was held in early 2002 across EPA program and regional offices for six themes: human health, ecological condition, air, water, land, and global issues. The workshops identified key questions and proposed indicators (both those supported by existing data and potential future indicators), and noted challenges to implementation and limitations of the indicators. The questions focused on "outcomes" - actual environmental results such as the quality of outdoor air - rather than on more process- oriented "outputs" such as numbers of permits written. The questions included in this report represent a first set that can be refined and expanded. For some questions, one to several indicators were identified; for other questions, there were no indicators available or recommended. -Indicator Selection By May 2002, the process had identified key questions and associated indicators to address them. The questions were organized into five report chapters: Cleaner Air, Purer Water, Better Protected Land, Human Health, and Ecological Condition. Indicators to respond to the questions were recommended from across EPA, states, tribes, and other federal agencies. The indicators and their supporting data sets were documented in accordance with a standard format, which is allowed for technical review of data quality, sampling design, coverage, data analysis, and data accessibility. An example of the' quality review form is presented in Appendix C. For the national indicators that were identified, there was a wide ' variation in the availability of data, as the lack of data was a major challenge and limitation in writing the chapters. An expert review was held to review and assess the potential indicators. External EPA experts were invited to participate in a two- day workshop,'in .mid-June 2002 in the Washington, D.C. area, to discuss and record their assessments of the Indicators: The reviewers were asked to evaluate the quality review forms for the proposed indicators in advance of the workshop and then to discuss their assessments in small groups of other reviewers at the workshop (an expert review evaluation form is presented in Appendix H). Guidance was given to the expert reviewers asking that they review the proposed indicators to evaluate: a Quality of the data set supporting the indicator; • Scientific basis for the use of the indicator as a measure of the quality of the environment; • Utility of the indicator in measuring the quality of the environment; and m Limitations in using the indicator to measure the quality of the environment. F-2 Background and Chronology Appendix F ------- .^^M'-^^f^-^!'-i^f:^'":-&.-i-4-.!:"i:/i'i':'-^../t' '•••>::'!.•':-. "i:,:..;; ;.'::'?.:t'.;:".K:X-.: ••'-.; :•'•<••'.•' Draft Report Development and Review After determining a set of indicators, EPA developed and refined several drafts of the report. In November 2002, EPA shared a draft with federal and state agencies and the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) and took their comments into consideration in developing the content of the ROE technical document. That draft was the basis for final review and comment by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This current draft report is now available to the public. Chronology of jignificant Events for Document Development A chronology of significant milestones in the development of the draft Report on the Environment Technical Document is presented below. November 200T Administrator's Memo Launching the Environmental Indicators Initiative January-February 2002 ' Theme Workshop Meetings - Initial Identification of Questions and Potential Indicators March-April 2002 April 2002 .„. May 2002 June 2002 July 2002-May 2003 Development of Report Outlines ECOS-Sponsored Meeting with Interested States Quality Review Process External Expert Review Workshop Drafting of ROE and ROE Technical Document Nov. 2002-May 2003 State/Federal Interagency/OMB/CEQ Review Meetings June 2003 Release of Draft ROE and ROE Technical Document Appendix r Background and Chronology F-3 ------- ------- Appendix G: Review Form ------- i , I ErAs Draft Report on tne Envjrpnment 200J • Technical Document 1C /v vDeneral Background 1. What is the theme this indicator is part of (e.g., land, water, air, global change, human health, ecological health)? 2. What is the name of the Indicator/data set? 3. What is the question the indicator set is being proposed to address? 4. How does this indicator address the questions? (conceptual relevance) 5. Does this indicator/data set require additional processing to optimally address this question and if so, what? 6. Has this indicator previously been peer reviewed? If so, please provide details. This question has been moved from1 Data Processing and Analysis section. G-2 Indicator Quality Review Form Appendix G ------- Teem D. Data Quality 1. What is the known quality of the entire data set? 2. Has any standard data documentation, such as FCDC metadata, been developed to support these data? (If yes, please provide reference or source.) 3. Why were the data originally collected (e.g., what is being measured or monitored)? 4. Were data collected under a single program or were data from multiple programs combined? If multiple data sets were combined please address the quality for each data set independently. 5. What was (were) the program or programs under which the data were collected? 6. Did these programs have quality assurance plans to verify, corroborate, ground truth or otherwise assess the accuracy of the data? Appendix Indicator Quality Review Form G-3 ------- 7. If yes, are the quality assurance program plans available (and where)? 8. Were the quality assurance plans followed? 9. Were the analytical methods used consistent throughout the data set? 10. If not what effects could the different analytical methods have on the indicator results? 11. Are you aware of any sources of error that may affect the findings developed from these data? Error types could include errors of omission, commission, mis-classification, incorrect georeferencing, mis-documentation or mistakes in the processing of data. This question is revised from "What are some of the uncertainties of the data and on the findings." G-4 Indicator Quality Review Form Appendix' ------- fchhical Document ' "' "' ralt l\e^ /•:.,.:•:• • .;..;• •'•'.( .-:..-.- "•,,:"-:•<•" •.;::•••":':. rXv>:- S:^2^S;%;'.i:i(::i ..... i'SSS" -.>];•.;:•:• ::v: -. . jample Design 1. Generally describe how the data are/were collected (Research, general monitoring, compliance monitoring, regulatory requirement)? If collected under a regulatory requirement, please specify the regulation and links to the regulation and associated guidance. 2. What was the sample design or the monitoring plan? 3. Were any specific strata omitted from the sampling plan (e.g., small systems not in the sampling plan, roads less than 2 miles long, habitat types less than 20 acres)? 4. Which of the processes below was used to select the sites where information is/was collected? a) Sites selected using a statistical design that enables generalization to entire resource (e.g., probability survey design to select sample of lakes or streams for the United States, such as NRI, NASS, FHM, FIA) b) Sites determined to meet administrative or regulatory requirements such as sources of or water supply systems. c) Sites chosen to address suspected or known problems (e.g., Hot spots). d) Randomly selected sites. e) Sites selected in unknown way. Append ix Indicator .Quality Review Form C-5 ------- oAs Draft "Report on the tnvironhient 2Q03 • Iqcnnical Document rr ' - ' • i ' i •• • .• •:. ...:']•'! i.;Ti'i' •. - ' " . . •. • i.ii:"j 5. When did the monitoring begin? 6. When did the monitoring end? 7. What was the periodicity of the sample (yearly, seasonally, quarterly, monthly, weekly, daily, etc.)? 8. Were there any major gaps in the data either spatially or temporally (please explain) G-6 Indicator Quality Review Form Appendix G ------- Q^^ ' -~ "' •'-.'-- --"--. --- --,:-- -.'-..-, •. •-i-.r:'..- -v.A.v-:- <.'•'... . .' :-:-: ••:--'.* -.--.•'• '-••'•'. ..' ':'•". '•'•';- -.- •"-.'-' ^.'.,.^ .••••/, .'•". .-•-..; 'f:.-. ,••--'- -:, .,.,-:. •'" ••". '• - •'• D. C overage 1. Is there uniform national coverage of information for this indicator? 2. Were data collected in some areas but not others? 3. Was the data collected using remote sensing? If yes please specify the sensor, date and the resolution of the data. 4. If the data are derived from mapped information, what was the original map scale or resolution? Appendix G Indicator Quality Review Form C-7 ------- -fenr—-—.—ns~ t. Data "Processing and Analyses 1. What kinds of analyses have been performed on the data? Please explain. 2. Are the values used in the indicator raw data? Aggregated data? Calculated data? Inferred data? Last sentence deleted, redundant with 1. 3. Are these analyses standard methods? Please reference. 4. Were these results published? If yes please give reference or link. 5. Were these results peer reviewed? If yes by whom? Give references. 6. How were the values calculated or determined? C-8 Indicator Quality Review Form Append ix ------- lechlilca! L}^ •-.•.-.-••-• -:••' - •"• -' - ' ,- - -•".:;."•." -- ,..« .•.-:•.<;••.:.-• .•!]•.,.,'., v: ;•••;. ••:.•• •.-':; Kv'v .I.-'-..:/.-. ;:- 5 . IV;.. •• ... '. ;•: . .:•'... •'•.. • i :: ' ••• ....'.'-' :"•• :.••:•..•>.. •." •. 7 .Please describe the basis of the classification scheme? Why was this scheme chosen? 8. , How are the values interpreted? 9. Are there established ranges that indicate the state of the environment? If yes how were these values established? Are the values consistent across the spatial extent of the data set? 10. Is the Indicator developed based on a model? If so, what is this model? 11. Has the model been published? 12. Has the model been peer reviewed? 13. How are data gaps handled when the model is applied? 14. What is the scientific inference process used to generalize from site-specific information to the national coverage? Appendix G Indicator Quality Review Form C-9 ------- ] i tlAs Draft Mport on the tnvjronment 20OS • lacnnical Document !r I . : • : .. : I 1 I : • 15. Which of the following was used to generalize or portray data beyond the specific sampling points? a) Defensible statistical survey analysis inference procedures used to generalize to entire United States, (e.g., current OW National Lake Fish tissue contaminant survey, FIA, FHM, NRI) b) Defensible statistical model inference procedures used to generalize to entire United States (e.g., generation of wet deposition maps for US or generation of air quality information using kriging). c) Semi-empirical environmental/ecological model predictions, (e.g., USGS use of SPARROW model to predict nutrients in rivers based on statistical relationships and simple hydrologic flow models) d) Generalization is restricted to sites visited and it is possible to give a well- defined, meaningful definition of the portion of the ecological resource covered. e) No generalization possible and no meaningful way to identify the subset of the ecological resource represented by the collection of sites. G-10 Indicator Quality Review Form Append x ------- technical 13^ Draft Report on the Environment 2O03 r. Uata Accessibility 1. Are the data readily available? If yes, please give reference, link or contact. 2. Are the summary reports available? If yes, please give reference, link or contact. 3. Have these results been published? If yes, please give reference. Appendix G Indicator Quality Review Form G-1 1 ------- EPAs Draft Report on tne Envij-oijirtient 200 j Documdrtt ' PI ! Jib. CD. AAessage or Interpretation 1. Are the messages or answers to the questions appropriate, sound, and understandable? G-12 Indicator Quality Review Form Append: x ------- Appendix H: EPA Draft Report on the Envirohment Expert Review Workishop Evaluation Form ------- tPAs Draft "Report on the Tlnvirbhrnent 2003 1 • :''!;•' I '' : 'I ' '• :•' lecnnica 4 ; \ r\ :: - 'Ml 1 LJocurrMnfc EFA Draft Report on the Environment txpert "Review Workshop Evaluation Form Name of Theme: Name of Indicator. Associated Question: Reviewer Name: Please provide brief answers of one to three paragraphs for each question in the following sections. Under the "Primary Questions" section, please provide a summary evaluation of the indicator's data quality and coverage, suitability, and fit. Evaluations shall be based on a scale from 1 to S (Excellent - 5; Adequate - 3; Poor = 1). "Primary Questions Data Quality and Coverage . 1. Do the indicator and the supporting data provide adequate geographic coverage for national reporting? H-2 Workshop Evaluation Form Appendix H ------- lecnnical L^dcLimeht • t-Tvlis Drart Txeport on the tnvfrdnrnent 2O03 2. What is the quality of the data set supporting the indicator? What is known about the quality? (In your response, please address the ade- quacy of the data to support the indicator; whether there is uniform national coverage, quality assurance/quality control issues, documenta- tion, consistent analytical methods, and sample design issues.) Summary Evaluation of Data Quality and Coverage (Excellent = 5; Adequate = 3; Poor = 1): juitability or Indicator 3. Is there a credible scientific basis for this indicator? Appendix H Workshop Evaluation Form H-3 ------- 4. What are the limitations of this indicator? (e.g., guidance relevant to using the data supporting the indicator, including challenges and gaps) •Summary Evaluation of Suitability of Indicator (Excellent = 5; Adequate - 3; Poor - 1): Question and Indicator Fit S. How well does the indicator answer or fit the associated questions? 'Summary Evaluation of Question and Indicator Fit (Excellent=S; Adequate=3; Poor="l): H-4 Workshop Evaluation Form Appendix H ------- ------- 8. Are there other questions and associated indicators that better address the issue? (Please use draft document outline as the basis for developing a short answer.) H-6 Workshop Evaluation Form Appendix H ------- Appendix I: Summary Tables of Questions Indicators ------- HjlF CJnapter 1: CJeaner Air - Cj>)uestiora and Indicators Outdoor Air Quality t. i • • What is the quality of outdoor air in the United States? (See also following four questions) - How many people are living in areas with particulate matter and ozone levels above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)? - What are the concentrations of some criteria air pollutants: PMjj, PM10, ozone, and lead? - What are the impacts of air pollution on visibility in national parks and other protected lands? — What are the concentrations of toxic air pollutants in ambient air? What contributes to outdoor air pollution? (See also following three questions) — What are contributors to particulate matter, ozone, and lead in ambient air? - What arc contributors to toxic air pollutants in ambient air? - To what extent is U.S. air quality the result of pollution from other countries, and to what extent does U.S. air pollution affect other countries? What human health effects are associated with outdoor air pollution? What ecological effects are associated with outdoor 1 air pollution? Number and percentage of days that metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) have Air Quality Index (AQI) values greater than 1 00 Number of people living in iareas with air quality levels above the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) and ozone Ambient concentrations of particulate matter: PM2 5 and PM10 Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-hour and 1 -hour Ambient concentrations of lead Visibility Ambient concentrations of selected air toxics See emissions indicators Emissions: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds Lead emissions Air toxics emissions No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Human Health chapter No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Ecological Condition chapter 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1.1.1 1.1.1.3 1.1 .1.b 1,1 .l.b 1.1. l.b 1.1. l.c 1.1 .1.d 1.1.2 1 .1 .2.3 1.1.2.3 1.1 .2.b 1 .1 .2.c 1.1.3 1.1.4 Acid Deposition What are the deposition rates of pollutants that cause acid rain? What are the emissions of pollutants that form acid rain? What ecological effects are associated with acid deposition? Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Ecological Condition chapter 2 2 1 .2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1-2 Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators Appendix I ------- L-hapter 1: (-leaner/\ir —- wuestions and Indicators (continued) Indoor Air (Duality What is the quality of the air in buildings in the United States? What contributes to indoor air pollution? What human health effects are associated with indoor air pollution? HgBiliiM^Wffl^MsiJiiiHMB8eSiisJISg!g!i$ff^WgBgteMJ^^ ^"W^s^"^"p"'Mw^LW1Ifrrft-'a^?31 U.S. homes above EPA's radon action levels Percentage of homes where young children are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Human Health chapter No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Human Health chapter 2 2 1.3.1 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 jtratospneric Ozone ":"^:t:;v'::^ What are the trends in the Earth's ozone layer? What is causing changes to the ozone layer? What human health effects are associated with stratospheric ozone depletion? What ecological effects are associated with stratospheric ozone depletion? Ozone levels over North America Worldwide and U.S. production of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) Concentrations of ozone-depleting substances (effective equivalent chlorine) No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified 1 2 2 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 fell •_ Appendix I Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators 1-3 ------- ElAs Draft "Report on the Envirpnment 2003 • Technical Document ILxniDit 2-1: Water - Questions and! Indicators 1 11 ,, i Waters and Watersheds i i F" t • I i t What is the condition of fresh surface waters and watersheds in the U.S.? What are the extent and condition of wetlands? What is the condition of coastal waters? What are pressures to water quality? What ecological effects are associated with impaired waters? Altered fresh water ecosystems Lake Trophic State Index Wetland extent and change Sources of wetland change/loss Water clarity in coastal waters Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters Total organic carbon in sediment:. Chlorophyll concentrations General pressures Percent urban land cover in riparian areas Agricultural lands in riparian areas Population density in coastal areas Changing stream flows Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in grassland/shrublands Sedimentation index Nutrient pressures Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water Total nitrogen in coastal waters Phosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams Phosphorus in large rivers Total phosphorus in coastal waters Chemical Pressures Atmospheric deposition of mercury Chemical contamination in streams and ground water Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams Toxic releases to water of mercury, dioxin, lead, PCBs, and PBTs Sediment contamination of inland waters Sediment contamination of coastal waters Sediment toxicity in estuaries Fish Index of Biotic Integrity in streams Also see Ecological Condition chapter Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity index for streams Also see Ecological Condition chapter Benthic Community Index for coastal waters Also see Ecological Condition chapter 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.2.1 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.3! 2.2.3 2.2.3 2.2.4.a 2.2.4.a 2.2.4.a 2.2.4.a 2.2.4.a 2.2A.3 2.2.4.b 2.2.4.b 2.2.4.b 2.2.4.b 2.2.4.b 2.2.4.b 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 2.2.4-c 2.2.4.C 2.2.5 2.2.5 2.2.5 1-4 Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators Appendix I ------- technical Document \|\|fcr7^ Draft Report on the environment 2003 Drinking Water su What is the quality of drinking water? Population served by community water systems that meets all health-based standards 2.3.1 What are sources of drinking water contamination? No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified 2.3.2 What human health effects are associated .with drinking contaminated water? No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Human Health chapter 2.3.3 Recreation in and on the Water . !_'.._. .".-... ;.,Laussti8d./>':Cm'^';;im?3^ .''•»'- ~'.':,i;L"L.,,:XM?i^^£$<$&$ What is the condition of waters that support consumption offish and shellfish? What are contaminants in fish and shellfish, and where do they originate? What human health effects are associated with consuming contaminated fish and shellfish? Percent of river miles and lake acres under fish consumption advisories Contaminants in fresh water fish Number of watersheds exceeding health-based national water quality criteria for mercury and PCBs in fish tissue No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Human Health chapter 2 2 2 2.5.1 2.5.1 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 Appendix I Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators 1-5 ------- Chapter 3: Better T rotected Land - (.Questions and Indicators Land Use ••plPi11!111 '! I1 ^'^^^^^ J4 ii; HJIIlilll!.'.^ l^g^iew ''fiili'iiTBl " w«sw*«2uestions and Indicators (continued) Waste and Contaminated Lands ... .. ^•4 •'• " ' '. • - Question- -raaMffisasassa^ t e t-~ i f i 1 i i How much and what types of waste are generated and managed ? What is the extent of land used for waste management? What is the extent of contaminated lands? What human health effects are associated with waste management and contaminated lands? What ecological effects are associated with waste management and contaminated lands? Quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated and managed Quantity of RCRA hazardous waste 'generated and managed Quantity of radioactive waste generated and in inventory Number and location of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills Number and location of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities Number and location of Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites Number and location of RCRA Corrective Action sites No Category 1 or 2 indicator identified No Category 1 or 2 indicator identified 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3.3.1 3.3.1 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 .-. • • , - -, ..,:•.'- .. - -„ v .»,,„.-;.,„=, -•-.- ;-..-.-„ ,-.„. ,~-- ,......- .si Appendix I Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators 1-7 ------- ' - , EPAs Draft "Report on the Environment 2003 What are the trends for life expectancy? What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma? What are the trends for gastrointestinal illness? What are the trends for children's environmental health issues? Cancer mortality Cancer incidence Cardiovascular disease mortality Cardiovascular disease prevalence Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality Asthma mortality Asthma prevalence Cholera prevalence Cryptosporidiosis prevalence E. coli O1S7:H7 prevalence Hepatitis A prevalence Salmonellosis prevalence Shigellosis prevalence Typhoid fever prevalence Infant mortality Low birthweight incidence Childhood cancer mortality Childhood cancer incidence Childhood asthma mortality Childhood asthma prevalence Deaths due to birth defects Birth defect incidence . , txosure to tnvironmentai Tollultion: Indicators and trend What is the level of exposure to heavy metals? What Is the level of exposure to cotinine? What is the level of exposure to volatile organic compounds? What is the level of exposure to pesticides? What is the level of exposure to persistent organic pollutants? What art; the trends in exposure to environmental pollutants for children? What is the level of exposure to radiation? What is the level of exposure to air pollutants? What is the level of exposure to biological pollutants? What is the level of exposure to disinfection by-products? Indicator Name, Blood lead level Urine arsenic level Blood mercury level Blood cadmium level Blood cotinine level Blood volatile organic compound levels Urine organophosphate levels to indicate pesticides No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Blood lead level in children Blood mercury level in children Blood cotinine level in children No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified Also see Cleaner Air chapter < No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.3 4.3.3 .4.3.3 4.3.3 4.3.3 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.3.4 4.4.3 4.4.3 4.4.3 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.4.5 4.4.6 4.4,7 4.4.8 4.4.8 4.4.8 4.4.9 4.4.9 4.4.9 4.4.9 Appendix 1 Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators 1-8 ------- S Question J t i 5 3 : ^ 1 i j What is the ecological condition of forests? « 1 1 3 i i j 8?"^ " , ,.. Indicator Name Extent afforest area, ownership, and management - . Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban ftreams and ground water Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen Changing stream flows . - Extent of area by forest type : •. • Forest age class . , . . i '• Forest pattern and fragmentation At-risk native forest species , . Populations of representative forest species Forest disturbance: fire, insects, and disease Tree condition , j Ozone injury to trees . \| . - - . - Carbon storage . . Soil compaction • Soil erosion ' . Processes beyond the range of historic variation ' , - , -«-,*- ,.^^'~ Category 7 . 2 2 7 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 - Section S.I. 4 2.2.4.b 7.2.2 2.2.4.a S.2 5.2 5.2 , 5.2 5.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 IP Oiapter 5: tcological C-onaition • Questions ana InaicatQrs 1 • • > > * Forests rarmianos » -•- Question .'[-•-. . indicator Name Category - Section % •i "i I What is the ecological condition of farmlands? af 3 i ^ Extent of agricultural land uses , The farmland landscape , . Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water Phosphorus in farmland, forested and urban streams . . \ Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields Sediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelands Pesticide leaching potential ^ i Soil quality index , , . T ' Soil erosion • 7 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3.7.2 3.7.2 2.2.4.fc 2.2.4.i 2.2.4.C 3.2.4 3.7.6 S.3 5.3 5.3 e^t=- & / l -* J W -r 'H «- Ci- tlrassiancls and jhruDianas Question ' " - ' ; , • :.!..(.'- • and shrublands? Iridicatdl- Name . : - • . • • . ' ' ••.-.•If:', Extent of grasslands and shrublands : . . , . Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in grasslands and shrublands At-risk native grassland and shrubland species Population trends of invasive and native non-invasive bird species Category 7 2 2 1 Section 3.7.3 2.2.4.0 5.4 5.4 1-9 Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators Appendix I ------- 1 1 -_. PI 1 /^" I " S~\ — ^^f?l^^T7^ei'^f?.^i<''if!fi#!&i>&ifff^ Chapter 5: tcological Condition - Cyuestiort\| and Indicators tcontinued) Urban and Suburban Lanas Extent of urban and suburban lands Ambient concentrations of ozone 8-hour and 1-hour What is the ecological condition of urban and suburban areas? Nitrate in farmland, forested and urban streams, and ground water Phosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams Chemical contamination in urban streams and ground water Patches of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland in urban/suburban areas 7.1.7.1) 2.2.4.B 2.2 4 b 2.2.4 c 5.5 Fresn Waters What is the ecological condition of fresh waters? Wetland extent and change Altered fresh water ecosystems ll! ' ' ni1 Contaminants in fresh water fish ' Phosphorus in large rivers '' '• Lake Trophic State Index Chemical contamination in streams and ground water '' ! Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams ' ! ": "•" Changing stream flows i j Sedimentation index ; l"1"""'"' ' ' 1"""11'1 Extent of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs \ ' ' '• At-risk native fresh water species , . Non-native fresh water species , ! Animal deaths and deformities : ' At-risk fresh .water plant communities ! Fish Index of Biotic Integrity in streams Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index for streams i 2 . 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.2.2 2.2.1 2.5.7 2.2.4.b 2.2.1 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.0 2.2.4.0 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 ttflif • ' j^fEtiHf^P^ ji »^^^ What Is the ecological condition of coasts f~ i x-x • W^f'-^-^'ViiAK^K'.^^^^, L-oasts and wceaiiis ' ; ' ;•;; '•_' '• '"_'••"• •'••'•• • • "••"ii •'•••••'••••'• Chlorophyll concentrations Water clarity in coastal waters ' Total nitrogen in coastal waters i Total phosphorus in coastal waters Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters . ' Total organic carbon in sediments Sediment contamination of coastal waters Sediment toxtciiy in estuaries Extent of estuaries and coastline Coastal living habitats T'l i" " "' Shoreline types Benthic Community Index Fish diversity, Submerged aquatic vegetation ' '' Fish abnormalities Unusual marine mortalities SS'li!: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2' 2 2 2 2 ?3S$»; 2.23\| 2.2.3 2.2.4.fc 2.2.4.b 2.2.3 2.2.3 2.2.4.C 2.2.4.C 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 js/ote: Italicized indicators are presented in other chapters. Appendix 1 Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators MO ------- I, ^aj E^_^J' Cnapter 5: Ecological Condition - Questions and Indicators (continued) The Entire Nation fe What is the ecological condition of the entire nation? Nntfl' \\fi\\r\70A \inAir-fi4-f\vr- «•„ .... j. j — •— , ^^ ^ ^^^BJBTOP^ ------- ------- ------- ^ i -» ,,,.,,.,,,.„.,„. •••a^ -s -------


i *""    ?'^^^i^E^^^
United States
Environmental Protection
Aser


          Report
                             •.yigptsF--

                             U H-k:. visa
                                  £Sfe«8:

                         oh  the

                                             ^liaSit'aaifci^^tsL-.. ^^.^L,i^^l,^^ys^:^^f^^'^fS^:^^^,,J^-^i/^^id^l^ ]
                                                            -^".-"--Sa^:^*L*;".,.'~'«Tf-111-.-'

-------

-------

-------
                                      EPA 600-R-03-050
                                      June 2003
                    EPAV
Draft  Report on the Environment
         Technical Document
          United States Environmental Protection Agency
           Office of Research and Development and the
              Office of Environmental Information
                 Washington, DC 20460
                 www.epa.gov/indicators/
                                        Recycled/Recyclable
                                    Printed with vegetable oil-based ink on 100%
                                     processed chlorine free recycled paper
 Tarticipants
IX

-------

                                                                           JiiS&s


                                                                                                 m
              Visibility - Category
 This indicator presents visibility trends for U.S. national parks and
 wilderness areas in the eastern and western U.S. by mean visual
 range, as measured in km for 1992 to 1999 and 1990 to 1999,
 respectively, by worst, mid-range, and best visibility. Under the
 Clean Air Act, a Class I area is one in which visibility is protected
 more stringently than under the NAAQS, including national parks,
 wilderness areas, monuments, and other areas of special national
 and cultural significance.

 What the  Data Show

 Data collected by the IMPROVE network show that visibility for
 the worst visibility days in the West is similar to days with the best
 visibility in the East (Exhibit 1-13). In 1999, the mean visual range
 for the worst days in the East was only 24 km (14.9 miles) com-
 pared to 84 km (52.2 miles) for the best visibility. In the West,
 visibility impairment for the worst days remained relatively
 unchanged over the 1990s, with the mean visual range for 1999
 (80 km or 49.7 miles) nearly the  same as the 1990 level (86 km
 or S3.4 miles). Without the effects of pollution, a  natural visual
 range in the U.S. is approximately 75 to 150  km (47 to 93 miles)
 in the East and 200 to 300 km (124 to 186  miles) in the West
 (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).
                                         Indicator Caps and Limitations

                                         Limitations of this indicator include the following:
                                         • The indicator compares trends within visibility range categories,
                                           but it would also be useful to indicate how often visibility falls
                                           into each range during a year.
                                         • The data represent only a sampling of national park and
                                           wilderness areas; nevertheless, this indicator provides a good
                                           picture of the impact of air pollution on the nation's parks and
                                           protected areas. As of 2001, the network monitored 110 sites.

                                         Data Source

                                         The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National
                                         Air Quality: 2007 Status and Trends,  EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B,
                                         page B-4, for more information.)
                                                                               .
                                     Exhibit 1-13: Visibility trends for U.S. Class I areas
               Western U.S., 1990-1999
                                                    (Eastern U.S., 1 992-1 999
^bU
1- 200
&
tiso
1
1 100
$
so

Best Visibility
"fr * •
Mid -Range
" M m , m — "- — H 	 m. — m — s

Worst Visibility
i i i t i i i i
                                                Best visibility
                                                range is 1 77-208 km

                                                Mid-range visibility
                                                is 11 8-1 33 km

                                                Worst visibility
                                                range is 73-85 km
         90   91   92  93
94  95
 Year
                                  96  97  98  99
200
150
100
50;
0
9
Best Visibility
_ Mid-Range __ —
' i i A -A- JL
k * * Worst Visibility
4J 1 1 1 .'I
2 93 94 95 96 97

— m—
.

i
98 9
                                                                                     Best visibility
                                                                                     range is 79-90 km
                                                                                     Mid-range visibility
                                                                                     is 42-48 km
                                                                                     Worst visibility
                                                                                     range is 20-23 km
                                                                                            Year
     Note: Under the Clean Air Act, a Class I area is one in which visibility is protected more stringently than undd r the National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),,including national parks,
     wiMorncssareas,monuments,andotherareasofspecialnationalandculturalsignificance.             ,                                  ",      ",,.„,..;
     Source:EPA,OfficeofAlrQualityPlanningandStandards.tfllestRndmgsoiiNflt/ona/A'i:Qua%200r Status'find Trends. September 2002.                          	;;
1-16
                                                     1,1  Outdoor Air Quality
                                                                            C-napter I  - CJeaner /\ir

-------
This report is dedicated to the memory of our friend and colleague, Dr. Felicity (Kim) Devonald.
Kim was a tireless advocate for the development and use of environmental indicators at EPA, pioneering
our efforts to provide useful and reliable descriptions of environmental status and trends.

Kim joined EPA in1984. Since the early 1990s, she was instrumental in Agency explorations of the
concept of environmental indicators. Her efforts led to the Agency's first published proposals  of fully
developed environmentally based indicators (from public workshops) in the mid-1990s. She was
working on material related to the  state of science of these indicators almost to the moment of her
death, and much of that material has been incorporated into this Technical Document.

Without Kim's example and her early efforts, this report would be far less than it is.

-------

-------
                                         Table  of  Contents
  Preface 	 	
                                   	•	v
  List of Participants	
                r                	•	vn
  Introduction  	
                                	xi
  Chapter!:  Cleaner Air
     1.0  Introduction	                                           ..

     1.1   Outdoor Air Quality	                              16

          1.1.1   What is the quality of outdoor air in the United States? 	  	.                        -] .7
          1.1.2   What contributes to outdoor air pollution?	                      i 10
          1.1.3   What human health effects are associated with outdoor air pollution? 	                1-23
          1.1.4   What ecological effects are associated with outdoor air pollution? 	     1.24
     1.2   Acid Deposition	                                         .  -  _ ,.

          1.2.1   What are the deposition rates of pollutants that cause acid rain? 	     1 _25
          1.2.2   What are the emissions of pollutants that form acid rain?	         -| _28
          1.2.3   What ecological effects are associated with acid deposition?	            -] .29
     1.3   Indoor Air Quality ...	.		                                   ,  7q

          1.3.1    What is the quality of the air in buildings in the United States?	1 _29
          1.3.2   What contributes to indoor air pollution?	                      1-31
          1.3.3   What human health effects are associated with indoor air pollution?	     1 _31
    1.4  Stratospheric Ozone	                                     1  ,~
         1.4.1    What are the trends in  the Earth's ozone layer?	      ^ _32
         1.4.2   What is causing changes to the ozone layer?	    .    1.34
         1.4.3    What human health effects are associated with stratospheric ozone depletion?	1.37
         1.4.4   What ecological effects are associated with stratospheric ozone depletion?	1-38
    1.5  Climate Change	                                           1^8

    1.6  Challenges and Data Gaps  	                                -, ™



 Chapter 2:  Purer Water
    2.0  Introduction	                                            _ ,

    2.1   Extent and  Use of Water Resources  	                      2-6

    2.2 Waters and Watersheds	                                                              -, a
                                                        	Z.-O
        2.2.1    What is. the condition of fresh surface waters and watersheds in the U.S.?	        2-8
        2.2.2    What are the extent and condition of wetlands?	  	2-13
        2.2.3    What is the condition of coastal waters?	                               2-18
        2.2.4    What are pressures to water quality?	                 	2 24
        2.2.5    What ecological effects  are associated with impaired waters?  	                 2-49
   2.3  Drinking Water	                 	2 5Q
        2.3.1   What is the quality of drinking water?	           2-50
        2.3.2   What are sources of drinking water contamination? 	              2-52
        2.3.3   What human health effects are associated with drinking contaminated water?	2-52


Table of Contents                                                                                              .

-------
_ .- „ ........... .. ........... ................... ..... 1 ....... .in, ..... iii... ... . ..I ......... i .......... .,) ....... .1 .......... . .'„, ........ ... M. ... ..... ............ ^»*:'?i$j .jg*fe • ^- ™J


    2.4  Recreation in and on the Water	• •	••	•     "   "   ;
         2.4.1   What is the condition of waters supporting recreational use?	r •;	• '    3 ,
         2.4.2   What are sources of recreational water pollution?  	;	• •	    A
         2.4.3   What human health effects are associated with recreation in contaminated waters? ?	.2-54
    2.5  Consumption of Fish and Shellfish 	\	-\-\	''  '   ;
         2.5.1   What is the condition of waters that support consumption offish and shellfish? ...;..;	2-56
         2.5.2   What are contaminants in fish and shellfish, and where do they originate?	;.	•	2-62
         2.5.3   What human health effects are associated with consuming contaminated fish and  shellfish?  	2-62
    2.6  Challenges and Data Gaps 	• •;	:2~  3



  Chapter 3:  Better Protected Land
    3.0   Introduction	•'	

    3.1   Land Use 	'	3"7
          3.1.1    What is the extent of developed lands?  	j	•3"^;
          3.1.2   What is the extent of farmlands?	•	•; • \	f/12.
          3.1.3   What is the extent of grasslands and shrublands?	>	" '    J^
          3.1.4   What is the extent of forest lands?  	r	• • >	' ^71
          3.1.5   What human health effects are associated with land use?  	\	3'21;
          3.1.6   What ecological effects are associated with land use? 		• -\	-y'21
     3.2  Chemicals in the Landscape  	•	 J. i	
          3.2.1   How much and what types of toxic substances are released into the environment?  .1	;	3-24
          3.2.2   What is the volume, distribution, and extent of pesticide use?	-	3-27
          3.2.3   What is the volume, distribution, and extent of fertilizer use?	3'29
           3.2.4   What is the potential disposition of chemicals from land?	i • f • •'	3~30
           3.2.5   What human health effects are associated with pesticides, fertilizers, and toxic substances?	3-37
           i.2.6   What ecological effects are associated with pesticides, fertilizers, and toxic substances?	3-38
     3.3  Waste and Contaminated Lands	• •;	' "3"39
           3.3.1    How much and what types of waste are generated and managed?	;	 .3-40
           3.3.2    What is the extent of land used for,waste management? ..,		• •;	• • -3"45
           3.3.3    What is the extent of contaminated lands?	'> •'•	....'.. .3-47
           3.3.4    What human health effects are associated with waste management and contaminated lands?  	3-50
           3.3.5    What ecological effects are associated with waste management and contaminated lands?   	3-51
     3.4  Challenges and Data Gaps	• •'	3"52



   Chapter 4:  Human Health                                                             . ,
     4.0  Introduction	H		4"3
     4.1   Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes	4-7

     4.2  Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World  	t	4-l1

     4.3  Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease	,	 .4-17
           4.3.1    What are the trends for life expectancy?  	•! • r	• •'•' '^"^
           4.3.2   What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma?4-19
           4.3.3   What are the trends for gastrointestinal illness?	:	- -	:•}••••	.• • A'25
           4.3.4   What are the trends for children's environmental health issues?	:. i.	• • -4-31
           4.3.5   What are the trends for emerging health effects?	;	' • I	• • • -4-38
                                                                                                   TaDle of Contents

-------
    4.4  Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends	4-42
         4.4.1   Biomonitoring indicators	;	             4-42
         4.4.2   Data sources for biomonitoring indicators	4.43
         4.4.3   What is the level of exposure to heavy metals?	4-44
         4.4.4   What is the level of exposure to cotinine?	       4.59
         4.4.5   What is the level of exposure to volatile organic compounds?	4-5T
         4.4.6   What is the level of exposure to pesticides?	'.	4.51
         4.4.7   What is the level of exposure to persistent organic pollutants?	4.53
         4.4.8   What are the trends in exposure to environmental pollutants for children?	4.55
         4.4.9   Pollutants for which biomonitoring data are not available	4.57
         4.4.10  Endocrine disruptors-an emerging issue 	4.59
    4.5   Assessing the Environmental Burden of Disease	4_60

    4.6   Challenges and Data Gaps	 „	    4-62



 Chapter 5:   Ecological Condition
    5.0   Introduction	                      5_3

    5.1   Links Between Stressors and Ecological Outcome: A Framework for Measuring Ecological Condition	5-7

    5.2   What is the Ecological Condition of Forests?	5.9

    5.3   What is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands?	5_25

    5.4   What is the Ecological Condition of Grasslands and Shrublands?	5.32

    5.5  What is the Ecological Condition of Urban and Suburban Areas?	5.37

    5.6  What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?	    .5.41

    5.7  What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans?	5.53

   5.8  What is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation?	5.54

   5.9  Challenges and Data Gaps	5.74



APPENDIX A:  Databases and Reports Supporting Major Clusters of Indicators Used in the Report with Links for
   Additional Information	A_1

APPENDIX B:  Indicator Metadata	 .B.-|

APPENDIX C:  Acronyms and Abbreviations	C_q

APPENDIX D:  Glossary of Terms	               D_i

APPENDIX E: References	            .E-1

APPENDIX F: Background and Chronology	F_1

APPENDIX G:  Indicator Quality Review Form	G-1

APPENDIX H:  EPA Draft Report on the Environment Expert Review Workshop Evaluation Form	H-l

APPENDIX I: Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators	|_1
Table of Contents
                                                                                                          in

-------
IV

-------
      Fref.
ace
      from trAs Science Advisor and

      Chief Information Officer

      The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been a world
      leader in developing and implementing solutions to the environ-
      mental problems in our air, water and land. Through the years,
      working together with other Federal Agencies we have built a
      significant body of science and knowledge that has influenced
      national and international public policy, and has raised our
      awareness of the value of our environment. Yet, even with the
      enormous wealth of understanding and information that we
      have today, there are still gaps in our ability to adequately mon-
      itor many key indicators in the cascades of events that link our
      efforts to protect the environment to the ultimate outcomes
      we seek: cleaner air, purer water, better protected land, and
      improved human health and ecological condition. To close
      that gap, we need both scientifically sound indicators and the
      national data to support them.

      With the publication of the EPA  Draft Report on the
      Environment, including this comprehensive Technical Document,
      EPA has launched a multi-year effort to improve the state of the
      science and  our knowledge of the state of the environment.
      This effort addresses indicators, monitoring data and models
      for better tracking the impacts of our activities on the environ-
      ment. This document includes indicators that EPA has moni-
      tored for many years, including ambient levels of pollutants in
      air, water and land. However, we recognize that protecting the
      environment ultimately is achieved in terms of human health
      and ecological condition, and these two chapters serve as
      anchors for the entire report.

      The last sections of each chapter of this report describe chal-
      lenges and data gaps associated with its particular subject area.
      Several general issues have emerged that we will address in the
      coming months and years.
     Shifting to an  Outcomes  Framework

     Identifying environmental "outcomes" such as better human
     health and ecological condition requires a significant shift in
     how the Agency frames questions and issues about environ-
                                                       mental quality. The first three chapters of this report; Cleaner
                                                       Air, Purer Water, and  Better Protected Land, ask questions that
                                                       tend to fo.llow traditional Agency efforts to prevent, control, or
                                                       remediate the effects of pollution.  For example:

                                                       H What is the quality of outdoor air in the United States?
                                                       II What are pressures to water quality?

                                                       H What is the extent of developed land?


                                                       The final two chapters on human health and ecological condi-
                                                       tion, ask questions about outcomes, for example:
                                                       II What are the trends for cancer?

                                                       HI What is the ecological condition of coasts and oceans?


                                                       To understand how EPA's mission affects these outcomes, both
                                                       directly and indirectly, requires indicators not only of pollutant
                                                       releases and ambient conditions, but indicators that span the
                                                       chain of events between the release of a pollutant, exposure of
                                                       people, plants and animals, and the chain of events from dose
                                                       to effects.  In the case of human health, factors such  as level of
                                                       health care, natural disease rates, and actual human exposures
                                                       must be factored into an indicator strategy.  For ecological
                                                       systems, indicators are needed that better track hydrology,
                                                       features of the landscape, natural disturbances, ecological.  ,
                                                       processes, and other factors that interact with pollutants to
                                                       ultimately determine  ecosystem condition.
                                                      Availability of Indicators
                                                      For a few of the questions in the report, indicators were
                                                      identified that are available at the national level.  More
                                                      frequently, however, we found that promising indicators have
                                                      been developed and measured for limited geographic areas, or
                                                      for a part of the causal chain.  Further exploration of the
                                                      relationship between measurements used for assessments and
                                                      measurements used for diagnosis of causal factors also is
                                                      needed. Development and testing of national indicators  has
                                                      been a high research priority for EPA's Office of Research and
                                                      Development.
Frefc
   •ace

-------

                                                                            ecnnica
                          fiaXak
                                                                         _1
    Availability of Data
     For each of the indicators, we attempted to gather data of
     sufficient qualify and coverage to support national reporting,
     both within and outside the Agency. Generally, the available
     data were too limited in place and time to describe national
     trends, or even to provide a national snapshot of conditions.
     Because the data from different organizations often serve a
     broad range of purposes, even when data are available
     nationally, gaps remain in the spatial, temporal and
     phenomenological coverage needed to track the outcomes
     of many of EPA's programs. Monitoring networks
     established to address specific issues must be better
     integrated through common definitions, designs, methods,
     and information systems.
(—ollaborating for the Future       ;
                                  I
With this draft as a starting point, we IpOk forward to
collaborating with federal and state agencies to promote
integrated and coherent approaches  ahd| mechanisms for
reporting on the state of the environment. Following the release
of this report, we will be working closely with scientists from
other federal and state agencies and  thejacademic community
to explore how best to improve our ability to measure and
assess environmental conditions.     ]  ;

We  invite all of our stakeholders to lend ;their creativity and
commitment in the months and years ahpd as they join us in
meeting Administrator Whitman's challenge to focus our
resources on the  areas of greatest concern and to manage our
work to achieve measurable results.   '  j                :
     Paul Gilman, Ph.D.
     Science Advisor and Assistant Administrator for Research and
     Development
Kimberly T. Nelson
Chief Information Officer and Assistant Administrator for
Environmental Information             !
VI
                                                                                                                      trerac

-------
 "Participant
 EPA's Science Advisor sincerely acknowledges the help and advice of all the individuals who assisted in developing the Report on the
 Environment Technical Document (TD) 2003 and the Report on the Environment (RQE) 2003.  In particular, the following individuals
 provided critical support:
 ROE Technical Document Leads
 Peter Preuss - ORD
 Denice Shaw - ORD
 Vivian Turner - ORD

 ROE Leads
 Michael Flynn - OEI
 Heather Case - OEI
 Reggie Cheatham - OEI

 EPA Contributors
 Susan Absher - OECA
 Suzanne Annand - OEI
 Tom Armitage - OW
 Deveraux Barnes - OSWER
 Thomas Barnwell (ORD) - Land TD Lead
 David Bayliss - ORD
 Joseph Bergstein - Region 2
 Eric Burman - OSWER
 Paul Bertram - Region 5
 Jeff Bigler - OW
 Patricia Bradley - ORD
 Barry Burgan - OW
 Rebecca Calderon (ORD) - Human Health TD Co-Lead
 Arden Calvert - OCFO
 Pat Childers - OAR
 Ed Chu - OA
 Paul Cocca - OW
 Mark Corbin - OPPTS
 Elizabeth Corr - OW
 Larry Cupitt - ORD
 Denise Cunningham - ORD
 llan Davidovici - OAR
 Wayne Davis - OEI
 Kathleen Deener - ORD
 Tom DeMoss - Region 3
 Fred Dimmick - OAR
 Ron Evans - OAR
 Elissa Feldman - OAR
 Elaine Francis - ORD
 Herman Gibb - ORD
 Chris Cillis - OPPTS
 Eric Ginsburg - OAR-
John Girman - OAR
Anne Grambsch - ORD
 Dave Guinnup - OAR
 Richard Haeuber - OAR
 Michael Hadrick (OAR) - Air TD Lead
 Christine Hartless - OPPTS
 Tom Helms - OAR
 James Hemby - OAR
 Brian Hill - ORD
.Michelle Hiller - OCIR
 Melanie Hoff-OSWER
 Rick Hoffman - OW
 Karen Hogan - ORD
 Joe Hogue - OPPTS
 David Hockey - OSWER
 Scott Ireland - OW
 Elizabeth Jackson - (OEI) ROE Water Lead
 Steve Jarboe - OPPTS
 Taylor Jarnigan-  ORD
 Jennifer Jinot - ORD
 Bruce Jones - ORD
 Marjorie Jones  (OW) - Water TD Lead
 Catherine Joseph - OPPTS
 D'nise Kaalund - OEI
 Karen  Keller - OSWER
 William Kepner - ORD              '
 Aparna Koppikar - ORD
 Charles Kovatch - OW
 Rashmi Lai - OE1
James Lazorchak - ORD
Jane Leggett - OAR
 Fred Leutner - OW
 Barbara Levinson - ORD
 Rick Linthurst - OEI
 Maricruz MaGowan - OSWER
 Deborah Mangis - ORD
 Karen Martin - OAR
Michael McDonald (ORD) - Ecological Condition TD Co-Lead
 Ron McHugh - OPPTS
 Dave McKee - OAR
 Hugh McKinnon - ORD
Dan Melamed - OSWER
Jay Messer (ORD) - Ecological Condition TD Co-Lead
Jennifer McLain - OW
Margree McRae - ORD
Lee Mulkey - ORD
Cindy Sonich-Mullen - ORD
Patricia Murphy - ORD
Tarticipants
                                                     VII

-------

Susan Offerdal - OECA
Tony Olsen - ORD
Jennifer Orme-Zaveleta - ORD
Betty Overton - ORD
Cynthia No!t-Helms - ORD
Dale Pahl - ORD
Doris Price - OAR
Steve Paulsen - ORD
Pasky Pascual- ORD
Jim Pendergast - OW
Dan Petersen - ORD
Jeff Peterson-OW
Michael Plastino - OW
liana Preuss - OPEI
Bruce Pumphrey - OECA
Ravi Rao - Region 4
Stig Regli - OW
Harvey Richmond - OAR
Mary Ross - OAR
Kevin Rosseel - OAR
William Russo - ORD
Vicki Sandiford - OAR
Keith Sargent- OPEI
Joel Scheraga - ORD
Dina Schreinemachers - ORD
                                      Henry Schuver - OSW
                                      Velu Senthill - OEI
                                      Ronald Shafer - (OEI) ROE Air Lead
                                      Heather Shoven- OPPT
                                      Terry Slonecker - ORD            \
                                      Ron Slotkin - ORD                  :
                                      Deborah Srnegal - (OEI) ROE Human Health Lead
                                      Jonathan Smith - ORD
                                      Elizabeth Smith - ORD              j
                                      Chuck Spooner - OW               ;'
                                      Susan Stone' - OAR                 j
                                      James T. Sullivan - OAR
                                      Kevin Summers - ORD
                                      Carol Terris - OPPTS              ;
                                      Sylvia Thomas - OEI
                                      Tim Torma - OPEI                ,  \
                                      Amy Vasu - OAR                 ,
                                      Doreen Vetter - OW
                                      David Vogler - Region 6
                                      James White - OAR
                                      Jim Wickharti -  ORD
                                      Mary Wigginton - ORD
                                      Glenn Williams - OPPTS
                                      Darrell Winner - ORD
                                      Louise Wise - OW                  !
                                      Hal Zenick (ORD) - Human Health TD Co-Lead
 El A  Regional Support
 Thomas Davanzo
 Alice Yeh
 John Armstead
 Cory Berish
 Cynthia Curtis
 William Rhea
 Richard Sumpter
 Gerard Bulanowski
 Nora McGee
 Jon Schweiss
Region-!
Region-2
Region-3
Region-4
Region-5
Region-6
Region-7
Region-8
Region-9
Region-10
 Viii
                                                                                 Tarticipants

-------
   External  Experts
  Peer Review of Indicators  (June 10-12,
  2002)
  Thomas Burke - The Johns Hopkins University, School of Public
    Health; Pew Commission Report
  Keith Harrison - Michigan Environmental Science Board
  Anthony Janetos - The H. John Heinz III Center for Science,
    Economics and the Environment
  Patrick Kinney -  Mailman School of Public Health/ Div Environ
    Health Sciences /Columbia University
  James Listorti - formerly The World Bank
  Robin O'Malley - The H. John Heinz III Center for Science,
    Economics and the Environment
  Ed Rankin  - Ohio University: formerly Ohio EPA
  Phil Singer - University of North Carolina
  William Steen - University of Georgia
  Roger Tankersley - Tennessee Valley Authority
  Robert VanDolah - Marine Resources Research Institute/ South
    Carolina Department of Natural Resources
  Bailus Walker - Howard University Hospital
  Chris Yoder - Ohio University: formerly Ohio EPA

  External Consultation (May 10, 2002)
  Thomas Burke - The Johns Hopkins University, School of Public
    Health
 John Godleski - Harvard School of Public Health
 Anthony Janetos  - World Resources Institute; currently with The H.
   John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment
  Daniel Markowitz - Malcolm Pirnie
 Robin O'Malley -  The H. John Heinz III Center for Science,
   Economics and the Environment
 Jonathan Patz - The Johns Hopkins University, School of Public
   Health
 James Pratt - Portland State University
 Thomas Sinks - Department of Health and Human Services/Centers
   for Disease Control and Prevention
 Terry Young - Environmental Defense .Fund

 NRC Consultation  (March 2002)
 David Policansky
 James Reisa
 Members of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
   Environmental Council of States (ECOS)
   State Indicators Workgroup
   Karen Atkinson - Texas
   Steve Brown - ECOS Executive Director
   Wendy Caperton - Oklahoma
   Christine Epstein - ECOS
   Joe Francis - Nebraska
   Keith Harrison - Michigan
   Linda Haynie - Texas
   Roger Kanerva - Illinois
   Edwin Levine - Florida
   Linda Mazur - California
   Linda McCarty - Missouri
   Leslie McCeorge - New Jersey
   George Meyer - Wisconsin
  Tim Mulholland - Wisconsin
  Arleen O'Donnell - Massachusetts
  Laura Pasquale - Florida
  Greg Pettit - Oregon
  Eileen Pierce - Wisconsin
  Dee Ragsdale - Washington
  Jon Sandoval - Idaho
  Jacqueline Schafer - Arizona
  Barbara Sexton - Pennsylvania
  Val Siebal - California
  Beth Vaughan - California
  Gordon Wegwart - Minnesota
  Clinton Whitney - California
  Bob Zimmerman - Delaware

  Federal  Agency Workgroup
  Alan Hecht - CEQ Lead
  Margot Anderson - Department of Energy
  Aclela Backiel - Department of Agriculture
  Ralph Cantral - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  Mark Delfs - Department of Agriculture
  George Dunlop - Department of Defense
_  Tyler Duvall - Department of Transportation
  Bill Effland  - Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources
   Conservation Service
 Beverly Getzen - Army Corps of Engineers
 Jimmy Glotfelty - Department of Energy
 James Hanson - Department of the Interior
 Theodore Heintz - Department of the Interior
 Woody Kessel - Department of Health and Human Services
 Linda Lawson - Department of Transportation
 Camille Mittleholtz - Department of Transportation
 Melinda Moore - Department of Health and Human Services/Centers
   for Disease Control and Prevention
Tarticipants
                                                                                                                  IX

-------

Contractor Technical jupport



Technology Planning and Management
Corporation (TPMC) & Perot Systems
Government Services (PSGS)


Ross and Associates Environmental

Consulting, Ltd.

Science Applications International

Corporation


FTN & Associates, Ltd.

Environmental Management Consulting


Eastern Research Group, Inc.


WESTAT

Independent Consultants and Editors
- Ellen Chu
- Anne Ruffner Edwards
- Barbara Shapiro
- June Taylor
                                                                     Participants

-------
  Introduction
  "When I leave office, I want to be able to say that America's air is cleaner,
  its water is purer, and its land better protected than it was when I arrived.
  As we seek to achieve this goal, EPA needs to be accountable for our
  stewardship."
  Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency

  In November 2001, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
  directed the Agency to bring together its national, regional and
  program office data to produce a report on the "state of the
  environment." The report would represent the first step of the
  Environmental Indicators Initiative, a multi-year process that would
  ultimately allow future EPA administrators to better measure and
  report on progress toward environmental and human health goals
  and to ensure the Agency's accountability to the public.

 To produce this report, EPA's Office of Research and Development
  (ORD) and Office of Environmental Information (OEI) led a
 collaborative effort to identify the key questions to be answered by
 the report, to identify an initial set of indicators, and to develop a
 process for reviewing and selecting the indicators and supporting
 data to be included in the final report. This task was accomplished
 thanks to the efforts of numerous EPA staff, representatives from
 other federal agencies, representatives from the states and tribes,
 and external advisors and reviewers. The indicators and supporting
 data used in this report were generated by EPA and other federal,
 state, tribal, regional, local, and non-governmental organizations. The
 Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the
 President was helpful throughout in coordinating interagency
 contributions to the project.

 EPA's Draft Report on the Environment (ROE) consists of this Technical
 Document and a version of the report for general reading. These
 reports pose national questions about the environment and human
 health  and answer those questions wherever scientifically sound
 indicators and high-quality supporting data are available. The reports
 both pose questions and present indicators related  to:
 • Cleaner Air
 • Purer Water
 • Better Protected Land                  :
 • Human Health
 • Ecological Condition

 This Draft Technical Document discusses the limitations of the
 currently available indicators and data, and the gaps and challenges
 that must be overcome to provide better answers in the future.

 For a few indicators, data are available that are truly representative of
the entire nation. For other indicators,  data currently are available for
only one region (such as the East Coast or the Northwest), but the
 indicator could obviously be applied nationally if the data were
 available. Based on the availability of supporting data, indicators
 that were selected and  included in this report were assigned to one
 of two categories:
 •I Category 1 -The indicator has been peer reviewed and is
   supported by national level data coverage for more than one time
   period.  The supporting data are comparable across the nation
   and are characterized by sound collection methodologies, data
   management systems, and quality assurance procedures.
 • Category 2 -The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the
   supporting data are available only for part of the nation (e.g.,
   multi-state regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been
   measured for more than one time period, or not all the parameters
   of the indicator have been measured (e.g., data has been collected
   for birds, but not for plants or insects). The supporting data are
   comparable across the areas covered, and are characterized by
   sound collection methodologies, data management systems, and
   quality assurance procedures.

 This report is part of EPA's continuing effort to identify, improve,
 and utilize environmental indicators in its planning, management,
 and public reporting. EPA's specific strategies and performance
 targets to protect human health and the environment are presented
 in the Agency's strategic and annual plans. These planning and
 performance documents, together with the questions, indicators
 and data presented in these reports, will allow EPA to better define
 and measure  the status and trends in environment and .health, and
 to better measure the effectiveness of its programs and activities.

 This technical report is a draft, intended to elicit comments and
 suggestions on the approach and findings. To learn more about
 EPA's Draft Report on the Environment and the Environmental
 Indicators Initiative, and to provide comments and feedback, please
visit .
Introduction
                                                                                                                             XI

-------

-------


  «   ,   .       „ *
f*?"   **   ^    4itfJ-i,^'
tf|^fe'lSfc

 l"'''t           1* •"—••   ^^
                           ff'S      V*  !
                       ,  ft*-" Trf*  *»  W-
                      »Jfr5"  *h  *AW^-W

                    1   v  W*i  ^**3

-------
indicators that were selected and included in this chapter were assigned to one oi[two categories: •
• Category 1 -The indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by nationallevel data coverage for more than one time period.
The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are characterized by^sound collection methodologies, data management
systems, and quality assurance procedures. i !
• Category 2 -The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data ai|e available only for part of the nation (e.g., multi-state
regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for more than
-------
1.0 Introduction
In 1970, Congress responded to concern over visible air pollution,
irritating smog, and associated health and ecological effects by
enacting the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). As a result, total national
emissions of the six criteria air pollutants decreased by 25 percent
between 1970 and 2001. Emissions of air toxics have declined as
well, dropping 24 percent between 1990 and 1993 (the baseline
period) and 1996. One of the major components of acid rain, wet
sulfate deposition, has also decreased substantially (EPA, OAQPS,
September 2002).

These improvements occurred during a time of significant growth in
the nation's population and economy: from 1970 to 2001, the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) increased by 161 percent, the number of
people increased from about 203 million to more than 280 million,
energy consumption increased by 42 percent, and vehicle miles
traveled increased by 149 percent (Exhibit 1 -1) (EPA, OAQPS,
September 2002).
txnibit 1-1: Comparison of growth measures and
1970-2001
emission
trends
200
olSO
r^
OS
.1—

, *100
! ° SO
-so
>'*"
161%
49%
-25%
70 80 90 95 96 97
.iSource: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National
i Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002.

Despite progress toward cleaner air, in 2001 more than 133 million
people lived in counties where monitored air qualify was unhealthy
at times because of high levels of at least one criteria air pollutant
(EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Even after decades of regulation
and emissions control, certain air quality problems persist. In
particular, ozone and particulate matter are the criteria pollutants
most often found' at levels above national health-based standards.
Outdoor air is not the nation's only air quality concern. The levels
of pollutants in the air inside homes, schools, and other buildings
can be higher than in the outdoor air. Uncertainty remains about
levels of indoor air pollutants, such as radon and environmental
tobacco smoke.

Changes to stratospheric ozone levels are also concerns. The
stratospheric ozone layer has become substantially thinner in recent
decades, although scientists generally believe it will recover over the
next several decades as a result of international controls (Scientific
Assessment Panel, 2003).

This chapter summarizes the current status and trends in air quality,
the pressures affecting air quality, and information regarding human
health and ecological effects. It poses fundamental questions about
air quality, contributors to pollution, and health and ecological
effects, and it uses indicators drawn from well-reviewed data sources
to help answer those questions. Exhibit 1 -2 lists these questions
and indicators, as well as the number of the chapter section where
each indicator is presented.

The chapter is divided into six main sections:
• Section 1.1 discusses the quality of outdoor air.
H Section 1.2 provides information about acid deposition.
Hi Section 1.3 examines the quality of air inside homes, schools, and
other buildings.
Bl Section 1.4 focuses on stratospheric ozone.
H Section 1.5 briefly addresses climate change research plans.
• Section 1.6 reviews the challenges and data gaps that remain in
assessing the nation's air quality.
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
1.0 Introduction
1-3
-------

*»«'( "I""
Chapter 1: Cleaner Air - Question^ and Indicators

Outdoor Air Quality r
IT-
Acid Deposition
What are the deposition rates of pollutants that cause
acid rain?
What are the emissions of pollutants that form acid rain?
What ecological effects are associated with
acid deposition?
Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen
Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Ecological Condition chapter

BilllillllM illilBlllllllllililllillfPlw' !• •llllillllllill •••••••••ItlMIPHMBBl
What is the quality of outdoor air in the United States?
(See also following four questions)
- How many people are living in areas with particulate matter
and ozone levels above the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)?
- What are the concentrations of some criteria air
pollutants: PM^, PM, 0, ozone, and lead?
- What arc the impacts of air pollution on visibility in
national parks and other protected lands?
- What are the concentrations of toxic air pollutants in
ambient air?
Wjiat contributes to outdoor air pollution?
(See also following three questions)
- What are contributors to particulate matter,
ozone, and lead in ambient air?
- What are contributors to toxic air pollutants in
ambient air?
- To what extent is U.S. air quality the result of pollution
from other countries, and to what extent does U.S. air
pollution affect other countries?
What human health effects are associated with
outdoor air pollution?
What ecological effects are associated with outdoor
air pollution?
Number and percentage of clays that metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs) have Air Quality Index (AQI) values
greater than 100 ,
Number of people living in areas with air quality levels ,
above the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) and ozone
Ambient concentrations of particulate matter: PM2.s and
PM10 '
Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-hour and 1 -hour
Ambient concentrations of lead '.
Visibility
Ambient concentrations of selected air toxics :
See emissions indicators j '
Emissions: particulate matter (PM2.s and PM10) •
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
volatile organic compounds
Lead emissions ,
Air toxics emissions j
No' Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
No Category 1 or 2 indicsitors identified
Also see Human Health chapter
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Ecological Condition chapter
.

2
1
1
1
1
1
2

2
2
2

1.1.1
1.1.1.3
1.1. l.b
1 .1 .1 .b j
1.1. 1.b
1.1. l.c
1.1. l.d
1.1.2
1.1.2.a
1.1.2.3
1 .1 .2.b
1.1 .2.c
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1-4
1.0 Introduction
IQInapter 1 - CJeaner Air
-------
Chapter I: Cleaner Air - Questions and Indicators (continued)
Indoor Air Quality
What is the quality of the air in buildings in the United States?
U.S. homes above EPA's radon action levels
Percentage of homes where young children are
exposed to environmental tobacco smoke
1.3.1
1.3.1
What contributes to indoor air pollution?
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Human Health chapter
What human health effects are associated with
indoor air pollution?
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Human Health chapter
Stratospheric O.
zone
What are the trends in the Earth's ozone layer?
Ozone levels over North America
1.4.1
What is causing changes to the ozone layer?
Worldwide and U.S. production of ozone-depleting
substances (ODSs)
Concentrations of ozone-depleting substances (effective
equivalent chlorine)
1.4.2
1.4.2
What human health effects are associated
with stratospheric ozone depletion?
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
1.4.3
What ecological effects are associated with stratospheric
ozone depletion?
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
1.4.4
Cnapter I - Cleaner Air
1.0 Introduction
1-5
-------
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality

Among the pollutants affecting outdoor air quality are:
• Criteria pollutants-ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide
(CO), and lead.
• Air toxics-pollutants such as mercury and benzene.

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA and states collect data on the six crite-
ria air pollutants to measure compliance with National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NMQS) (Exhibit 1-3). "Primary" NAAQS are set
to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and "sec-
ondary" NAAQS protect against adverse welfare effects (e.g., effects
on vegetation, ecosystems, visibility, manmade materials) (42 U.S.C.
7408 and 7409). After initially adopting NAAQS for each of the cri-
teria air pollutants in the 1970s, EPA has periodically reviewed and
sometimes revised the standards. EPA recently revised the health-
based standard for ozone and added a new standard for fine PM2.s
based on new health studies (EPA, 2003; EPA, 1997).

Criteria air pollutants are monitored through the National Air
Monitoring Stations/State or Local Air Monitoring Stations network.
This network consists of more than 5,000 monitors operating at
3,000 sites across the country, mostly in urban areas (EPA, OAQPS,
September 2002). Measurements are taken on both a daily and
continuous basis to assess both peak concentrations and overall
trends, and are reported in the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS)
database. In addition to other uses, EPA analyzes these air quality
measurements to designate areas as either attainment or nonattain-
ment for specific criteria air pollutants '(i.je., determines if air quality
levels in an area violate the NAAQS).

While air quality data on criteria air pollutants are ample, national
data on air toxics concentrations are limited. Several metropolitan
areas measure ambient air toxics concentrations, but there are few
standards by which to evaluate levels of Concern. In addition,
cumulative or synergistic impacts of various air pollutants are not
well understood.

Visibility is another outdoor air concern.; Some data on this aspect of
air quality are available from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, which collects data to
characterize! visibility at national parks arid other protected areas.

This section addresses the following specific questions about
outdoor air quality:
• What is the quality of outdoor air ih the United States? (Section
1.1.1) ;
A How many people are living in areajs with particulate matter and
ozone levels above the NAAQS? i
i i -
Exnitit 1-3: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in effect as of February 2003
CO

NO2

PM,0
8-hourb
1 -hourb

Maximum Quarterly Average

Annual Arithmetic Mean
9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
No Secondary Standard
No Secondary Standard
r"-~ - —T* r
1.5 pg/rn^

0.053 ppm (100 pg/m3)
Same as Primary Standard
ry i
S02
Maximum Daily 1 -hour Averagec
4th Maximum Dailyd 8-hour Average

Annual Arithmetic Mean
24-houre
Annual Arithmetic Mean^
24-hourS

Annual Arithmetic Mean
24-hourb :
'"O.'li'ppm (235 pg/m3)
0.08 ppm (157 pg/m3)
Same as Primary Standard

Ija'me as Primary Standard
Ijame'as Primary Standard
50 pg/m3
150 pg/m3
15 pg/m3
65 |Jg/m3
Siame as Primary Standard
Same as Primary Standard ^
Same as Primary Standard
Sfame as Primary Standard
0.03 ppm (80 MgAn3)
0.14 ppm (365 pg/m3)
I
rf
d Three,year average of the innual 4th h.ghest daily niax.mum '8-hour concentrat.on
e The short-term (24-hour) standard of ISO pg/m3 is not to be exceeded more than
on average over three years (
f Spatially averaged over devgnated monitors
l value h an approximately equivalent concentration. (See
40 CFR Part SO).
b Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
c The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calen-
dar yew with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm g The form is the 98th perccntile
0, equal to or less than one, as determined according to Appendix H of
the Ofoat NAAQS.
Source: Based on EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. National Air Quality and Em&sions Trends Report, 1999 March 2001
I

_ t _-t.

once per year
1-6
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
; Chapter I - Cleaner Air
-------
A What are the concentrations of some criteria air pollutants:
PM2 5, PM10, ozone, and lead?
A What are the impacts of air pollution on visibility in national
parks and other protected lands?
A What are the concentrations of toxic air pollutants in
ambient air?
• What contributes to outdoor air pollution? (Section 1.1.2)
A What are contributors to particulate matter, ozone, and lead
in ambient air?
A What are contributors to toxic air pollutants in ambient air?
A To what extent is U.S. air quality the result of pollution from
other countries, and to what extent does U.S. air pollution
affect other countries?
I What human health effects are associated with outdoor air
pollution? (Section 1.1.3)
I What ecological effects are associate^ with outdoor air pollution?
(Section 1.1.4)
Indicator
Number and percentage of days that metropolitan statistical
areas (MSAs) have Air Quality Index (AQI) values greater
than 100
The nation's air quality has generally improved, as indicated by
trends derived by averaging the direct measurements from the
nation's criteria air pollutant monitoring stations on a yearly basis. In
general, air pollution concentrations are declining, and overall air
quality is improving (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).
Most areas of the U.S. now have concentrations of NO2, SO2, CO,
and lead that are below the level of the NAAQS (EPA, OAQPS,
September 2002). However, ozone levels are above the level of the
standard in many heavily populated areas, including many of the
urban areas in the eastern half of the U.S. and in most of the urban
areas in California (EPA, OAQPS, March 2001). Concentrations of
PM2.S—particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diame-
ter—are above the level of the standard in much of the eastern U.S.
and parts of California (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).

It is important to recognize that while the national trend is toward
cleaner air, regional and local conditions can vary quite greatly.
This report focuses on national status and trends, but regional and
local conditions should be evaluated as well, with the goal of under-
standing regional air quality conditions and trends and improving air
quality in those areas where air quality does not meet the standards.

A number of indicators, described on the following pages, help
to answer the questions posed in this section about outdoor
air quality:
ffl Number and percentage of days that Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (MSAs) have Air Quality Index (AQI) values greater
than 100
81 Number of people living in areas with air quality levels above the
NAAQS for particulate matter and ozone
il Ambient concentrations of particulate matter: PM2S and PM10
•I Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-hour and 1 -hour
ii! Ambient concentrations of lead
H Visibility
• Ambient concentrations of selected air toxics
• Emissions of particulate matter (PM2 5 and PM10), sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds
H Lead emissions
H Air toxics emissions
Cnapter 1 - Cleaner Air
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
1-7
-------
_____, ,_| i , i ir - ,-:-.-|.-T-. , nmr i-i-r"'-rr In ir I 'II-i 1 in- -"i-7 'Hfi"!™ ""'liiimniii. mill liiliil«»»gamiMl»l|lW«:Mm
Number and percentage of days tnat metropolitan
Index (AQI) values greater ^
One measure of outdoor air quality is the daily AQI, which is
based on concentrations of five of the criteria air pollutants:
ozone, PM, CO, SO2, and NO2. The AQI indicates how clean or
polluted the air is and the associated health concerns. It focuses
on the health effects that can occur within a few hours or days
after breathing polluted air. AQI data are compiled by state and
local agencies and must be reported in metropolitan statistical
areas (MSAs) with populations of more than 350,000 (EPA,
OAQPS, March 2001).

AQI values range from 0 to 500, with higher numbers indicating
more air pollution and more potential risk to public health. An AQI
value of 100 generally corresponds to the short-term public
health standard set by EPA for a particular pollutant. Values below
100 are generally thought of as satisfactory. However, unusually
sensitive individuals may experience health effects when AQI val-
ues are between 50 and 100. Values above 100 suggest increas-
ingly unhealthy air, sensitive population groups, such as children,
the elderly, and those With respiratory illnesses, are likely to be
among the first affected as the values increase.

The AQI scale is divided into six categories, each, color-coded to
correspond to a different level of health concern. For example,
• The color green is associated with "good" air quality or an AQI
from 0 to SO.
• Yellow or "moderate"—51 to 100.
II Orange or "unhealthy for sensitive groups"—101 to 150.
• Red or "unhealthy"—151 to 200.
• Purple or "very unhealthy"—201 to 300. _._
• Maroon or "hazardous"—301 to 500. AQI
values over 300 would trigger health warn-
ings of emergency conditions for the entire '-
population (EPA, OAQPS, March 2001). :
The highest AQI value for an individual pollu-
tant becomes the AQI value for that area for
that particular day. For example, if on a day a
certain area had AQI values of 150 for ozone
and 120 for PM, the AQI value would be 150
for the pollutant ozone on that day. However,
for all pollutants above 100, the appropriate
sensitive groups would be cautioned. Ozone
levels most often drive the AQI, but experts
anticipate that PM2.s will also be a key driver
of the AQI in coming years.

The AQI is useful in communicating to the
public the air quality in a specific area on a
given day and the potential health effects and
statisl ical areas
actions to avoid exposure and reduce harfnful impacts. Nationally,
the number and percentage of days with ^Ql values of more than
100 gives a sense of the number of days that are potentially
unhealthy for sensitive populations.
i
What the Data Show ;
I r
This indicator is the annual sum of the Intjmber of days, and per-
centage of days, with AQI values above IpO across all MSAs with
a population greater than 500,000. To assess trends, the number
of days is adjusted to reflect changes in air quality standards or
criteria for the number of MSAs reporting.

Between 1988 and 2001, the number of jdays with an AQI of 100
or greater decreased from approximately ,3,300 days to approxi-
mately 1,000 days. In 1989 and after, the number of days with an
AQI of 100 or greater ranged between 1 ;000 and 2,000. Based
on EPA AQI data, the percentage of days! across the country with
AQI values .ibove 100 dropped from aimpst 10 percent in 1988
to 3 percent in 2001 (Exhibit 1 -4) (EPA^ OAQPS, December
1998; EPA, OAQPS, 2001). i

indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following:
9 The data for this indicator are associated with large MSAs only
(500,000 people or more); therefore! the data tend to reflect
urban air quality.
5 1
,.,. h
Exhibit 1-4: Number and percentage of days with Air Quality Index
I (AQl)Jeater than 100,1988-2001
I
Number: of Days
Percent|of Total Days
•3
Note: Data are for MSAs > 500,000 [w^ ;••••" _ ,
Source- Data useS to create graphic aff Sawn from EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning a'nd "Standards.
National Air Quality and Emissions Trenmeporl, ^97. Table A-15. December, 1998; EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Air trepfis: 'Metropolitan area trends, Table A-17, 2001. (February 25,
1-8
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
'Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
-------

Numbg^d pereentage of (Jays tliat m
Index: (AQl) values greater than 100- Category 2 (continued1) ',.
_—__—_i___ •"••"—"""'^'^i'»i>««»^~""«=''"^^
This composite AQl indicator does not identify the pollutants
of concern-that is, it does not show which pollutant(s) are
causing the days with an AQl of more than 100, or which
ones have decreased and are responsible for an improvement
in the AQl.
This composite AQl indicator does not show which areas, or
how many areas, have problems-a specific number of days
could reflect a few areas with persistent problems or many
areas with occasional problems.
Data Source

The data sources for this indicator were "Air Trends: Metropolitan
area trends," Table A-17, EPA, 2001, and National Air Quality and
Emissions Trends Report, 1997, Table A-15, EPA, 1998. (See
Appendix B, page B-2, for more information.)
In 2001, more than 133 million Americans (of a total population
of 281 million) lived in counties where monitored outdoor air quality
was unhealthy at times because of high levels (levels above the
NAAQS) of at least one criteria air pollutant (EPA, OAQPS,
September 2002). Ozone and PM remain the most persistent
criteria pollutants.
Indicator
Number of people living in areas with air quality levels above
the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) and ozone
Number of people living in areas witk air quality levels above trie NAAQS for
particulate matter (fAAT and ozone-Category I

The number of people living in areas above the level of the health-
based NAAQS gives some indication of the number of people
potentially exposed to unhealthy air.

What the Data Show

Despite trends of decreasing concentrations of criteria pollutants,
many people still live in areas with air quality levels above the
health-based standards for ozone and PM. In 2001, 11.1 million
people lived in counties with air quality concentrations that at
times were above the NAAQS for PM10, and 72.7 million people
lived in counties with air quality concentrations above the stan-
dard for PM2.5- Some 40.2 million people lived in counties with
concentrations that at times were above the 1 -hour ozone stan-
dard, and 110.3 million people lived in counties with concentra-
tions above the 8-hour ozone standard (Exhibit 1 -5) (EPA,
OAQPS, September 2002).

indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following:
B The indicator helps in understanding the number of people
potentially affected by air quality problems, but it does not tell
the actual number of people exposed to unhealthy air. Not all
counties have complete monitoring data, so some areas may be
excluded. However, the areas of most concern are likely covered.
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
1-9
-------
Indicator
Number of people living in areas with air quality levels a|p/e the NAAQS for
participate matter (PM) and ozone - Category 1
Exhibit 1-5: People living in areas with air quality
above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)in2001
Nitrogen
Dioxide °
Ozone

Sulfur Dioxide rj.007
Particulate
Matter (Si Opro)
Particulate
Matter (S2,5(im)
Carbon „
Monoxide |j °-7
Lead

Any
NAAQS
• The indicator does not tell the amount; or extent to which dif-
ferent areas exceed the standards, and |so does not provide any
specific exposure data.

Data Sources ;

The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National
Air Quality: 2,001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B,
page B-3, for more information.)
SO TOO
Millions of People
ISO"
Source; EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National
Mr Quality; 2001 Stalin and Trends. September 2002.
Indicators
Ambient concentrations of particulate matter PM2.s and PM-|0
Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-hour and 1 -hour
Ambient concentrations of lead
reductions in SO2, CO, and lead levels (Exhibit 1 -6) (EPA, OAQPS,
September 2002). However, PM2.s and ozone concentrations are
above the NAAQS in many areas, potentially exposing a significant
percentage of the U.S. population to unhealthy air (EPA, OAQPS,
September 2002). i ;
j
The data for national levels of criteria pollutants tell only part of the
story. Although significant improvements; have been occurring
nationally and regionally, some areas still have chronic air quality
problems. The Northeast, for example, experiences frequent and
widespread violations of the ozone heaUjh-based standard
(Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, 2002).
Three indicators, presented on the following pages, are available to
help answer this question: ambient concentrations of particulate
matter, ambient concentrations of ozone (8-hour and 1 -hour), and
ambient concentrations of lead. Concentrations of the criteria air
pollutants have decreased over the past 2 decades, with substantial
1-10
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
-------
Ti
-100%
Jg
u
-60%
-40%
-20%
Exhibit 1-6: Percent reduction in concentration of six criteria air pollutants
regulated under the Clean Air Act, 1982-2001
Particulate
Matter
(PM10>
Ozone
(1-hour)
Ozone
(8-hour)
^^

e^^er 2002.

ient concentrations of particulate matter^f'AA^
an
- C
Particulate matter concentrations are a good indication of air
quality health effects, because of concerns about associated
respiratory effects. This indicator is based on the annual average
concentrations, in micrograms per cubic meter ((Jg/rn3) of PM2 s
and PM10. PM10 refers to particles 10 micrometers or less in
diameter, and PM2.S refers to particles less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers in diameter.

Trends in PM10 are presented from 1992 to 2001, and compara-
ble PM2 s data have been collected since 1999 (EPA, OAQPS,
September 2002).

What the Data Show

Concentrations of PM10 decreased by 14 percent between 1992
and 2001 (Exhibit 1 -7), and are below the NAAQS standard
concentration in most areas. Concentrations of PM2.5 are above
the level of the annual standard in much of the eastern U.S. and
parts of California (Exhibit 1 -8) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).
Annual average PM2.S concentrations are generally higher in the
eastern U.S. than in the West, mostly because sulfate COncentta-
tions are four to five times higher in the eastern U.S. (largely due
to coal-fired power plants) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2001).
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
eo
-•ib 40
tf .-=>.
Ft 30
2
'7
-------
^ - ,BMa^^

Ambient concentrations of particulate matter: PM2 5
\
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following (EPA, OAQPS,
September 2002):
• Ten-year trend data for PM10 are not available before 1990,
because total suspended particulates, which include particle
sizes larger than PM10, were monitored until 1990.
• The monitoring is conducted mostly in urban areas,
although the PM2.S data from the IMPROVE network support
assessments of rural trends from 1992 to 1999.
Data Source

The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National
Air Quality: 2007 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B,
page B-3, for more information.)
Exhibit 1-8:2001 annual average particulate matter ff/W.s) concentrations
Mkrograms per Cubic Meter (Mg/m3)
• >20
B15-20
B12-1S
B Do not meet minimum data completeness.
Minimum 1 1 samples per calendar quarter required.
D Data unavailable.

PM2.5 Standard (annual arithmetic mean) is 1 5 pg/m3
ber 200
Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National Air Qual.ty. 20^Status and T««h September 2002 ^

1-12
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
-------
Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-nour
Ozone is one of six criteria pollutants regularly monitored under
the CM to determine compliance with health-based standards.
This indicator reflects ambient concentrations in parts per million
(ppm) of ground- level ozone from 1982 to 2001, based on
1 -hour and 8-hour measurements to gauge shorter-term and
longer-term levels.

The 1 -hour standard is useful in measuring potential effects
during short-term "spikes" in concentrations. The longer 8-hour
standard is used in evaluating exposures occurring over a more
sustained period of time (e.g., an outdoor worker's exposure
over the course of a work day).

What the Data Show

Although ozone concentrations are generally decreasing, they
are higher than the NAAQS in many areas. Ground-level ozone
concentrations fell by 11 percent between 1982 and 2001,
based on the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average (Exhibit 1-9). Ozone levels based on the annual second
highest daily maximum 1 -hour standard fell by 18 percent during
the same time (Exhibit 1 -10). All regions experienced some
improvement in 8-hour ozone levels during the past 20 years
except the north central region (EPA Region 7), which showed
little change (Exhibit 1 -11) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).
j" Exhibit 1-9: Ozone air quality, 1Q82-20O1
fj cased On annual Utri maximum 8-ric
it- 0.20, : __
i maximum 8-hour average
;;§- o.i s
j \o_ .
£ 0.-10
is
0.05
0.00
90% of sites have concentrations below this line
1 0% of sites have concentrations below this line
82 83 84 SS 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
01.
1982-01: 11% decrease
1992-01: 'o% change
Coverage: 379 monitoring sites nationwide with sufficient data to assess trends.
Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Litest Findings on National
: Air Quality. 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002.
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
and l-nour - Category 1
a^£"J*i~jlli-8"s""*i!^^

indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following:
HI Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is
formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the presence of heat and
sunlight, particularly in hot summer weather. To assess ozone
trends, VOC and NOX emissions and meteorological
information are also evaluated. •
II The monitoring is conducted mostly in urban areas;
therefore, data may not accurately encompass rural impacts
from ozone transport.

Data Source

Jhe data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National
Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B,
page B-3, for more information.)
- Exhibit I-1O: Ozone air quality, I982-20OI
. baser] on annual 2nd maximum I-hour average
90% of sites have concentrations below this line
1 0% of sites have concentrations below this line
.'82.8.3.84 85,86.87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 0 }~
1982-01: 18%. decrease
1992-01 3% decrease,
~ Coverage: 379 monitoring sites nationwide with sufficient data to assess trends.
- Source EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National
2001 Status and Trends September 2002.
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
1-13
-------
Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-nour and 1-hour -iCftegory \_(continued) ;
Exhibit 1-H: Trends in ozone levels (8-Kour), 1Q82-2OO1, awraged across EPA regions
.112 -
.090
072151 fc* join.
^-
C3 EPA Region 10
CU EPA Region 9
C3 EPA Region 8
EH EPA Region 7
O EPA Region 6
E9 EPA Region 5
C3 EPA Region 4
C3 EPA Region 3
"* EPA Region 2 '" ' ""
E3 EPA Region 1
Based on annual 4th maximum 8-hour average
The National Trend
.092 ^ .082
1982 2001
f-11%
T.
Concentrations are in ppm
r. AUdui level* are included in EPA region 10 averages; Hawaii levels are included in EPA region 9 averages; and Puerto Rico levels are Included in EPA regt
Note:
2 averages
Source-. EPA, Offlce of Air Qualify Planning and Standards, latest Findings on National Air Quality: 20& Status and Trends. September 20ol
1-14
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
-------
lent concentrations of leaa - y-ategory 1
•,; •; " 1
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in
manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have
historically been motor vehicles and industrial sources. Due to
the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metals processing is the major
source of lead emissions to the air today. The highest air
concentrations of lead are usually found in the vicinity of
smelters and battery manufacturers. Lead is a criteria and toxic
air pollutant with significant health effects, as described in
Chapter 4, Human Health.
Exhibit 1-12: Lead air quality, 1982-2001
Cased on annual maximum quarterly average
0.0
82 83 84 8.5 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
1982-01: 94% decrease
1992-01: 25% decrease

Coverage: 39 monitoring sites nationwide with sufficient data to assess trends.

Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards^ Latest Findings on National
Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002. ~ '
What the Data Show

This indicator shows ambient lead concentrations measured in
ug/m3 per year from 1982 to 2001. Lead levels decreased by 94
percent in those years, largely because of regulations reducing the
lead content in gasoline (Exhibit 1 -12) (EPA, OAQPS, September
2002). The most significant decline in ambient lead levels began
in the late 1970s and continued through the early 1980s.
Outdoor lead levels are below the NAAQS for most areas of the
U.S. (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following:
i) Ambient lead monitoring is conducted mostly in urban areas,
so it may not accurately encompass rural concentrations.
SI This indicator would be very useful in conjunction with
indicators of lead concentration in indoor air, drinking water,
and soil to portray a broad picture of potential sources of
lead exposure.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National
Air Quality: ,2001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B,
page B-4, for more information.)
Indicator
Visibility
Visibility is a measure of aesthetic value and the ability to enjoy sce-
nic vistas, but it also can be an indicator of general air quality. PM is
the major contributor to reduced visibility, and high humidity levels
worsen the effects of pollution on visibility. The Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network
collects data to characterize visibility in protected lands. IMPROVE
was established in 1987 to:
H Determine the type of pollutants primarily responsible for
reduced visibility in protected areas.
ij Assess progress toward the Clean Air Act's national goal of
remedying existing and preventing future visibility impairment.

The indicator below presents data from the IMPROVE network on
visibility trends for national parks and other protected lands.
C-napter I - (Jeaner Air
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
1-15
-------
r n-pi1
ndicator
Visibility - C-ategory 1
"71
This indicator presents visibility trends for U.S. national parks and
wilderness areas in the eastern and western U.S. by mean visual
range, as measured in km for 1992 to 1999 and 1990 to 1999,
respectively, by worst, mid-range, and best visibiliiy. Under the
Clean Air Act, a Class I area is one in which visibility is protected
more stringently than under the NMQS, including national parks,
wilderness areas, monuments, and other areas of special national
and cultural significance.

What the Data Show

Data collected by the IMPROVE network show that visibility for
the worst visibility days in the West is similar to days with the best
visibility in the East (Exhibit 1 -13). In 1999, the mean visual range
for the worst days in the East was only 24 km (14.9 miles) com-
pared to 84 km (S2.2 miles) for the best visibility. In the West,
visibility impairment for the worst days remained relatively
unchanged over the 1990s, with the mean visual range for 1999
(80 km or 49.7 miles) nearly the same as the 1990 level (86 km
or S3.4 miles). Without the effects of pollution, a natural visual
range in the U.S. is approximately 75 to 150 km (47 to 93 miles)
in the East and 200 to 300 km (124 to 186 miles) in the West
(EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations
! I

Limitations of this indicator include the following:
• The indicator compares trends within .yisibility range categories,
but it would also be useful to indicate; how often visibility falls
into each range during a year. • ; ,
H The data represent only a samplingjof national park and
wilderness areas; nevertheless, this indicator provides a good
picture of the impact of air pollution 9n the nation's parks and
protected areas. As of 2001, the network monitored 110 sites.

Data Source :

The data source for this indicator wasltdtest Findings on National
Air Quality: 2007 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B,
page B-4, for more information.) ;
!

rxnioit 1-13: Visibility trends for U.S. Class I areas
Western U.S., 1990-1999
[Eastern U.S., 1992
] I

-iUs

•s 200
&.

1 '00
s
50
n
Best Visibility
^-4 * * »--*--« * ^
Mid-Range
1 • • "• • * * »
~ A A "A~ A A A -T*— ^_
Worst Visibility

, — i
— 1

— a

Best visibility
range is 1 77-208 km

Mid-range visibility
is 118-1 33 km
•3 ^ Worst visibility
range is 73-85 km
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Year
200
ISO]
1
100:
SO;
— 1

, 1
i
i .1
— i 'A Best Visibility ,
Mid -Range

k Worst Vrsibilitv
.Jill
i : -

r
:i

Best visibility
; range is 79-90 km
Mid-range visibility
I is 42-48 km
*• Worst visibility
range is 20-23 km
92
r
94 95 96
Year
97
8 99
Notes Under the Clean Air Act, a Class I area is one in which visibility is protected more stringently than und?(r the National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), including national parks,
wildernciurcjs, monuments, and other areas of special national and cultural significance. ^ , | J
Source: ERA, Office of Atr Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status"and Trends. September 2002.
1-16
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
Chapter 1 - CJeaner Air
-------

Indicator
Ambient concentrations of selected air toxics
Air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants, are pollutants that
may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproduc-
tive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental and ecological
effects. The Clean Air Act identifies 188 air toxics; some common
ones are perchloroethylene (from dry cleaners), mercury (from coal
combustion), methylene chloride (from consumer products such as
paint strippers), and benzene and 1,3-butadiene (from gasoline).
EPA does not set health-based standards for these pollutants;
instead, the Clean Air Act mandates a two-phased approach. In the
first phase, EPA establishes standards for source categories (major
sources, area sources, and mobile sources). In the second phase, EPA
assesses how well the standards are reducing health and environmen-
tal risks, and based on these assessments, determines what further
actions are necessary to address any significant remaining, or resid-
ual, health or environmental risks.

No formal monitoring network for air toxics currently exists, but sev-
eral metropolitan areas do maintain monitoring programs. Data from
these areas provide the basis for an air toxics indicator. Metropolitan
areas with air toxics data generally show downward trends (EPA,
OAQPS, September 2002). However, although data and tools for
assessing risks from air toxics are limited, available evidence suggests
that emissions of air toxics may still pose significant health risks in
many areas throughout the U.S. (EPA, OAR, September 2002). In
addition to ambient concentrations of air toxics, an issue of particu-
lar concern is the deposition of toxic air pollutants to surface water-
bodies. A pollutant of particular concern is mercury, which accumu-
lates in fish tissue and in humans after they ingest contaminated fish
(see Chapter 2, Purer Water; and Chapter 5, Ecological Condition).
Ambient concentrations of selectedi air toxics-Category 2
This indicator reflects data about annual average ambient concen-
trations of four selected air toxics, in ug/m^, derived from moni-
toring sites with sufficient trend data from 1994 to 1999.
Selected air toxics are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, total suspended
lead, and perchloroethylene (EPA, OAQPS, March 2001).

What the Data Show

Ambient concentrations of the selected air toxics—benzene,
1,3-butadiene, total suspended lead, and perchlorethylene
generally declined between 1994 and 1999, based on the annual
average from the reporting sites (EPA, OAQPS, March 2001).
The lead concentration level is well below the NAAQS standard
(see Section 1.1.1 .b in this chapter). Benzene levels, measured at
95 urban monitoring sites, decreased 47 percent from 1994 to
2000 (Exhibit 1 -14) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following:
• Information is limited because no formal network is currently
in place for monitoring-ambient concentrations of air toxics;
however, EPA and states are working to establish a national
toxics monitoring network.
• The indicator reflects trends for selected air toxics, but not for
all 188 toxic air pollutants identified under the CAA.
• More information is available for lead than for the other three
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
selected air toxics. Monitoring stations with sufficient trend
data for the other three compounds tend to be concentrated in
California, the Great Lakes, southern Texas, and the Northeast.

Data Sources

The data sources for this indicator were Latest Findings on National
Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002, and National Air
Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA, 2001. (See
Appendix B, page B-4, for more information.)
txhibit I-W: Ambient benzene, annual average urban
;:_;__ concentrations, nationwide, I994-20OO
90% of sites have concentrations below this li
10% of sites have concentrations below this lin
94
95
99
00
,._,.. : 96 37 : 98
*-'_':" 1994-00:47% decrease ~f
JT Courage: 95 monitoring sites nationwide with sufficient data to assess trends. *
JKoufce: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Finding, on National *
f-$,r Quality: 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002. J
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
1-17
-------

Anthropogenic sources of air pollution range from "stationary
sources" such as factories, power plants, agricultural facilities, and
smelters, to smaller "area sources" such as dry cleaners and degreas-
ing operations, to "mobile sources" such as cars, buses, planes,
trucks, trains, construction equipment, and lawn mowers. Naturally
occurring sources such as wind-blown dust, volcanoes, and wildfires
add to the total air pollution burden and may be significant on local
and regional scales.

Most of the six criteria air pollutants show declining emissions since
1982. But as reported in Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001
Status and Trends, emissions of NOX, a contributor to ozone, PM,
and acid rain formation, increased by nine percent between 1982
and 2001, with a slight decrease (three percent) between 1992 and
2001 (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). A significant amount of that
increase is attributed to growth in emissions from non-road engines,
including construction and recreation equipment and diesel vehicles.
EPA continuously reviews and improves estimates of pollutant emis-
sions. Emissions estimates for criteria pollutants are currently under
such evaluation and may be updated.
Indicators
Emissions:'[particulate matter (PN/h.s and PMio), sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds
. [L . . . . .... . | .,( . .:.:. ... .
Lead emissions
Two indicators are available to help answer this question:
• Emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dibxide, nitrogen oxide, and .
volatile organic compounds. ;
B Emissions of lead. ;

Particulate matter can be emitted directly jar formed in the atmos-
phere. "Primary" particles, such as dustfr6m roads and elemental
carbon (soot) from wood combustion, ad emitted directly into the
atmosphere. "Secondary" particles are fotjmed in the atmosphere
from primary gaseous emissions. Example^ include sulfates, formed
from SO2 emissions from power plants an|d industrial facilities, and
nitrates, formed from NOX emissions from power plants, automo-
biles, and other types of combustion sources. The chemical composi-
tion of particles depends on factors such as location, time of year,
and weather. ', *
i : '
The VOCs contributing to ozone formation are emitted from motor
vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories, consumer and commer-
cial product; such as paints and strippers, and other industrial
sources. Nitrogen oxides, also an ozone precursor, are emitted prima-
rily from vehicles, power plants, and other combustion sources.
Smelters and battery manufacturers are the largest sources of lead in
outdoor air.: I j,
1-18
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
(piapter 1 - Cleaner Air
-------
Emissions: particulate matter
organic compounds- (Category 2
ancj fV\Aj0)> sulfur dioxide, nitrbgen^oxides, and : volatile
This indicator includes the following data:
• Direct PM emissions are measured in thousands of short tons
per year. PMW emissions are presented from 1985 to 2001;
emissions of PM2 5 from 1992 to 2001.
• Emissions of NOX, and SO2 presented from 1982 to 2001.
Emissions of NOX, contribute to nitrogen loading on land and
in water directly and as runoff from land. NOX, is also a precur-
sor of ground-level ozone. Sulfates and nitrates, formed by
emissions of SO2 and NOX, contribute to acid deposition,
which can have significant impacts on aquatic life (see
Chapter 2, Purer Water).
• Emissions of VOCs, also precursors of ground-level ozone.
These emissions, presented from 1982 to 2001, are measured
in thousands of short tons per year.

What the Data Show

Direct emissions of PM10 fell by 13 percent between 1992 and
2001 (Exhibit 1 -IS). Emissions of direct PM2.5 also fell,
decreasing by 10 percent between 1992 and 2001 (Exhibit
1 -16). Sulfur dioxide emissions also decreased by 25 percent
between 1982 and 2001 and by 24 percent between 1992 and
2001 (Exhibit 1 -17). However, emissions of NOX increased by
9 percent between 1982 and 2001 and decreased by 3 percent
between 1992 and 2001 (Exhibit 1-18) (EPA, OAQPS,
September 2002). VOC emissions decreased by 16 percent
from 1982 to 2001 and by 8 percent from 1992 to 2001
(Exhibit 1-19) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following:
• The emissions indicators are estimates; however, consistent esti-
mation methods can provide useful trend data.
B The methodology for estimating emissions is continually
reviewed and is subject to revision. EPA is currently conducting
such an evaluation of emissions data, and emissions estimates
may be updated. Trend data prior to these revisions must be
considered in the context of those changes.
Data Source

The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National
Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B,
page B-5 for more information.)
•;; Exhibit 1-15: Direct particulate matter (FAAio) emissions,
1985-2001
r" 7,000.

S^; 6,000

ft] 5,000
^T~O
'~£ 4,000;
r-^G-"
'•! 3,000
•jcr
;-l- '
F 2,000!

nv.'i ,000.
- Emission
trends
_ data not
available.
In 1985, EPA refined.its methods for estimating emissions.
• Transportation
H Industrial Processes
D Fuel Combustion
82
85
T 1 r-
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
1992-01: 137o decrease
'f,_ Source: EPA, Office of Air Qualify Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National :
/ity: 2007 Status and Trends. September 2002.
•r:;E>cnibit 1-16: Direct particulate matter
T 1992-2001
emissions,
;;. o
"£-
-T3
2,500 ,

2,000 I

1,500

1,000

500

H Transportation
El Industrial Processes
D Fuel Combustion
92 93 94 95 96 97 98
1 992-01: 10% decrease
99
00
01
i Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National
Air Qualify: 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002.
CJiapter 1 - Cleaner Air
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
1-19
-------
Emissions: parfciculate matter (FAA0 c and f AA,n), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile
I 1 f~* i.O l\ l\J D| l| D, I IT
organic compounds - L.ategory 2 Icontinued;
ibit 1-17: Sulfur dioxide (SC^) emissions, 1982-2001

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000
: 1-18: Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions,
In 1985, EPA refined its methods for estimating emissions.
In 1 98S, EPA refined its methods for estimating emissions
Transportation
Dl Industrial Processes
D Fuel Combustion
Miscellaneous
Industrial Processes
D Fuel Combustion
82
85 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
1982-01: 25% decrease
1992-01: 24% decrease
92 93 94 95 9~6 97 98 99*00 Of
;.:. 1982-01: 9% increase
lT I 1*992-01: 3%decrease
9 , *., < j . . t
Sources EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest findings on National S Source: EPA, O Ffice of Air Quality Pfannmg and Standards Latest Findings on National
Af QMS%: 2001 Status anil Trends. September 2002. !* Air Quality. 20m Status and Trends. September 2002.
Exhibit 1-19: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
emissions, 1982-2001 ;
30,000r
! In 1985, EPA refined its methods for estimating emissions.
5,000
I Miscellaneous
I Transportation
I Industrial Processes
I Fuel Combustion
82
85
1982-01 ::167o decrease
1992-01: 8% decrease

Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest fmai
Air Quality. 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002.
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
1-20
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
Chapter 1 - CJeaner Air
-------
Lead Emissions - Category 2
- •^•»"««aE''''a»i*-^i^-^^
This indicator is lead emissions from 1982 to 2001, measured in
short tons per year.

What the Data Show

Lead emissions decreased by 93 percent from 1982 to 2001 and
by 5 percent from 1992 to 2001 (Exhibit 1 -20) (EPA, OAQPS,
September 2002). The transportation sector, particularly automo-
tive sources, used to be the major source of lead emissions. The
phase-out of lead in gasoline resulted in great declines in lead
emissions from the transportation sector over the past 2 decades.
Today, industrial processes, primarily metals processing, are the
major source of lead emissions to the atmosphere.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following:
• The indicator does not present actual emissions data; thus, it
has the inherent limitations of estimates. However, consistent
estimation methods can provide useful trend data.
H Estimation is necessary for mobile sources and several area-
. wide sources.
B The methodology for estimating emissions is continually
reviewed and is subject to revision. Trend data for years prior to
revisions must be considered in the context of those changes.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was Latest Findings on National
Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B,
page B-5, for more information.)
Exhibit I-2O: Lead emissions, 1982-2001
•:-.-" 80,000 I
In 1985, EPA refined its methods for estimating emissions.
If
6.0,000
Eg
gfer
40,000
20,000
• Transportation
3 Industrial'Processes
it Fuel Combustion
82
85
ii i " i i i i i i
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
1 982-01: 93% decrease
FSburce: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National "'
SfJ&irSualiiy. 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002.
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
1-21
-------

Vwww
^

Indicator
Air toxics emissions
An indicator for air toxics emissions is available to help address this
question. The Clean Air Act identifies 188 air toxics. EPA estimates
that more than SO percent of air toxics emissions come from vehicles
and other mobile sources such as aircraft, locomotives, and con-
struction equipment (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Other major
sources include industrial facilities and area sources such as small dry
cleaners and gas stations. Emissions of benzene, come from cars,
trucks, oil refineries, and chemical processes. Mercury emissions
come from ccial combustion and waste ihcjneration and can travel
thousands of miles before being deposited in water or on land (see
Chapter 2, Purer Water). Some air toxics are also released from natu-
ral sources such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires.
1. , i ~lililiSiii|iii
ndfcatof
Air toxics emissions - Category 2
This indicator is national air toxics emissions, in million of tons per
year, between the 1990-1993 baseline period and 1996. EPA
compiles an air toxics inventory, as part of the National Emissions
Inventory, which focuses on four sectors—large industrial sources,
smaller industrial and natural sources, on-road mobile sources,
and non-road mobile sources.

What the Data Show

Estimates show a 24 percent reduction in nationwide air toxics
emissions between the baseline period (1990-1993) and 1996—
a reduction from 6.11 million to 4.67 million tons per year
(Exhibit 1 -21) (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).

indicator Caps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following:
• Air toxics emissions estimates are currently available for only
1990 to 1993 (a mix of years depending on data availability on
various source types) and 1996.
• The emissions data are based on estimates that are not avail-
able on an annual basis.
• The indicator is an aggregate number; actual changes vary
among the toxic air pollutants and also vary from one part of
the country to another.
Data Source ;
I i . -
The data source for this indicator was latest Findings on National
Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA,; 2002. (See Appendix B,
page B-6, for more information.) '
„[* , . -i ' .1 i, { "- k-
Exhibit l'-21: National air toxics emissions, 1990-1993,
T 1996 (total for 188 toxic air pollutants)
£
1
• [53 Urban Air Toxics
155 Other Air Toxics
Baseline
| ,, (1990-1993)
1996
fepurce: EPA, Jjffjce of Air *Qualit| Planning and Standards latest Findings on National
f'Air Quality: 2(ioi Status and Trends September 20Q2
fcl^-L-'il *»'«! "" U.**, "- ! )> I -i* * ' ^ !— ".,
1-22
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
-------
Air pollution does not recognize political boundaries: ozone and PM,
for example, can be transported hundreds or thousands of miles,
depending on weather conditions, including wind speeds. Canada
and the U.S. have jointly studied ground-level ozone occurrence and
transport in eastern North America. Eight-hour ozone measurements
for 1988 and 1995 from eastern Canada and the eastern U.S.
demonstrate how ozone travels in both directions across the U.S.-
Canadian border. The data suggested that ozone was being trans-
ported from urban to non-urban areas.

The U.S.-Canada Air Quality Committee studied the relative contri-
bution of sources in each country to the ozone precursors-NOx and
VOCs. According to the report, "anthropogenic sources of NOX
emissions in the U.S. are ten times larger, and VOC emissions are 7
times larger in magnitude than in Canada, paralleling the relative
population ratio between the 2countries." The study also showed
that wind speed can significantly affect ozone transport between the
two countries. At low wind speed (<3 meters per second), ozone
concentrations were high over major metropolitan areas or close to
the sources. At intermediate wind speeds (3 to 6 meters per sec-
ond), overall concentrations were lower and ozone was transported
up to 500 km downwind. At higher wind speeds, higher concentra-
tions were in downwind corners up to 1,000 km away (U.S.-Canada
Air Quality Committee, March 1999).

Transboundary air pollution issues are not limited to North America,
as demonstrated in the discussion of stratospheric ozone depletion
(see Section 1.4 in this chapter). More recently, the U.N.
Environment Programme suggested that the so-called Asian Brown
Cloud, a 2-mile-thick blanket of pollution over part of South Asia,
could travel halfway around the globe in a week (CNN, 2002).

No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address
the issue of transboundary air pollution.
Outdoor air pollution can cause a variety of adverse health effects.
Exposure to air pollution can result in short-term health effects and
can also contribute to or aggravate chronic conditions. One such
condition is asthma, the leading chronic illness of children in the
U.S. and a leading cause of school absenteeism. In 2000, asthma
caused 465,000 hospitalizations and about 4,500 deaths in the
U.S. (CDC, 2003). Other chronic conditions to which air pollution
can contribute include lung cancer, asthma, respiratory disease, and
cardiovascular disease.

Some of the criteria pollutants, including ozone, NO2, and SO2, are
associated primarily with respiratory-related effects, including
aggravation of asthma and other respiratory diseases and irritation
of the lung and respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, chest pain, diffi-
culty breathing) (EPA, ORD, 1982,1986, August 1993, 1994).
Carbon monoxide, on the other hand, primarily affects people with
cardiovascular disease by reducing oxygen in the blood, leading to
aggravation of angina (EPA, ORD, NCEA, 2000).

Short-term exposure to ozone has been linked to lung inflammation
and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (EPA,
ORD, NCEA, July 1996). Repeated short-term exposures to ozone
may damage children's developing lungs and may lead to reduced
lung function later in life; long-term exposures to high ozone levels
are a possible cause of increased incidence of asthma in children
engaged in outdoor sports (McConnell, et al., 2002). Efforts to
control automobile traffic in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer
Olympic Games were associated with a 28 percent reduction in peak
daily ozone concentrations during the Games and a significantly
lower rate of childhood asthma events (Friedman, et al., 2001).

When EPA introduced a new 8-hour ozone ambient standard in
1997, it estimated that meeting the standard would reduce the risk
of significant decreases in children's lung functions (such as difficulty
in breathing or shortness of breath) by about 1 million incidences
per year and would result in thousands of fewer hospital admissions
and visits for people with asthma (EPA, OAQPS, July 1997).

Exposure to airborne particulate matter is associated with a broader
range of health problems, including respiratory-related and cardio-
vascular effects. For example, short-term exposures to PM may
aggravate asthma and bronchitis and have been associated with
heartbeat irregularities and heart attacks. PM exposures have been
linked to increased school absences and lost work days, hospital
admissions and emergency room visits, and even death from heart
and lung diseases (EPA, ORD, NCEA, April 1996). Long-term expo-
sures have also been linked to deaths from heart and lung diseases,
including lung cancer (EPA, ORD, NCEA, 2002; Pope, et al., 2002).

When EPA established new PM2.5 standards in 1997, it estimated
that meeting the standard would save about 15,000 lives each year,
especially among the elderly and those with existing heart and lung
diseases. The Agency said the new standard would reduce hospital
admissions by thousands each year; reduce risk of symptoms
associated with chronic bronchitis by tens of thousands each year;
and avoid hundreds of thousands of incidences of asthma each year
(EPA, OAQPS, July 1997).
Cnapter 1 - Cleaner Air
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
1-23
-------

B
Lead, both a criteria pollutant and a toxic air pollutant, has signifi-
cant health effects. Elevated blood lead levels are associated with
behavioral problems, neurological effects, and lowered IQ (EPA,
OAQPS, September 2002), The decrease in the average level of
lead in children's blood reflects declines in ambient lead levels by
93 percent from 1982 to 2001 —largely the result of regulations
reducing lead content in gasoline (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).

Toxic or hazardous air pollutants may cause many other less com-
mon but potentially hazardous health effects, including cancer and
damage to the immune system, and neurological, reproductive, and
developmental problems. Acute exposure to some air toxics can
cause immediate death. Many of these pollutants can cause serious
health damages even at relatively low concentrations. National
emission standards have been established for eight of the 188 listed
hazardous air pollutants: asbestos, mercury, beryllium, benzene,
vinyl chloride, arsenic, radionuclides, and coke oven emissions.

The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, a nationwide analysis of
air toxics, develops health risk estimates for 33 toxic air pollutants
using computer modeling of the 1996 National Emissions Inventory
air toxics data. Based on the assessment, chromium, benzene, and
formaldehyde appear to pose the greatest nationwide carcinogenic
risk (EPA, OAR, September 2002). Benzene exposure has been linked
to increases in the risk of leukemia and multiple myeloma (EPA,
OAQPS, July 199S).

No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address
the health effects associated with outdoor air pollution. For
additional discussion of air pollution and associated health effects,
see Chapter 4, Human Health.

Outdoor air not only has the potential to affect human health, but
also transports pollutants and deposits them onto soils or surface
waters. There, the pollutants can cause ecological effects and
damage to property. Ground-level ozone damages plants and crops.
It interferes with the ability of plants to produce and store food,
reducing overall plant health and the ability to grow and reproduce.
The weakened plants are more susceptible to harsh weather, disease,
and pests. Through its effects on plants, ozone also can pose risks
to ecological functions such as water movement, mineral nutrient
cycling, and habitats for various animal and plant species (see
Chapter 5, Ecological Condition).

Airborne nitrogen species (including the criteria pollutants NO2 and
particulate nitrate) can contribute to excess nitrogen levels in
ecosystems. These excess nitrogen levels can result in:
• Changes in plant and soil community spjscies diversity.
• Altered community structure. !
• Eutrophication in surface and coastal waters.
• Acidified soils and waters (see Chapter 2, Purer Water).

Airborne sulfur species (including the criteria pollutants SO2 and
particulate sulfate) can also contribute excfess sulfur to ecosystems,
which can lead to acidification of the soils iand related effects. When
deposited together, airborne nitrogen and !sulfur species are known
as acid deposition. (See the discussion of pcid deposition in Section
1.2 of this chapter.)

Land and water can be contaminated by deposition of air toxics,
leading to contamination of plants and anijmals and, eventually, of
humans further up the food chain. Airbornje mercury from incinera-
tion, for example, can settle in water and cbntaminate fish (see
Chapter 2, Purer Water). People who eat fjsh are then exposed to
mercury, which is known to be harmful to the nervous system.
j
No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address
the ecological effects associated with outdoor air pollution.
Additional dis.cussion of the ecological effects associated with
outdoor air pollution is found in Chapter 5, Ecological Condition.
1-24
1.1 Outdoor Air Quality
(_napter 1 - (Jeaner /\ir
-------
1.2 Acid Deposition

Sulfur dioxide and NOX emissions in the atmosphere react with
water, oxygen, and oxidants to form acidic components, also referred
to as acid deposition or "acid rain." Air contaminants can be
deposited on land or water through precipitation (wet deposition) or
directly by dry deposition. Wet acid deposition is monitored by the
National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network,
a cooperative program of federal and state agencies, universities,
electric utilities, and other industries. Dry deposition is measured by
the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), operated by
EPA and the National Park Service.
The acidity in precipitation in the eastern U.S. is at least twice as
high as in pre-industrial times (EPA, ORD, January 2003). To reduce
emissions of SO2 and NOX, EPA established the Acid Rain Program
under the Clean Air Act. This program focuses on the largest and
highest-emitting coal-fired power plants, which are significant con-
tributors to acid deposition.

This section addresses the following questions:
• What are the deposition rates of pollutants that cause acid rain?
(Section 1.2.1)
• What are the emissions of pollutants that form acid rain?
(Section 1.2.2)
• What ecological effects are associated with acid deposition?
(Section 1.2.3)
Indicators
Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen
Efforts to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions from
power plants have helped to significantly reduce wet sulfate deposi-
tion and to contain increases in nitrogen deposition. Wet sulfate
deposition levels for 1999 to 2001 showed reductions of 20 to 30
percent compared to levels for 1989 to 1991 over widespread areas
in the Midwest and the Northeast, where acid rain has had its great-
est impact. Nitrogen deposition levels showed no major changes.
Although NOX emissions from power plants decreased, nitrogen
emissions from sources other than power plants (e.g., motor vehicles,
non-road vehicles, and agricultural activities) increased between
1990 and 2001 (EPA, OAR, November 2002).

Deposition of wet sulfate and wet nitrogen is the indicator used to
address this question.
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
1.2 Acid Deposition
1-25
-------
Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen - Category 2 f
Measures of wet sulfate and wet nitrogen deposition in kilograms
per hectare (kg/ha), are a key indicator of acid deposition.

What the Data Show

Wet sulfate decreased substantially throughout the Midwest and
Northeast between 1989-1991 and 1999-2001 (Exhibit 1 -22).
By 2001, wet sulfate deposition had decreased more than 8
kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) from 30-40 kg/ha/year in 1990 in
much of the Ohio River Valley and northeastern U.S. The greatest
reductions occurred in the mid-Appalachian region (EPA, OAR,
November 2002). ;

There were no dramatic regional changes in wet nitrogen
deposition beitween 1989-1991 and 19p9J-2001 (Exhibit 1-23).
Since 1990, nitrogen deposition decreased slightly in areas of
the eastern U.S., while increases occurred;in some areas with
significant agricultural activity (e.g., the PJains Snd coastal North
Carolina) or substantial mobile source emissions (e.g., southern
California). (tiPA, OAR, November 2002).(
Exhibit 1-22: Wet sulfate deposition, 1989-1991 v£ 1999-2001
C«H»t«! 250 National Atmospterie Deposition Program National Trends Network (NApP/NTN) monrtor^fatioTToTated throughout"!
Nate: Mjp colon represent relative concentrations and do not imply ecological or human health status y [ (
Source; EPA. Offite of A» and R^iatipn, Clean Air Markets ^ogja^

Exhibit 1-23: Wet nitrogen deposition, l989-1991^s. 1999-2001
--H
CoviMge 1250 National Atmospheric Deposittan Pro^am'National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) monitonrr^ .stations located throughout the lojJer 48 sta'tes
Note; Map colors represent relative concentrations and do not imply ecological or human health status
Source: EPA, Office of Air Jnd Radiation, Clean Air Markets Program. EPA Acid Rain Program: 2001 Progress Report November 2002
1-26
1.2 Acid Deposition
Chapter i - Cleaner Air
-------
Deposition; wet sulfate ;and wet nitrogen - Category 2 Idontinuea)
Wet and dry sulfur deposition make up roughly the same percent-
ages of total sulfur deposition in the Midwest, whereas, in most
other areas, wet deposition makes up a greater percentage of the
total. Wet deposition also makes up most of the total nitrogen
deposition load at the majority of the monitoring sites in the
eastern U.S. In southern California, dry deposition makes up a
greater percentage of the total (Exhibit 1 -24).

Using National Atmospheric Deposition Program data, a U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) report on sustainable forests
observed that annual wet sulfate deposition decreased significant-
ly between 1994 and 2000, especially in the North and South
Resource Planning Act regions, where deposition was the highest.
Nitrate deposition rates were lowest in the Pacific and Rocky
Mountain regions, where approximately 84 percent of the regions
experienced deposition rates of less than 4.2 pounds per acre
(4.8kg/ha) per year. Only 2 percent of the sites in the eastern
U.S. received less than that amount (USDA, FS, 2002).

indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following:
• Geographic coverage is limited for measuring wet deposition
and even more so for measuring dry deposition. Additional
monitoring sites for both in coastal areas in the Southeast
would support improved measurement of nitrogen deposition
to estuaries. Additional dry deposition monitoring would
provide a better understanding of acid deposition in the Ohio
Valley and Central and Rocky Mountain areas.
B Measurement techniques for dry deposition have improved
substantially, but still lag behind operational wet deposition
techniques.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was EPA Acid Rain Program:
2001 Progress Report, EPA, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-6,
for more information.)
Exnibit 1-24: Total sulfur and total.nitrogen deposition, 2001
Sulfur
Nitrogen
•I WatS
Days
Coverage: 70 Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) monitoring stations concentrated in the eastern half of the lower 48 states.
Note: The size of the "pies" indicates the totalmagnitude of deposition; the colors indicate the percentage of wet and dry deposition,
Source:EPA,OfficeofAirandRadiation,CleanAirMarketsProgram.£JDAAcrdrRamFrograra:200I Progress Report November 2002.
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
1.2 Acid Deposition
1-27
-------
Indicators
Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
Acid deposition occurs when emissions of SC>2 and NOX in the
atmosphere react with water, oxygen, and oxidants to form acidic
compounds. Electric utility plants that burh fossil fuels are a
significant source of SO2 and NOX and monitor their emissions
continuously. NOX is also emitted from other high-temperature
combustion sources, including automobiles.

The indicator used to address this questiop is emissions of sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides from utilities. !

Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides - C
Category 2
jfe
This indicator is millions of tons of NOX and SO2 emissions from
sources covered under the Acid Rain Program from 1990 to 2001
and 1980 to 2001, respectively. These emissions data are an
important component of a market-based trading program to
reduce emissions and consequent impacts on the environment.

What the Data Show

SOj emissions from sources covered under the Acid Rain Program
were 10.6 million tons in 2001, compared to 15.7 million tons in
1990. Emissions of NOX from these sources declined from 6.7
million tons in 1990 to 4.7 million tons in 2001 (Exhibit 1 -25)
(EPA, OAR, June 2002).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations
;•• i i '
Limitations of this indicator include the fojlowing:
• Although electric utilities and large boilers are key sources of
SC>2 and NOX, they are not the only sources. It is estimated
that about 64 percent of annual SO2! emissions and 26 percent
of NOX emissions are produced by eleqtric utility plants that
burn fossil fuels (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).
• Information on mobile source emissions i$ particularly useful for
completing the picture of NOX contributions to acid deposition.
t i
i i
Data Source

The data source for this indicator was EPA Acid Rain Program:
2007 Progress Report, Appendices A and 61, EPA, 2002. (See
Appendix B, page B-6, for more information.)
Exhibit 1-25: Power plant sulfur dioxide (SO2), 1980-2001, and
nitrogen oxides (NOx), 1990-20C&1, emissions
1980

Soutee EPA, Office of Aif and Radiation, Clean Air Markets Program. EPA Add Rain Program: 2001 Progress Repo •( November 2002 Appendix A Acid Rain Program Year 2001
SO2 Allowance Holdings and Deductions. (April 8,2003; http://www.epa.goy/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp01/arjpend
Affected Units. (April 8, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/atrmarkets/crriprpt/arp01/appenclixbl.pdf).
(o pdf) and Appendix Bl 2001 Compliance Results for NOx
1-28
1.2 Acid Deposition
Criapter 1 - Cleaner Air
-------

Increased acid levels damage soils, lakes, and streams, rendering
some waterbodies unfit for certain fish and wildlife species. Indirect
effects of acid deposition are also responsible for damage to forest
ecosystems (see Chapter 5, Ecological Condition). Acidic ions in the
soil displace calcium and other nutrients from plant roots, inhibiting
growth. Acidic deposition can also mobilize toxic amounts of
aluminum, increasing its availability for uptake by plants and by fish
and other aquatic life (EPA, OAR, November 2002).

The nitrogen in acid rain adds to the total loading of nitrogen in water-
bodies. As coastal ecosystems become overly rich in nitrogen, conditions
favor more frequent and more severe emergence of algal blooms, which
deplete oxygen, harming fish and reducing plant and animal diversity
(see Chapter 2, Purer Water).

A recent report assessing deposition-related changes in surface
water chemistry in the northern and eastern U.S. found that the
Clean Air Act has resulted in a large and widespread decrease in the
deposition of sulfur by approximately 40 percent in the 1990s. In
the same period, surface water sulfate concentrations declined in all
regions except the Ridge and Blue Ridge provinces (Virginia). Acid
.neutralizing capacity (ANC), -a key indicator of recovery, increased in
three of the regions (Adirondacks, Northern Appalachian Plateau
and Upper Midwest) and was unchanged in the New England and
the Ridge/Blue Ridge region. Modest increases in ANC have reduced
the number of acidic lakes and stream segments in some regions:

• In the Adirondacks, 8.1 percent of lakes (ISO lakes) were acidic in
2000. In the early 1990s, 13 percent (240 lakes) were acidic.

• In the Upper Midwest, an estimated 80 of 250 lakes that were acidic
in the mid-1980s are no longer acidic.

• In the Northern Appalachian Plateau region in 2000, there were an
estimated 3,393 kilometers (2,104 miles) of acidic streams in the
region, or 7.9 percent of the total population; this compares to 5,014
kilometers (3,109 miles) of acidic streams (12 percent) in 1993-94.

• There was no evidence of recovery in New England, or in the Ridge
and Blue Ridge Provinces; the latter region is no't expected to recover
immediately, due to the nature of forest soils in the province.

• In the three regions showing recovery, approximately one-third of
formerly acidic surface waters are no longer acidic, although still
subject to episodes of acidification.

• Nitrogen deposition levels changed little between 1989 and 2001,
and surface water nitrate concentrations are largely unchanged as well.
Nitrogen deposition remains a concern, because future increases in
surface water nitrate concentrations could retard surface water
recovery (EPA, ORD, January 2003).

No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address the
ecological effects associated with acid deposition.
I.3 Indoor Air Quality

People in the U.S. spend 90 percent of their time indoors, and
indoor air pollutant levels may exceed those allowable outside.
Radon and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) are the two indoor
air pollutants of greatest concern from a health perspective (EPA,
ORD, December 1992; NRC, 1988).

Although methods to monitor and measure indoor air quality (IAQ)
exist, there is no practical way to assess the general quality of indoor
air nationwide. There are millions of residences, thousands of work-
places, and more than a hundred thousand schools in the U.S., and
representative samples are not practical because of cost and access
issues. This section, therefore, presents indoor air quality data from
limited studies, not from ongoing monitoring efforts.

This section addresses the following questions:
• What is the quality of the air in buildings in the United States?
(Section 1.3.1)
• What contributes to indoor air pollution? (Section 1.3.2)
• What human health effects are associated with indoor air
pollution? (Section 1.3.3)
. • -, 1a|Y««!j'|*s^;,ir;^j;gE^j|i=K;5ai;ji| i&^^fci3iaf«^&testi8»»Sii|!SiiS
; in pu ndrnjpy jf: J|j^;;jyi||||^4Bt4si^^
Indicators
U.S. homes above EPA's radon action levels
Percentage of homes where young children are exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke
While it is difficult to make general statements about the quality of
indoor air nationwide, two studies-the National Residential Radon
Survey and an analysis of ETS exposure based on data from the
National Health Interview Survey-offer important insights. These
studies provide data about residential levels of radon and ETS,
presented in the description of two indicators on the following pages.

In addition, several studies have attempted to characterize environ-
mental issues inside office buildings and schools. The Building
Assessment Survey and Evaluation (BASE) study, conducted from
1994 to 1998, is a study of office IAQ. The study was designed
with input from more than 40 national IAQ experts and reviewed by
the EPA Science Advisory Board. The consensus of these national
experts was that a sample of 100 to 200 office buildings would be
sufficient to characterize the central tendency of IAQ in office
buildings nationwide.

Limited information about IAQ in schools is available from a 1999
survey of about 900 public schools by the National Center for
Education Statistics. This survey addressed concerns related to
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
1.3 Indoor Air Quality
1-29
-------
environmental conditions, defined as lighting, heating, ventilation,
IAQ, acoustics or noise control, and physical security of buildings. In
all, 43 percent of schools responded that at least one environmental
condition was unsatisfactory. Ventilation was the most often cited
environmental issue of concern (DOE, NCES, 2000).

In addition to the indoor pollutants discussed above, pesticides
also may pose IAQ concerns. Approximately three-quarters of U.S.
households use at least one pesticide product indoors during the
course of a year. Products used most often are insecticides and
disinfectants. The EPA Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study
(NOPES), published in 1990, assessed exposure to airborne pesti-
cides in Jacksonville, Florida, and in Springfield and Chicopee,
Massachusetts. Indoor sources accounted for 90 percent or more
of the total airborne exposure to most of these pesticides. NOPES
found that tested households had at least 5 pesticides in indoor air,
at levels often 10 times greater than levels measured in outdoor air
(EPA, AREAL, January 1990). Some of the pesticides had been
banned or otherwise regulated by EPA (e.g., aldrin, dieldrin,
heptachlor, and chlordane), but continued to be found in the
homes. Since these pesticides previously were widely used to
prevent termites, they are believed to have entered the homes via
diffusion of soil gas into basements, similar to the way radon enters
homes. Another pesticide, DDT, banned for nearly 20 years, was
found in house dust in five out of eight homes (EPA, AREAL, January
1990). Later studies, including measurements in soil just outside
the home, suggested that DDT and other; long-lasting pesticides
can be tracked in from soil clinging to shoes.

No comprehensive nationwide information; is available on the amount
of pesticides used in the nation's 11,000 public schools. The federal!
government has not collected such data, and only one state,
Louisiana, requires its school districts to specifically report the
amount of pesticides used (GAO, 1999). i

This report ui.es two indicators, discussed ;below, to address I
the question, "What is the quality of air in'the buildings in the
United States?": . ; ;
| U.S. homes, above EPA radon action levels.
• Percentage; of homes where young children are exposed to ETS.
Iridicitoi
U.S. homes above EPAs radon action levels - C_a1
ttego y 2
Naturally occurring radon gas is formed by the decay of uranium
in rock, soil, and water. Radon enters a home by moving up from
rock and soil and into the building through cracks or other holes
in the foundation.

The amount of radon gas in the air is measured in picocuries
per liter of air or pCi/L EPA has set a recommended "action
level" of four pCi/L for homes and schools to reduce the risk of
lung cancer.

What the Data Show

A 1991 representative survey of all housing units in the United
States estimated that six percent of U.S. homes (5.8 million in
1990) had an annual average radon level of more than four pic-
ocuries per liter (pCi/L) in indoor air. Also, about 56 percent of
Americans' exposure to radon occurs in homes with two pCi/L or
more. Single-family detached homes were four times more likely to
require mitigation than multi-family homes. The survey's findings
were used in constructing EPA's estimate of U.S. lung cancer risks
from radon, in setting the four pCi/L action level, and in crafting
testing and mitigation guidance for the American public (EPA,
OAR, October 1992). : '
I • I "
indicator Data Gaps and: Limitations

The study is several years old and may pot reflect changes
brought about as a result of significant [EPA radon public
education campaigns since that time.'Since the mid-1980s,
about 18 million homes have been tested for radon and about
700,000 of them have been mitigated, iln addition, since 1990
approximately one million new homesjh^ve been built with
radon-resistant features. , •

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was National Radon Residential
Survey: Summary Report EPA, 1992. (See Appendix B, page B-7,
for more information.) :
1-30
1.3 Indoor Air Quality
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
-------
iercentage of homes where young children are: exposed1 to environmental tobacco smoke -
Category 2 ":• •• v \- , '' :--!": '-'•" • '••'..:, " : • -v : •• •: "--j::-. .-•.-'.•-• ''•..-'•.-.':. .-. '":.-'' :.•' .- •
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)—smoke emitted from the
burning end of a cigarette, pipe, or cigar, and smoke exhaled by
a smoker—is a complex mix of more than 4,000 chemical com-
pounds, containing many known or suspected carcinogens and
toxic agents, including particles, carbon monoxide, and
formaldehyde.

What the Data Show

The National Center for Health Statistics has conducted a major
nationwide survey, known as the National Health Interview Survey,
continuously since 1957. The survey estimated that in 1998,
young children were exposed to ETS in 20 percent of homes in
the U.S.—down from approximately 39 percent in 1986. About
43,000 households and 106,000 people participated in the
survey (DHHS, NCHS, 2001).
Indicator Data Gaps and Limitations

The estimate is not based on a specific question about children's
exposure to ETS, but rather is calculated based on the number of
houses with smokers and with children.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was Healthy People 2000 Final
Review, Department of Health and Human Services, National
Center for Health Statistics, 2001. (See Appendix B, page B-7,
for more information.)
Indoor air pollutants come from a wide array of sources. In consider-
ing the potential impact of these sources on indoor air quality, it is
vital to recognize the exchange between indoor and outdoor air.
Exchange rates vary considerably from building to building, from one
part of the country to another, and by seasons. Tight building con-
struction improves energy efficiency but reduces indoor-outdoor air
exchange and may contribute to indoor air pollution.

Among the sources of indoor air pollution are:
• Combustion of fuel used for heating and cooking, including oil,
gas, kerosene, coal, and wood.
• Environmental tobacco smoke.
• Some adhesives, paints, and coatings (building materials).
• Furniture made of certain pressed wood products.
• Deteriorated, asbestos-containing insulation.
• Some products for household cleaning and maintenance, personal
care, or hobbies.
B Inadequate maintenance of central heating and cooling systems.
• Radon, pesticides, and outdoor air pollution.
• Biological sources, including animal dander, cockroaches, dust
mites, molds, and fungi.
In general, indoor air pollution can cause headaches, tiredness, dizzi-
ness, nausea, and throat irritation. More serious effects include can-
cer and exacerbation of chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma.
The most sensitive and vulnerable population groups—the elderly,
the young, and the infirm—tend to spend the most time indoors;
therefore, they may face higher than usual exposures.

Radon is estimated to be the second leading cause of lung cancer in
the U.S. In an EPA-sponsored study, the National Research Council
(NRC) found between 15,000 and 22,000 radon-related lung can-
cer deaths annually in the U.S. (NRC, 1998).

Environmental tobacco smoke causes eye, nose, and throat irritation,
and is a carcinogen. Children exposed to ETS are at increased risk
for respiratory problems and experience increased episodes of asth-
ma (Mannino, et al., 2001). In studies of lifelong nonsmoking
women, there was a 24 percent excess risk of lung cancer as a result
of ETS exposures from a spouse's smoking (Hackshaw, 1998).

Asthma, particularly in children, is associated with poor indoor air
quality. Dust mite proliferation in moist indoor environments can
lead to asthma attacks. Other allergens and irritants such as animal
dander, ETS, pesticide sprays, cockroach particles, and chemical
fumes from household products have also been shown to increase
asthma attack rates (IOM, 2000).
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
1.3 Indoor Air Quality
T-31
-------
Fungal spores from mold growth in moist areas in homes have been
associated with health effects in occupants, including allergies and
asthma (IOM, 1993). Headaches, respiratory distress, and cardiovas-
cular effects are also associated with exposure to molds.

No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address
the human health effects associated with indoor air pollution.
Stratospheric ;Ozone

Although ozone is a harmful pollutant at ground level, it plays a :
valuable rote in the stratosphere-the parjt of the atmosphere at an
altitude of 10 to 30 km-by filtering harmful radiation from the
sun. The sun's radiation bathes the Earth; in ultraviolet (UV) wave-
lengths of 150 to 400 nanometers (nm).;L)ltraviolet radiation in
the band between 280 and 320 nm, kno\jvn as UV-B, is harmful to
most organisms. '• \

About 90 peirent of the planet's ozone at a given time is in a thin
layer of the lower stratosphere called the ozone layer, which also
includes other gases. Ozone is constantly [being created and
destroyed by UV radiation. About 95 to 9'9 percent of UV-B radia-
tion that reaches the Earth's surface is absorbed by ozone and oxy-
gen in the ozone layer (NASA, 2002). j

The ozone layer varies in space and time1 and is highly susceptible'
to changes in atmospheric chemical reactions by which it is
created and destroyed. Scientists in thej1970s and 1980s
discovered that human-caused changes to the composition of
the atmosphere were leading to depletion of stratospheric ozone
(NASA, 2002). They initially identified cihlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) as being particularly significant stratospheric ozone
depleters. Scientists subsequently identjfied additional human-
produced ozone-depleting substances (ODSs).

This section poses four questions about sitratospheric ozone:
• What are the trends in the Earth's ozorje layer? (Section 1.4.1)
H What is causing changes to the ozone layer? (Section 1.4.2)
• What human health effects are associated with stratospheric
ozone depletion? (Section 1.4.3) :
• What ecological effects are associated with stratospheric ozone
depletion? (Section 1.4.4)
Indicators
Ozone leyels over North America
M _ ,
The most recent authoritative assessment of the Earth's stratos-
pheric ozone is the. Scientific Assessment rf Ozone Depletion: 2002
(Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003), conducted under the aus-
pices of the .United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The study found
an average decrease of about 6 percent in average ozone concen-
trations between 35 and 60 degrees Sojjth for the period 1997 to
2001, compared with pre-1980 average values. It also found an
1-32
1.4 Stratospheric Ozone
c
iapter I - Cleaner Air
-------
average decrease of 3 percent between 35 and 60 degrees North
for the same period (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003).

It is generally believed that, after years of continuing thinning of the
stratospheric ozone layer, the ozone layer will recover over the next
several years as a result of international controls of ODSs. The
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol), for example, restricts global manufacturing of
CFCs (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003).

Scientists largely agree that a thinning of the stratospheric ozone
layer causes an increase in the amount of UV radiation, especially
UV-B, that reaches the Earth's surface. This outcome is consistent
with theories about the physical processes involved, measurable
locally by ground-based and satellite-based instruments.

While acknowledging high uncertainty in the estimates, it is estimat-
ed that UV irradiance has increased since the early 1980s by 6 to 14
percent at more than ten sites distributed over mid and high lati-
tudes of both hemispheres. Over the past two decades,,UV increases
are believed to have been considerably greater at higherlatitudes. In
the Northern Hemisphere, they are believed to be greater in the win-
ter/spring than in the summer/fall (Scientific Assessment Panel,
2003). The estimates of increasing UV-B levels are based on indirect
methods and models rather than direct measurements.

Because of the phase-out of ODS, total stratospheric concentrations
of ODS seem to have peaked; it is believed that stratospheric ozone
concentrations, near the lowest point since systematic measurements
began, will not decrease any further and will eventually recover. -
These developments lead to the conclusion that UV radiation levels
reaching the Earth's surface are close to the maximum they will reach
as a result of human-induced stratospheric ozone depletion
(Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003).

Obtaining reliable measurements of broad trends in levels of UV
radiation reaching ground level in North America, .however, is a com-
plex task. It is particularly challenging to measure in ways that high-
light the relationship between ozone depletion and UV radiation.
The amount of incoming UV radiation is affected by several variables,
including latitude, season, time of day, snow cover, sea ice cover,
surface reflectivity, altitude, clouds, and aerosols. Determining which
portion of any change is attributable to ozone depletion is difficult.

The indicator used to address the extent of change to the ozone
layer is ozone levels over North America.
Ozone levels over North America, - Category I
Data mapped for this indicator are derived from the Total Ozone
Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS), flown on NASA's Nimbus-7
satellite. The TOMS measures amounts of backscattered UV
radiation at various wavelengths. Backscattered radiation levels
at wavelengths where ozone absorption does and does not take
place are compared with radiation directly from the sun at the
same wavelengths, allowing scientists to derive a "total ozone"
amount in the Earth's atmosphere.

The data for this indicator are presented in Dobson Units (DU)
which measure how thick the ozone layer would be if compressed
in the Earth's atmosphere (at sea level and at 0°C) One DU is
defined to be 0.01 mm thickness at standard temperature and
pressure.

What the Data Show

The ozone maps illustrate graphically and quantitatively the thin-
ning of total column ozone over North America during a 15-year
period. For example, in 1979, the ozone column over the Seattle

area was 391 Dobson Units (DU), but in 1994 it had dropped to
360 DU. Over Los Angeles, the ozone column during that time
dropped from 368 DU to 330 DU, and over Miami from 303 DU
to 296 DU (Exhibit 1 -26) (NASA, March 1979 and March
1994). Although exact calculations cannot be made from Exhibit
1 -26, the graph demonstrates thinning of the ozone layer over
much of the globe.

In general, ozone depletion is greater at higher latitudes.
Therefore, it is predictable that the decrease in the ozone layer
over Seattle is greater than over Los Angeles, with the ozone layer
over Miami experiencing the lowest depletion among the three
cities. However, southern cities also have higher levels of UV-B, so
even with less depletion, the net increase in UV-B can exceed that
over northern latitudes.

According to the latest estimates in the Scientific Assessment, the
global-average total column ozone during 1997 to 2001 was
about 3 percent below average pre-1980 values (Scientific
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
1.4 Stratospheric Ozone
1-33
-------
o
'zone levels over
i. "ilium IB anil11! liarBM^^ ^^^aa^si^^^^^^i^^^^smK^W^^S^^^^ pSfS:
NortK America, MarcK 1979 and IVWcin 1994 - Category 1 (continue.
ExKiKit 1-26: Ozone levels over NortK Art erica, 1979 and 1994
.^i.il at, i
Source: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center. Total Ozone Mapp ng Spectrometer (TOMS),
flown on Nimbus-7 satellite. (January 24, 2003;
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/glob_dep.html).
Assessment Panel, 2003). Trends over North America reflect this
global phenomenon.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

TOMS provides no data during nighttime or during the longer
periods of darkness in polar regions.
Data Source

The data source for this indicator was NASA, Total Ozone
Mapping Spectrometer, flown on the Nimbus-7 satellite. March
1979 and March 1994. (See Appendix B, page B-7, for more
information.)

Indicators
Worldwide and U.S. production of ozone-depleting substances
(ODSs)
Concentrations of ozone-depleting substances (effective
equivalent chlorine)
Analyses have shown that the presence of CFCs and other ODSs was
negligible before commercial production of CFCs and other ODSs
began in the 1930s and 1940s (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003).
The adoption of the 1987 Montreal Proijocol significantly affected
production jevels, resulting in reduced concentrations of ODSs.

Worldwide emissions are estimated to Have been reduced signifi-
cantly, since peaking in 1993 (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003).
Likewise, there have been marked decreases in U.S. emissions of
ODSs over the past decade, resulting in a 79 percent decrease in
total OOP-weighted emissions from 1990 to 2000 (EPA, OAP,
April 2002). j j

Two indicators are used to address this Question:
• Worldwide and U.S. production of ODSs.
m Concentration of ODSs (effective equivalent stratospheric
chlorine). [
1-34
1A Stratospheric Ozone
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
-------

inaicararv
Worldwide and U.S. productioni of;ozone-aepleting;suDstances (ODSs) - Category 2
Worldwide ODS production estimates are derived from reports
produced by each nation, as required under the Montreal Protocol
and subsequent amendments.

Production, consumption, and emissions of ODSs are not identi-
cal; even though the ultimate destiny of a given pound of CFCs
might be release to the atmosphere, a time lag is involved. ODSs
initially are contained—and isolated from the atmosphere—after
they are produced. They are likely to stay contained until they are
consumed—for example, used as coolant in a refrigerator or as a
foaming agent in polystyrene-foam hot cups. Once they are con-
sumed, the ODSs still might not be released to the atmosphere
until years later, such as when the cup degrades in a landfill, or
when the refrigerator is disposed of or recycled (at which time the
ODS may actually be reclaimed for further use).

Because of these complexities, consumption and emissions figures
involve significant uncertainties—they are estimated based on
rates of conversion. Production figures may be more meaningful,
Exhibit 1-27: Worldwide ODS production and
consumption (ODi-weighted tons), 1986 and 1999
1986
1999
1,768,789
312,731
1,784,015
275,382
Source: United Nations Environment Programme, Ozone Secretariat. Product/on and
Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances under the Montreal Protocol:, 1986-2000.
.April 2002. -
because they are compiled from data which a relatively small
number of producing companies must report by law.

What the Data Show

There have been marked decreases in worldwide production, and
consumption of ODSs over the past 2 decades (Exhibit 1 -27).
Worldwide ODS production declined from approximately 1.8
million tons in 1986 to 313,000 tons in 1999 (UNEP, 2002).
Worldwide measures are presented in ozone depletion potential
(ODP)-weighted tons. Each ODS is weighted based on its damage
to the stratospheric ozone; this is its ODP. U.S. production of
selected ODSs peaked in 1988 and declined by nearly 65 percent
in 5 years (Exhibit 1 - 28) (USITC, 1994).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

In some cases ODS production data are reliable because laws
require that they.be reported. Coverage from nation to nation is
incomplete, however, and sometimes methods are inconsistent.
Production estimates for the U.S. are generally reliable as a result
of the legal reporting requirement for production figures and the
small number of producers involved.

Data Sources

The data sources for this indicator were Worldwide Estimates:
Production and Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances 1986-
2000, Ozone Secretariat/UNEP, 2002, and 7993 Synthetic
Organic Chemicals; U.S. Production and Sales, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 1994. (See Appendix B, page B-7, for more
information.)
Exhibit 1-28: U.j. production of selected ozone-depleting chemicals, IQ58-I993
1988
1993
Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. 1993 Synthetic Organic Chemicals; U.S. Production and Sales. 7994 (July 3, 2002;
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/indicat/index.htmf).
CJiapter I - CJeaner /\ir
1.4 Stratospheric Ozone
1-35
-------
\_oncentrations of ozone-depleting substances leirective
i"
Effective equivalent chlorine (EECI), the amount of chlorine and
bromine in the lower atmosphere, is used to represent concentra-
tions of ozone-depleting substances. It is a convenient parameter
for measuring with a single number the overall potential human
effect on stratospheric ozone, EECI is derived by considering the
changing concentrations of about a dozen gases that can affect
the stratospheric ozone concentration. An index is then developed
based on the ability of those gases to catalyze the destruction of
ozone relative to the ability of chlorine to do so. The units of EECI
are parts per trillion by volume.

What the Data Show

The Scientific Assessment states that the total effect of all ozone-
depleting halogens in the atmosphere, estimated by calculating
chlorine equivalents from atmospheric measurements of chlorine-
Exhibit 1-29: Global total effective
equivalent chlorine (EECI), 1992-2002
2000
1991
1993
199S
1997
1999
2001
Source; Updated from Montzka, Stephen A., et al. Present and future trends in the
atmosp/WK bttrtltn of ozone-depleting halogens. April 1999;
NQAA, Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory. Halocarbons and other
Atmospheric Trace Species (HATS). 2002. March 18,2003;
Mlp://w»iw.cmitinoafi,fw/rais/graphs/graphs.html).
equivalent chlorine) - Category 2
and bromine-: containing gases, continues to decrease. As of mid-
2000, equivalent organic chlorine in the troposphere was nearly
five percent below the peak value in 1992'to 1994 (Exhibit 1 .-
29). The recent decrease is slightly slower] than in the mid-1990s
due to the reduced influence of methyl chloroform on this decline
(Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003).

In 1996, EPA measurements indicated that concentrations of
methyl chloroform had started to fall, indicating that emissions
had been reduced. Concentrations of other ozone-depleting sub-
stances in the: upper layers of the atmosphere, like CFCs, are also
beginning to decrease. Stratospheric chloriine levels have appar-
ently peaked 'and are expected to slowly decline in coming years
(EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). The best current estimate from
computer models is that the atmospheric burden of halogens will
return to 1980 levels (pre-Antarctic ozone; hole) around the mid-
dle of this century if the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments
are fully adhered to (Scientific Assessment Panel, 2003).

Indicator Caps and Limitations

The precision of this indicator depends ori understanding the
chemistry and behavior of the many different gases involved. For
example, accurate estimates of the atmospheric lifetime of a gas
are essential to assigning it the proper weight relative to other
gases. As scientific understanding of atmospheric chemistry
improves, calculations continue to be refined.
Data Source
I
The data source for this indicator was Scientific Assessment of
Ozone Depletion: 2002, Scientific Assessment Panel of the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
WMO, 2003, (See Appendix B, page B-8, for more information.)
1-36
1.4 Stratospheric Ozone
Cnjapter 1 - CJeaner /\ir
-------

The increased ground-level UV radiation that can result from stratos-
pheric ozone depletion is expected to have significant adverse human
health effects. UV-B radiation is linked to skin cancer, increased inci-
dence of cataracts, and suppression of the immune system (EPA,
OAQPS, September 2002). Approximately 1.3 million new cases of
skin cancer are diagnosed every year in the U.S., according to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American
Cancer Society. Malignant melanoma accounts for about 75 percent
of the approximately 9,800 skin cancer deaths in the U.S. annually.
The incidence rate of malignant melanoma is increasing by about 3
percent annually, although death rates have remained constant
(Wingo, et al., 1999).

Possible increased UV radiation levels is only one of many factors
that could affect skin cancer incidence. Others include behavioral
changes (people spending more time at the beach or outdoors) and
changes in screening for, diagnosis of, and reporting of the disease.

Data on UV-B radiation and tropospheric ozone are used to calculate
benefits from accelerated phase-out schedules for ODSs. EPA
Exhibit 1-30: Estimated benefits of phaseout of ozone-depleting substances
• (sections 6OU, 6O6, and 609 of tne Clean Air Act)
I Melanoma and nonmelanoma skin
cancer (fatal)
6.3 million lives saved from skin cancer in the U.S. be-
tween 1990 and 2165
Dose-response function based on UV exposure and demo-
graphics of exposed populations1
• Melanoma and nonmelanoma skin
cancer (non-fatal)
299 million avoided cases of non-fatal skin cancers in the Dose-response function based on UV exposure and demo-
US, between 1990 and 2165 graphics of exposed populations1
27.5 million avoided cases in the U.S. between 1990 and Dose-response function uses a multivariate logistic risk function
2165 based on demographic characteristics and medical history1
American crop harvests
Avoided 7.5 percent decrease from UV-b radiation by
2075
Dose-response sources: Teramura and Murali (1986), Rowe
and Adams (1987)
Avoided decrease from tropospheric ozone
Estimate of increase in troposhpheric ozone: Whitten and Gary
(1986). Dose-response source: Rowe and Adams (1987)
Avoided damage to materials from UV-b radiation
Source of UV-b/stabilizer relationship; Horst (1986)
Skin cancer: reduced pain and suffering
Reduced morbidity effects of increased UV. For example:
reduced actinic keratosis (pre-cancerous lesions resulting from excessive sun exposure)
reduced immune system suppression
Ecological effects of UV. For example, benefits relating to the following:
• recreational fishing B other crops
" forests B other plant species
• overall marine ecosystem x f;sn harvests
avoided sea level rise, including avoided b.each erosion, loss of coastal
wetlands, salinity of estuaries and aquifers
1) For more detail see EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (1988).
2) Note that the ecological effects, unlike the health effects, do not reflect the accelerated reduction and phaseout schedule of section 606.
3) Benefits due to the section 606 methyl bromide phaseout are not included in the benefits total because EPA provides neither annual incidence estimates nor a monetary
value. The EPA does provide, however, a total estimate of 2,800 avoided skin cancer fatalities in the U.S.
Source: EPA, Office of Air and Radiation. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 7990 to 2070. EPA Report to Congress November 1999
' ' ' '
Lil
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
1.4 Stratospheric Ozone
1-37
-------
estimates that between 1990 and 2165, in the U.S. alone 6.3 million
fatal skin cancers, 299 million cases of non-fatal skin cancers, and
27.5 million cases of cataracts will be prevented because of the
worldwide phase-out of ODSs. (EPA, OAR, November 1999)
(Exhibit 1 -30). These are estimated cumulative effects, so there are
no data series or trends to evaluate.

No specific indicators have been identified at this time for human
health effects of stratospheric ozone depletion.
Iffi

UV radiation in sunlight affects the physiological and developmental
processes of plants. Even though plants have mechanisms to reduce
or repair these effects and some ability to adapt to increased UV-B
levels, UV radiation can still directly affect plant growth. It can also
produce indirect effects such as changes in plant form, distribution
of nutrients within the plant, timing of developmental phases, and
secondary metabolism. These changes can be even more important
than direct damage because of their implications for plant competi-
tive balance, herbivory, plant diseases, and biogeochemical cycles
(UNEP, 1994).

UV radiation can also affect aquatic life. UV exposure affects both
orientation mechanisms and motility in phytoplankton, resulting in
reduced survival rates for these organisms. Scientists have demon-
strated a direct reduction in phytoplankton production as a result of
ozone depletion-related increases in UV-B (DeMora, et al., 2000).
Small increases in UV-B radiation have been found to cause damage
in the early developmental stages offish, shrimp, crab, amphibians,
and other animals, the most severe effects being decreased repro-
ductive capacity and impaired larval development Animals higher on
the food chain that depend on these organisms for food could, in
turn, be affected (UNEP, 1994).

Increases in UV radiation could also affect terrestrial and aquatic
biogeochemical cycles, and, as a result, alter both sources and sinks
of greenhouse and chemically important trace gases. These potential
changes would contribute to biosphere-atmosphere feedback that
attenuates or reinforces the atmospheric buildup of these gases
(UNEP, 1994). Synthetic polymers, naturally occurring biopolymers,
and some other materials of commercial interest also are adversely
affected by UV radiation, but special additives somewhat protect
some modern materials from UV-B. Increases in UV-B levels nonethe-
less will likely accelerate their breakdown, limiting their usefulness
outdoors (UNEP, 1994).

No specific indicators have been identified at this time to address
the ecological effects associated with stratospheric ozone depletion.
1.5 Climate Change

The issue of global climate change involves changes in the radiative
balance of the Earth-the balance between energy received from the
sun and emitted from the Earth. This report does not attempt to
address the complexities of this issue. For information on the $1.7
billion annual U.S. Global Climate Research Program and Climate
Change Research Initiative, please find (pur Changing Planet: The
Fiscal Year 20,03 U.S. Global Climate Research Program (November
2002) at www.usgcrp.gov and the Draft Ten-Year Strategic Plan for the
Climate Change Science Program at www.clirhatescience.gov.
: i
f !
1-38
1.5 Climate Change
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
-------
1.6 CJiallenges and Data

(Daps

Outdoor Air (Duality ana Acid Deposition

In general, some very good indicators of outdoor air quality exist.
The national air monitoring network for the six criteria air pollutants
is extensive; however, there are far more monitors in urban areas than
in rural areas. Monitoring in urban areas helps to characterize popu-
lation exposures, because population tends to be concentrated in '
urban areas. More rural monitoring might help scientists assess
transport and ecological effects, although EPA uses additional tools
and techniques (e.g., models and spatial analyses) to augment limit-
ed monitoring in some areas and to better characterize pressures on
ecological condition. EPA is currently conducting a national assess-
ment of the existing ambient monitoring networks and is analyzing,
among other issues, the need for and appropriateness of each of the
nation's urban monitors.

Many major metropolitan areas monitor air quality for the presence
of selected air toxics. However, there is no national monitoring net-
work with standard data collection guidance for air toxics; therefore, .
numerous air toxics are not being measured. National assessments of
levels of air toxics would benefit from a more extensive ambient
monitoring network for toxics. EPA is currently working with state
and local partners to design and deploy such a network.

Questions still exist about how indicators of concentrations and
emissions relate to exposure and human health effects. The use of
one approach to determining how various air pollution levels affect
health would be to use established and quantified effects and
surrogates for air pollution health impacts from epidemiology stud-
ies, such as asthma hospitalizations and childhood school absences.
Research needs to be conducted that will develop these health
endpoints into useful indicators.

As highlighted in Chapter 4, Human Health, for most health out-
comes other than mortality, no national systems for data collection
currently exist. With regard to criteria air pollutants, it would be use-
ful to track asthma and chronic respiratory diseases, cardiovascular
diseases, and adverse birth outcomes. For air pollutants in general,
including air toxics and indoor pollutants, the list can also include
neurological diseases, developmental disabilities, reproductive
disorders, and endocrine/metabolic disorders.
As described in Chapter 5, Ecological Condition, there are large
gaps in our ability to report on the condition of ecological systems
and linkages between Indicators of atmospheric stressors and
specific ecological effects. There is a need for improved monitoring
information for deposition and concentrations of both criteria and
toxic air pollutants to ecosystems. Data on exposure of high-eleva-
tion forests and their watersheds to ozone and acid deposition are
especially sparse, relative to data on lower elevations. And exposure
patterns are likely to be significantly different at higher elevations
because of higher acid deposition rates due to higher rainfall and
fog, and less diurnal variation in ozone concentrations due to less
nighttime scavenging (NAPAP, 1991). Furthermore, despite consid-
erable progress, there is still no index of ozone exposure that
relates optimally to plant response (EPA, NCEA, July 1996).
Although mercury monitoring has begun as part of the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program, the availability of data is
inadequate to assess national trends (EPA, OAQPS, ORD, December
1997). There are inadequate data on indicators of actual UV
exposures of ecosystems of all types.

Indoor Air Ouality

While environmental indicators have been developed for some
aspects of indoor air, significant gaps exist in our knowledge about
the conditions inside the nation's buildings. For schools and
residences, a large amount of information on IAQ is available, but
it is composed primarily of case studies and, at best, small regional
studies. Exposure studies on a national scale would help better
characterize IAQ of schools and residential indoor environments,
including multiple family residences. Ideally, these studies would
collect exposure data on air toxics and PM in these indoor
environments, and data for the various biological contaminants
found in indoor air.
jtratospneric Ozone
In general, high quality data exists with which to predict the human
health effects of increased ultraviolet exposure resulting from
depletion of the stratospheric ozone. These include robust satellite
data on stratospheric ozone concentrations and UV-B levels, com-
prehensive and well documented incidence and mortality rates for
cutaneous melanoma, and well characterized action spectra for skin
cancers and cataracts. However, there are areas where additional
data would be useful. First, no national system exists that collects
incidence data for squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcino-
ma, the non-melanoma skin-cancers caused by increased UV-B
exposure. Thus, our incidence estimates are modeled using data
from a nation-wide survey of non-melanoma skin cancer incidence
and mortality, and may not represent the most current non-
melanoma skin cancer rates. Second, there is a lack of adequate
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
1.6 Challenges and Data Gaps
1-39
-------
ground level UV monitoring with which to compare the satellite
data. Satellites cannot directly measure ground level UV, and are
sensitive to pollution. Therefore, while satellite data compare fairly
well to ground level UV measurements in clean locations, this is not
the case in polluted areas. Additional UV monitoring in cities is
crucial to support future epidemiological research on the human
health effects of UV-B exposure. Third, increased UV-B levels have
been associated with other human and non-human endpoints
including immune suppression and effects on aquatic ecosystems
and agricultural crops. However, additional research on these top-
ics is necessary before these effects can be modelled or quantified.
Finally, the future behavior of the ozone layer will be affected by
changing atmospheric abundances of various atmospheric gases.
It remains unclear how these changes will affect the predicted
recovery of the ozone layer. Additional research on the interaction
between climate and stratospheric ozone could provide more
accurate predictions of ozone recovery and the human health
effects resulting from ozone depletion.
I i
1-40
1.6 Challenges and Data Gaps
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
-------
-------
Indicators that were selected and included in this chapter were assigned to one o(, two categories: j ; '

• Category 1 -The indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by national level data coverage for r»ore than one time period.
The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are characterized b^spund collection methodologies, data management
systems, and quality assurance procedures. ( , j j
Category 2 -The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data a, 4 available only for part of the nation (e.g multi-state
6 y . ,_..,,.. =__,:„,:_ u * u=«r, ™«=,,TOH for more than one time period, or not all the parameters ol the
• ^ QtCK'Wl V •• I I 1C HIVII»-afc*^t m.jrf.rf»»»...j- — „_.-_.. , ... _
regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for more than
regions or ecoregions), or the indicator nas not oeen meabuieu ,u, ,,,u,c ^..^ *••— ,.»•-- - , :
nTator have been measured (e.g., data has been collected for birds, but not f>r plants or insects). The supporting data are
comparable across the areas covered, and are characterized by sound collecticfrmethodolog.es, data management systems, and

quality assurance procedures.
-------
2.0 Introduction

Our nation's water resources have immeasurable value. Animals,
plants, and ecosystems depend on clean and abundant water,
without which they could not exist. Humans, too, need clean water
to drink, to grow food, and to produce goods and services. Clean
water generates billions of dollars for the economy each year. Water
resources provide opportunities for families to swim and fish, and
wetlands protect homes and property against floods. Rivers, lakes,
wetlands, and coastal waters provide critical habitats for many
species and serve as nurseries for many of the valued commercial
and recreational fisheries. Water beneath the water table in fully
saturated soils and geological formations, known as ground water,
provides half the nation with drinking water.

An increasing tide of pressures has compromised the health of many
waterbodies. In the early 20th century, industrial growth and an
expanding population left behind a legacy of pollution. After the
burning of Ohio's Cuyahoga River—so polluted with oil and debris
that it caught fire—Congress passed the landmark Clean Water Act
(CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These acts and other
laws brought to bear strong regulatory and financial tools to clean
up polluted surface waters and ensure that public water systems
provide safe drinking water.

Thanks to these significant investments, pollutant discharges into our '
nation's waters have been substantially reduced and the safety of public
water supplies has improved (EPA, OW, December 1999). Nevertheless,
significant water pollution problems persist and threats to drinking
water remain. Today, discharges from industry and sewage treatment
plants, together with pollution from many other sources—including,
agricultural lands, residential areas, city streets, forestry operations, and
pollutants settling out of the air—continue to degrade our nation's
waters. Other stresses also threaten water quality. These include
landscape modification, introduction of invasive species, changes in flow
patterns, and over-harvesting offish and other aquatic organisms.

Adequately maintained water infrastructure will be essential to
sustain the water quality gains of the past 30 years and to address
challenges to water quality and delivery of safe drinking water in the
coming years. By achieving a better understanding of the condition
of our nation's waters, we will be able to make informed decisions
about how to protect and preserve our water infrastructure.

This chapter summarizes what is generally understood about the
current status and trends in water quality, the pressures affecting
water quality, and information regarding associated human health
and ecological effects. It poses fundamental questions about water
quality, sources of pollution, and health and ecological effects, and it
uses indicators drawn from well-reviewed data sources to help answer
those questions. Exhibit 2-1 lists these questions and indicators, as
well as the number of the chapter section where each indicator is
presented.

The questions addressed in this chapter are divided into four
categories:
• Waters and watersheds, discussed in Section 2.2.
• Drinking water, discussed in Section 2.3.
• Recreation in and on the water, discussed in Section 2.4.
• Consumption offish and shellfish, discussed in Section 2.5.

Section 2.1 provides information on the extent and use of our
nation's water resources. Section 2.6 reviews the challenges and data
gaps that remain in assessing the condition of our nation's water
resources.

The key sources of data used to support these indicators vary and
are described in each section. Some of the primary data sources that
contribute directly or indirectly to indicators throughout this chapter
include data from EPA and other federal agencies. Predominant EPA
programs or data sets supporting the indicators in this chapter
include the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP); the National Sediment Quality Inventory; the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI); the Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS); the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches; and the
National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA). Other
national programs that provide data for the indicators described in
this chapter include the:
• U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS's) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) studies of the status and trends of wetlands
resources.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service's (NRCS's) National Resources Inventory
(NRI).
• National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP).
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs.

Many of these data sets have been compiled and summarized in a
report titled The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, developed by the
H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment
(The Heinz Center, 2002). Gaps in the data exist that make it
difficult or impossible to answer some of the questions posed about
the condition of our nation's waters. Data gaps and limitations are
described under each question and at the end of this chapter.
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.0 Introduction
2-3
-------
^.m.^.^.i-™™™, ««*-'-, ,•••„- -,B-,,,I,,,,ir 'I 1 „ " •"'',""»"" '', • -n.i-1 v '• : ,,,],, „.„„',,.- ,i. ...ll ; ' ' ,„" - 7" ,|Sft^«h ^ ,N>I«I- -">•'''!. Jlriu. 'I11?; •' -jjlln-Jlll, Kf 'HiNilPlu, 'III, ,- "Mf ^ ,,$^1 H'l
i1 I, . • . . '!,,,,'!!' •'" " • i, '
Sediment contamination of inland waters
Sediment contamination of coastal waters
Sediment toxicity in estuaries .
Fish Index of Biotic Integrity in streams
Also see Ecological Condition chapter ,
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity index for streams
Also see Ecological Condition chapter
Benthic Community Index for coastal waters
Also see Ecological Condition chapter
1 sLv ..: : ,.;;,., M ,:,:,,
2
2
•\
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
1
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.2
b.3
fi.2.3
2.2.3
£.2.3

|2.2.4.a
J2.2.4.3

2.2.4.a
2.2.4.a ,
2.2.4.a
2.2.4.a

p.2.4.b

2.2.4.b
2.2.4.b
2.2.4.b
;2.2.4.b
J2.2.4.b

I2.2.4.C

2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
~l 2.2.4.C
J2.2.4.C

2.2.5
2.2.5
2.2.5
i

• '• --" '

: '

2-4
2.0 Introduction
c
lapter 2 - furer Water
-------

Drinking Water
What is the quality of drinking water?
What are sources of drinking water contamination?
What human health effects are associated with drinking
8 contaminated water?
Population served by community water systems
that meets all health-based standards
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Human Health chapter
Recreation in and on the Water
Consumption of Fish and Shellfish
What is the condition of waters that support consumption
of fish and shellfish?
What are contaminants in fish and shellfish, and where
do they originate?
•^
What human health effects are associated with consuming
contaminated fish and shellfish?
Percent of river miles and lake acres under fish
consumption advisories
Contaminants in fresh water fish
Number of watersheds exceeding health-based
national water quality criteria for mercury and PCBs
in fish tissue
.^—^ —

No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
— —
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Human Health chapter
1

23.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
What is the condition of waters supporting
recreational use?
What are sources of recreational water pollution?
indicators identified
What human health effects-are associated with recreation in
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
contaminated waters?
Also see Human Health chapter
2.5.1
2.5.1
2.5.1

2.5.2

2.5.3
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.0 Introduction
2-5
-------
2.1 Extent and Use of

Water Resources

Our nation's water resources, which consist of both surface waters
and ground water, are critical to both human activities and the
functioning of ecological systems:
• Surface waters, such as rivers, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, wetlands,
riparian (river and stream) areas, and estuarine areas, are
fundamental components of ecological systems described in this
report. They are also important sources of fresh water for human
use, including drinking water, recreation, wastewater treatment,
industrial usage, livestock, and irrigation. Wetlands and riparian
areas help provide clean water, reduce flooding, and support
critical fish and wildlife habitat.
• Ground water, one of our nation's most important natural
resources, provides about 40 percent of the U.S. public water
supply and much of the rural water supply, which comes primarily
from domestic wells. Ground water also is the source of much of
the water used for irrigation, is the principal reserve of fresh water,
and represents much of our nation's potential future water supply.
Ground water may contribute as much as 40 percent of all stream
flow in the eastern U.S. (Alley, et al., 1999).
Extent of Ground Water and
Fresh Water Resources

Ground water comprises about 25 percent of all fresh water
on Earth. By contrast, surface water and soil moisture consti-
tute less than one percent of the world's fresh water (Alley, et
al., 1999) (the remaining 75 percent is stored in polar ice and
glaciers). The Great Lakes, which cover 60.2 million acres,
hold about 18 percent of the globe's fresh surface water
(Environment Canada and EPA, 1995).

The lower 48 states (conterminous U.S.) contain:
g About half of our nation's 41.6 million acres of lakes,
ponds, and reservoirs.
• About 3.7 million miles of streams and rivers (EPA, OW, June
2000).
H An estimated 105.5 million acres of wetlands as of the mid-
1990s (Dahl, 2000).

Alaska has an estimated 170 million acres of wetlands, which
cover approximately 45 percent of the state. Hawaii has nearly
52,000 acres of wetlands (Dahl, 1990). U.S. coastal waters
include 66,645 miles of coastline and 57.9 million acres of
estuarine surface area (EPA, OW, June 2000).
Ground water and surface water are closely| related and, in many
areas, constitute a singe resource. Both are| recharged through
precipitation. The U.S. receives enough annjua! precipitation to cover •
the entire country to a depth of 30 inches | (known as the U.S. water
budget), though the eastern U.S. receives rjnore rainfall than the
western part of the country. Over two-thircjs (21 inches) of this
precipitation returns to the water cycle through evapotranspiration.
The rest becomes surface water, ground water, or soil moisture.

Water use is an important dynamic that can impact both the
quantity and quality of available fresh water resources. Accurate
information about water use helps planners and managers make
informed decisions about our nation's water resources. With this
information, they can project future water [demand and better assess
the effectiveness of alternative water-management policies,
regulations, and conservation activities. > ;

States report their water use to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in
five mutually Delusive categories:
B Public water supply use—water withdrawn by public and private
water suppliers and delivered to homes and businesses for drinking,
commercial, and industrial uses. j
• Self-suppliert water—water for domestic uj>e and for livestock that is
not drawn 'torn the public supply. ,, j
• Irrigation—-th\s includes application toicrpps, pastures, and recre-
ational lands such as parks and golf courses.
• ThermoeleMc use—that is, water used for cooling during electric
power generation. '
m Industrial use—this includes self-suppliec) water for fabrication, pro- ;
cessing, cooling, and washing (including commercial and mining uses).

The USGS coordinates the national watef use compilation effort and
publishes the results every five years in tile circular series Estimated
Use of Water in the U.S. Withdrawals are:reported in billions of
gallons of water per day for the five use (Categories. Sources of
information and accuracy of water-use !da|ta vary by state and by
water-use category (The Heinz Center,:2002).

The USGS (Solley, et al., 1998) estimatejd'that:
H Total withdrawals of fresh water andisaline water during 1995 were
402,000 million gallons per day (Mga[l/d) for all water-use
categories (public supply, domestic,; commercial, irrigation,
livestock, industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power).
• Total fresh water withdrawals were an ^stimated 341,000 Mgal/d.
About 100,000 Mgal/d (29.3 percent) of this was consumed,
and the rest (241,000 Mgal/d, or 70j7 percent) was returned.
1 I
From 1960 to 1980, total water use, as well as the water use for
each majoruse category, increased. Hpvjrever, from 1980 to 1995,
total water use, as well as usage in several individual categories
declined, though water used for public supply continued to grow
(Exhibit 2-2). The two largest uses of wjater in the U.S.—irrigation
and'coolinj; (during electric power generation)—were responsible
for much of the decline in total use between 1980 and 1995.
2-6
2.1 Extent and Use of Water Resources
Chapter 2 - furer Water
-------
Decreases in withdrawals by self-supplied industrial users also con-
tributed to the overall decline.

In many areas of the U.S., withdrawal of ground water has
significantly depleted ground water reserves. Since ground water and
surface water are closely related, this depletion can reduce river
flows, lower lake levels, and reduce discharges to wetlands and
springs. These reductions may, in turn, affect drinking water supplies,
riparian areas, and critical aquatic habitats (Alley, et al., 1999). |n
the southwestern U.S., for example, the High Plains aquifer covers
174,000 square miles under eight states stretching from South
Dakota to Texas. By 1999, an estimated 220 million acre-feet (270
cubic kilometers, or something over half the amount of water
contained in Lake Erie) had been removed (USGS, 2002), primarily
for irrigation.
I
[:,.

ra
r "o
p-fc
I" Q_
U c
Mr

' "Wl
' C
g
a.
^- -
'
400

350
300

250

200
150

100
.50
0

Source of Freshwater
-Withdrawals " _~._fr~:-.^--..

- . ..-. ' . _' - - . ,- ,

Surface Water

-_~~-=sci-- ^T. Ground Water
|
; txhibit 2-2: Sources of fresh water withdrawals, 1960-1995
400
350
>,
-3 300
s.
£ 250
_o
| 200
in
J 150
3
100

50
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Coverage: all SO.states

Source: Solley et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 7995. 1 998,
Freshwater Withdrawals
Irrigation
Thermoelectric
- Rural
I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 195
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.1 Extent and Use of Water Resources
2-7
-------
2.2 Waters and
Watersheds
A watershed is the area that drains to a common waterway, such as a
stream, lake, estuary, wetland, or ultimately the ocean. It is a land
feature that is identified by tracing a line along the highest elevations
(often a ridge) between two areas on a map. Watersheds come in all
shapes and sizes, and smaller watersheds drain into larger watersheds
which may cross county, state, and national boundaries. For example, a
small stream running through a farmer's field in Pennsylvania may drain
only a few acres within the larger Susquehanna River watershed, which in
turn is a portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which extends
across six states and the District of Columbia. The watershed's natural
processes (e.g., rainfall runoff, ground water recharge, sediment
transport, plant succession) provide beneficial services when functioning
properly, but may cause ecological and physical (flooding) disasters
when misunderstood and disrupted. Watersheds are subject to many
different pressures (or "stressors"), including pollution and human
activities (see Exhibit 2-3).

Because of their many influences on water quality, watersheds are
often the focus of efforts to manage water use and reduce pollution.
Traditionally, managers have focused on reducing pollution from
specific sources (such as sewage discharges) or within specific water
resources (such as river segments or wetlands). This approach
successfully reduces pollutant loads, but often does not adequately
address the combined concentration of multiple sources that
contribute to a watershed's decline. For example, pollution from a
sewage treatment plant might be reduced significantly after a new
Exhibit 2-3: Selected activities affecting water,
watersheds and drinking water resources
Air deposition
Urban and suburban activities
Forestry
Agricultural P™ctkes
practices
technology is installed, and yet the local river may still suffer if other
factors in the watershed, such as habitat destruction or non-point
source pollution, are not addressed. Watershed management can
offer a stronger foundation than more traditional segmented
approaches fqr elucidating the many stressors that affect a
watershed ami for developing effective ma lagement strategies to
protect water resources.
; I
Section 2.2 addresses five questions about our nation's waters and
watersheds: j
H What is the condition of fresh surface waters and watersheds in
theUS.? ,.'... , ' .. ' i
• What are the extent and condition of wetlands?
H What is the condition of coastal waters?"
| What are pressures to water quality? \
• What ecological affects are associated ^ith impaired waters?
[
Loss of wetlands and the diversion of strejam flows are important to
understand and quantify condition. Coition, which is addressed in
the first three questions, is a function of the quality, extent, and
location of the water and how that water equality affects the
condition of the biotic resources that depend on that water. To
answer questions about condition, a watershed's extent, as well as its
chemical, physical, and biological attributes, must be defined. Section
2.2 addresses extent and chemical and physical attributes. Chapter
5, Ecological Condition, describes the biotic condition of waters and
watersheds.:
Indicators
Altered jjresh water ecosystems
Lake Trophic State Index
Because the components of condition vjary naturally, condition is
most often defined as a trend in concentrations or as concentrations
relative to standards adopted by state Agencies or set by EPA. Only a
few programs collect information on the; condition of waters at a
national scale. One of the most widespread among these programs is
EPA's state;data collection and reporting program, mandated under
Section 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act' (CWA), and the associated
biennial National Water Quality Inventory (NWQI). At this time,
however, these data cannot be used to produce a national indicator
that can answer this question with sufficient confidence and
scientific credibility because the programs vary greatly from state to
state in the:
H Percentage of waters assessed.
• Monitoring approaches used.

2-8
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Chapter2-Purer Water
, I
-------
• Water quality standards upon which the assessments are based
• Water quality characteristics measured in those assessments.

The CWA vests responsibility in states, territories, and tribes to assess
the health of their waters at least every two years. The purpose of these
assessments is to determine if the water quality in different areas is
supporting "designated uses," which are defined under state procedures
and approved by EPA. Typical state designated uses include aquatic life
protection, drinking water supplies, fish and shellfish consumption,
recreation, and agricultural, industrial, and domestic uses. Because'of
the high cost of monitoring, states, territories, and tribes typically
collect data and information for only a portion of their waterbodies.
Their programs and sampling techniques differ. Compounding these
differences is the fact that states also have the responsibility to set
water quality standards, many of which differ between states. States
monitor water quality to identify and address problems, and they often
place a higher priority on immediate management concerns than on
characterizing all their water resources. These issues limit the ability to
use CWA-mandated state data to describe water quality conditions at
the national level.

Two indicators, "altered fresh water ecosystems" and "lake trophic
state," partially address the question of the quality of the nation's
waters. These indicators are somewhat limited at this time, but they
do show that 23 percent of fresh water resources have been altered
physically to some degree and that 22 percent of northeastern U.S.
lakes exhibit eutrophic conditions.

In addition to the CWA 30S(b) reporting program, several other exist-
ing programs also contribute to our understanding of the condition of
aquatic resources:

The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) National Water Quality
Assessment(NAWQA) program is a perennial program designed to
provide consistent descriptions of the status and trends of some of
the largest and most important streams and aquifer systems of the
nation and to link the status and trends to the natural and human
factors that affect water quality. The program involves physical,
chemical, and biological assessments of 42 large hydrologic systems,
which are-conducted on staggered 10-year cycles. These
assessments include targeted sampling designs to measure stream
flow, habitat, water, sediment, and tissue chemistry, and to
characterize algae, invertebrate, and fish communities. NAWQA
studies cover watersheds and aquifers contributing a high
percentage of the water used in the U.S. The NAWQA program has
made valuable contributions in documenting the close relationship
between land use, chemicals used in watersheds (e.g., for
urban/industrial or agricultural activities), and the presence and
concentrations of chemicals found in streams and ground water.

. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
conducts representative sampling of estuarine and stream resources
and incorporates biological measures in condition estimates.
Geographic coverage for fresh water resources is limited to the
mid-Atlantic region and the western states. Coverage of estuarine
resources has been primarily limited to coastal areas on the East
Coast south of Cape Cod, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in some
western states. EMAP data on biological condition have been report-
ed for fish and macroinvertebrates in Mid-Atlantic Highland streams
and for macrobenthos in East Coast and Gulf of Mexico estuaries.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's)
National Status and Trends program (NS&T) collects information
on the chemical contamination of sediments and organisms and
potential biological effects in the nation's coastal areas. Sampling of
sediments .and bivalves was initiated in the mid-1980s from over 250
sites along the U.S. coast in areas not considered to be heavily pol-
luted. On a national scale, the higher levels of contamination in sedi-
ments are clearly associated with the urbanized areas of the north-
east states and with areas near San Diego, Los Angeles, and Seattle
on the West Coast Except at a few sites, higher levels of sediment
contamination are relatively rare in the Southeast and along the Gulf
of Mexico coast.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS's) National
Resources Inventory (NRI) is a statistically-based sample of land use
and natural resource conditions and trends on U.S. non-federal
lands. NRI collects data on land cover and use, soil erosion, prime
farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity, selected conservation
practices, and related resource attributes. Many of the resource
inventories have recognized relationships to water quality. The NRI
provides comprehensive data on land use on the 1.5 billion acres of
non-federal lands which are made up of roughly equal parts of
rangeland (27 percent), forest land (27 percent), and cropland
(25 percent).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS's) National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) project produces information on the
characteristics and extent of the nation's wetlands that is used by
the USFWS to produce status and trends reports. The Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act requires USFWS to update this information
at 10-year intervals. Data collected from over 4,300 randomly
selected sample plots provide important long-term trend information
about specific changes in wetland extent, where those changes take
place, and the overall status of wetlands in the U.S.. Data are
produced by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, which has
mapped 89 percent of the conterminous U.S. USFWS results are
discussed further in Section 2.2.2 of this chapter.

These programs portray a general picture of widespread fresh water '
and coastal wetland loss, of water quality widely impacted by stream
bank habitat loss, and of chemical contamination as urban land uses
ancl agriculture encroach into riparian areas. They show that the abun-
dance of nutrients from agriculture and atmospheric sources impacts
coastal areas, with 40 percent of estuaries exhibiting eutrophic condi-
tions (high nutrient concentrations and algae production), and some
estuaries also experiencing hypoxia (insufficient oxygen levels to sup-
port marine life) and reduced water clarity.
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2'Waters and Watersheds
2-9
-------

Pesticides from agricultural and urban areas are found widely in
surface waters, and residues from past chemical uses are found in
sediments and fish tissue. Mercury and mercury compounds are
foremost among pollutants contaminating fish. Bacterial
contamination is found throughout surface waters used for drinking,
although treatment of public water supplies is an effective barrier to
protect human health. Contamination of swimming beaches by
bacteria, however, continues to be a concern.

An improved ability to report on the condition of surface waters will
require a collaboration of states, tribal authorities, and federal
agencies. This may involve a nationally coordinated program/Under
Section 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to report
on the condition of their waterways. This requirement could serve as
a platform upon which national condition estimates could be
compiled using a consistent sample design approach and comparable
data collection and analysis procedures.

EPA has long sought to increase the coverage of water quality
assessments made and submitted biannually in conformance with
Section 305 (b) of the CWA. Historically, states have employed
monitoring programs with sampling methods targeted to known
problem areas that exhibit well-defined point and non-point
pollution sources. While these approaches are effective in relating
pollution sources to water quality conditions, they cannot accurately
represent both the extent and condition of water quality problems
and resources. EPA issued guidance on water quality assessments in
1997 (EPA, OW, September 1997), and produced a major
supplement to this guidance in 2002 (EPA, OW, July 2002). These
documents describe a comprehensive assessment as an evaluation of
water resources that covers a complete geographic area or resource;
provides information on the resource condition and spatial and
temporal trends in the resource condition; and identifies the
stressors (causes) and sources of pollution. The approach to these
assessments is defined as either a complete survey (census), a
judgmental or targeted design, or a statistical survey (probability-
based) using randomly selected sample locations that allow
researchers to make valid inferences about the condition of the water
resource. The targeted approach is effective for relating specific
pollution sources to water-condition and is used in guiding pollution
abatement, whereas the statistical/census survey approaches provide
a complete or representative assessment of the entire resource.

In 2000.14 states reported that they had monitored and assessed
more than 95 percent of their lakes, and 10 states reported that
they had assessed at least 98 percent of their rivers. Two years.
later, in 2002, three states reported that they had made these
assessments using a statistically valid sampling design. Several
states are engaged in multi-year studies that are adding probabilistic
surveys to their assessments. Examples of states that are collecting
data from statistically-based monitoring networks are described in
the sidebar.
Statistically-based water quality
monitoring in states:
Two examples
j I
Indiana , ! I
In its 2002 State of the Environment Report, the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management'(IDEM) used a sta-
tistical su[vey to assess stream water quality by major water-
sheds. Historically, IDEM assessed 6^000 to 8,000 miles of
stream e>jlry two years. Beginning in 1996, 20 percent of the
state's streams Were sampled each year in its watershed moni-
toring program and then assessed for ihe ability to support
aquatic life. The results allowed IDEM to estimate the water
quality W thin each major water basin 'in the state. IDEM
reports His data with 95 percent confidence. Accuracy varies
between
aasins, but is Between 11 anci 16 percent.
Of the 3 5,430 stream miles assessed over the past five years,
approximately 64.5 percent were estimated to fully support
the maintenance of welLbalanced aquatic communities. Fish
and benlhic macroinvertebrate community'assessments provid-
ed a measurement of adverse response to stressors. -Some of
the com nunity responses included'loss of sensitive species,
lack of Diversity, and increase in tolerant species. As a result,
several rundred stream miles were classified as not fully sup-
porting aquatic life based on the fish'and macroinvertebrate
commurity surveyed.

AAarylana
The Maijyland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) uses a probability-
based survey design to assess the states of biological resources in
Maryland's non-tidal streams. The state intends to:
B Characterize biological resources and ecological conditions.
• Assets theJ condition" of these resources.
• Idenjify the likely sources of degradation.

The state has developed an interim framework for applying biocrite-
ria in t^ state's water quality inventory (305 [b] report) and list of
impairetwaters (303 [d] list). To date,'the proposed biocriteria for
wadeafclie, non-tidal (first to fourth-order) streams rely on two bio-
logical 'indicators from tne MBSS; the fish and benthic indices of
biotic (integrity (IBls). The approach'centers on identifying impaired
waterbjodies at the Maryland 8-digit watershed and 12-digit subwa-
tershec levels.
A preliminary evaluati
nary evaion using MBSS 2000 data was conducted to
watersheds failing to meetth4 requirements of the interim
eria framework: For a portion of the state, three 8-digit water-
[hat were assessed passed, and six were inconclusive. Of the
rsheds sampled at the 12^-digit subwatershed level, 69
32 passed, and' 22 were inconclusive. !'
2-10
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
IKapter 2 - Purer Water
-------
Altered fresli water ecosystems - Category 2
Physically altering a fresh waterbody can change its character and
the benefits it provides local communities and land owners Fresh
waterbodies may be altered to increase some other benefit— for
example, to control floods; improve navigation; reduce erosion-
increase the available area for farming, livestock grazing, or devel-
opment; and increase the amount of water available for drinking
and industrial purposes. However, these alterations also change
fish and wildlife habitat, disrupt patterns and timing of waterflows
serve as barriers to animal movement, and reduce or eliminate the
natural filtering of sediment and pollutants. In addition water
usage, particularly in the arid West, but also in suburban areas
that rely on wells, may deplete aquifers and thus cause permanent
damage to the physical characteristics of surface water resources
including reduced base flows.

The altered fresh water ecosystems indicator reports the
percentage of each of the major fresh water ecosystems (rivers
and streams, riparian areas, wetlands, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs)
that are altered. "Altered" is defined differently for each of these
ecosystems:
• Streams and rivers (all flowing surface waters) are altered if they
are leveed or channelized or impounded behind a dam.
• Riparian zones along rivers and streams are considered altered
if they are used for urban or agricultural purposes.
• Lakes and reservoirs are considered altered if any portion of the
area immediately-adjacent to the shoreline is either urban or
agricultural land. Since there is no agreed-upon proportion of
shoreline that must be in these land use categories to classify
an mdividual lake as "altered," this indicator simply reports the
overall percentage of lake or reservoir shoreline with agricultural
or urban land use in the shoreline zone. (Note that, at present,
data for lakes and reservoirs are aggregated, even though a
reservoir is a man-made structure or seriously altered habitat If,'
in the future, natural lakes can be.distinguished from reservoirs '
these may be reported separately. In this case, the number or '
percent of natural lakes whose waterflow has been altered by
damming would also be reported.)
• Wetlands are considered altered if they are excavated, impounded,
diked, partially drained, or farmed (Cowardin, et al., 1979).

What the Data Show
Data reported for this indicator were produced using remote
sensing imagery and the USCS stream/lake database (National
Hydrography Data Set). These data characterize areas adjacent to
a waterbody at a resolution of about 100 feet across. Thus they
present the general land cover surrounding a lake or stream
rather than a fine-scale picture of the exact composition of a
shoreline or bank.
The available data indicate that 23 percent of the banks of both
nvers and streams (riparian areas) and lakes and reservoirs have
either croplands or urban development in the narrow area immedi-
ately adjacent to them. Data on the degree to which streams and
rivers are channelized, leveed, or impounded are not available. -

Dahl (2000) does provide some information on the extent to
which wetlands are altered. For example, from 1986 to 1997-
• A total of 78,100 acres (31,600 hectares) of forested wetlands
were converted to fresh water ponds.
• Human activities, "such as creating new impoundments or raising
the water levels on existing impoundments (thus killing the
trees), created conversions to deep water lakes.
• Additionally, fresh water unconsolidated shores exhibited an 8
percent gain in acreage or about 32,000 acres (13,000
hectares). This was. due, in part, to peat mining operations that
removed the wetland vegetation and exposed the substrate.
Because these areas were not drained, they remained wetland,
but their classification was changed from "fresh water shrub
bogs" to "fresh water unconsolidated shores."

Indicator Caps and Limitations

There is no nationally aggregated database that records the num-
ber of impounded or leveed river miles. As noted above, there is
. also no method for calculating the extent of downstream effects
of .dams, other than by conducting site-specific investigations for
each dam.

At present, there are no nationally aggregated databases that list
whether natural lakes are dammed at their outlets. It is possible
that existing databases on dam locations, such as those main-
tained by the US. Army Corps of Engineers, could be merged with
other datasets, such as the National Hydrography Data Set
(MHD), to derive this information.

Data on the alteration of rivers and streams are not collected in a '
manner that allows for aggregation to provide a national
perspective.

Data Source
Data on altered wetlands are available only in paper form on a
quad-sheet by quad-sheet basis. The data sources for this
indicator were the:
• Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium and U S
Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset, processed by
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-T1
-------
SjfjJiliSllillSMisls^^
i F
Altered fresh, water ecosystems - Category 2 (continuecjl , ^ ; : n—:ILI
the EPA's Office of Research and Development (National
Exposure Research Laboratory).
Lake Trophic State Index - Category 2
Lakes can be divided into three categories based on trophic state:
oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic. These categories reflect
a lake's nutrient and clarity levels.
• Oligoirophlc lakes are generally clear, deep, and free of weeds or
large algae blooms. They are low in nutrients and do not sup-
port large numbers offish. Oligotrophic lakes often develop a
food chain capable of sustaining a very desirable fishery of
large game fish.
• Eutrophic lakes are high in nutrients and support a large biomass
(all the plants and animals living in a lake). They are usually
either weedy, or subject to frequent algae blooms, or both.
Eutrophic lakes often support large fish populations, but are
also susceptible to oxygen depletion. A subcategory, hyper-
irophic lakes, is used below to describe lakes that are extremely
eutrophic (i.e., very nutrient-enriched), resulting in particularly
high productivity (Peterson, et al., 1999).
• Mesotropbic lakes lie between the oligotrophic and eutrophic
stages.

A natural aging process occurs in all lakes, causing them to change
from oligotrophic to eutrophic over time. This process is acceler-
ated by nutrient enrichment from agriculture, lawn fertilizers,
streets, septic systems, and urban storm drains.

Various methods are used to calculate the trophic state of lakes.
Common characteristics used to determine trophic state are: total
phosphorus concentration (important for algae growth); concen-
tration of chlorophyll a (a measure of the amount of algae pres-
ent); and secchi disc readings (an indicator of water clarity).

No national data regarding the trophic state of lakes are available.
However, regional patterns of lake trophic condition were assessed
for a target population of 11,076 northeast lakes, which were
sampled during the summers of 1991 to 1994 using a trophic
state index based primarily on their nutrient or total phosphorus
(TP) concentrations (Peterson, et al., 1999). A total of 344 lakes
were sampled once.
| Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish ancj Wildlife Service,
National Wetlands Inventory (See Appendix B, page B-9, for
more information.). j.
I -
The following trophic state categories wefe established based on
total phosphorus concentrations:
• Oligotrophic for nutrient poor (less than 10 parts per
billion [ppb]). ; I .
U Mesotrophic to denote nutrient concentrations sufficient to
support natural algal communities (frojri 10 to 30 ppb).
II Eutrophic for enriched nutrient conditions (from 30 to 60 ppb).
llHypertropWcforvery nutrient-enriched (greater than 60 ppb).

What tlhe Data Show i

The trophic state analysis (Exhibit 2-4) phowed that 37.9 percent
of the northeast lakes were oligotroph'icj 40.1 percent were -
mesotrophic, 12.6 percent were eutro'prjic, and 9.3 percent were
hypertrophic (Peterson, et al., 1999). ;
f" "B^pt 2-4: Tropnic State Index for northeast lakes,
2-12
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
lapter 2 - Purer Water
-------
Lake Trophic State'index - Category 2 (continued)
Indicator Gaps and Limitations
These data reflect a one-time sample of lakes in one region, the
Northeast, and cannot be extrapolated to the national scale or
provide trends data. Also, trophic status in and of itself does not
.necessarily imply that water quality problems exist (i.e., that olig-
otrophy is a common natural state).
Data Source

The data source for this indicator was the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program Lakes Data Set. (See
Appendix B, page B-9, for more information.)
Indicators
Wetland extent and change
Sources of wetland change/loss
When European settlers first arrived, wetland acreage in the area that
would become the 48 states was more than 220 million acres, or about
five percent of the total area of the conterminous U.S. More than one-
half of the wetlands in the conterminous U.S. have been lost or convert-
ed to other uses since pre-colonial times. However, in as little as four
recent decades, the rate of wetland loss has declined dramatically, from
about 500,000 acres per year to less than 100,000 acres per year
(Dahl, 2000). By 199? total wetland acreage was estimated to be
105.5 million acres (Dahl, 2000). Almost 50 percent of wetland loss
occurring in the 1990s was due to conversion to urban and suburban
development.

Wetland ecosystems are areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support (and that under normal circumstances do support) a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil .
conditions. There are different types of wetlands, including: fresh water
wetlands, inland wetlands, and coastal wetlands (see glossary for
definitions). These habitats provide many benefits to humans and
ecological systems. For example, wetland habitats are critical to the life
cycles of many plants and fish, shellfish, migratory birds, and other
wildlife. They provide essential breeding habitat for roughly one-
quarter of all North American breeding bird species (Davis, 2000). In
1997, it was estimated that 81 percent (72 species) of the U.S. bird
species on the Endangered Species List were dependent on or
associated with wetlands (Day Boylan and MacLean, 1997).

An estimated 95 percent of commercial fish and 85 percent of sport
fish spend a portion of .their life cycles in coastal wetland and estu-
arine habitats. Adult stocks of commercially harvested shrimp, blue
crab, oysters, and many other species throughout the U.S. (EPA,
ORD, OW, September 2001) are directly related to wetland qua'lity
and quantity (EPA, OW, OWOW, March 2002). More than half of all
U.S. adults (98 million people) hunt, fish, birdwatch, or photograph
1 wildlife (USFWS, 2002). Many of these activities are associated with
healthy wetlands.

Wetlands also filter residential, agricultural, and industrial wastes,
thereby improving surface water quality. They buffer coastalareas
against storm and wave damage. Wetlands function as natural
sponges that trap and slowly release surface water, rain, snowmelt,
ground water, and flood waters. Trees, root mats, and other wetland
vegetation also slow the speed of flood waters and distribute them
more slowly over the floodplain. This combined water storage and
braking action lowers flood heights and reduces erosion. Wetlands
within and downstream of urban areas are particularly valuable,
counteracting the greatly increased rate and volume of surface water
runoff from pavement and buildings. The holding capacity of wet-
lands helps control floods and prevents water logging of crops.
Preserving and restoring wetlands can often provide the level of
flood control otherwise provided by expensive dredge operations
and levees. For example, the bottomland hardwood-riparian wetlands
along the Mississippi River once stored at least 60 days of flood
water. Now these wetlands store only 12 days of flood water because
most have been filled or drained (EPA, OW, December 1995).

Wetlands are diverse. Inland wetlands are most common on flood- .
plains along rivers and streams (riparian wetlands), in isolated
depressions surrounded by dry land (e.g., playas, basins, and "pot-
holes"), along the margins of lakes and ponds, and in other low-lying
areas where the ground water intercepts the soil surface orwhere
precipitation sufficiently saturates the soil (e.g., vernal pools and
bogs). Inland wetlands include marshes and wet meadows dominated
by herbaceous plants, swamps dominated by shrubs, and wooded
swamps dominated by trees. Many wetlands are seasonal (i.e., they
are dry one or more seasons every year). In fact, particularly in the
arid and semiarid West, wetlands may be wet only periodically. The
quantity of water present and the timing of its presence in part
determine the functions of a wetland and its role in the environment.
Even wetlands that appear dry at times for significant parts of the
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-13
-------
!!!!!!!!!i!!!!!!!!!!!i!™9i iiiiiiiiuli li ensure that both wetland
extent and condition can be properly described in the future.
i

Wetland extent and change - Category 1
Two programs, the USFWS NWI status and trends studies and the
NRCS NRI, estimate wetland extent. The USFWS surveys all
wetlands in the conterminous U.S. The NRI surveys wetlands on
non-federal lands, which make up approximately 75 percent of the
nation's land base. The methods employed differ, but the
Statistical results from the most recent survey period were not
significantly different. USFWS data are used for the "wetland
extent and change" indicator due to their broader coverage. This
indicator is derived from three separate analyses: one covering the
1950s to the 1970s; one covering the 1970s to 1980s, and one
covering the 1980s to the 1990s.

The USFWS counts all wetlands every 10 years, regardless of land
ownership, but only recognizes wetlands that are at least three
acres. A permanent study design is used, based initially on
stratification of the 48 conterminous states by state boundaries
and 35 physiographic subdivisions. Within these subdivisions are
4,375 randomly selected, four-square-mile (2,560 acres) sample
plots. These plots were examined with the use of aerial imagery,
ranging in scale and type; most were 1:40,000 scale, color
Infrared, from the National Aerial Photography Program.

Field verification was conducted to address questions of image inter-
pretation, land use coding, and attribution of wetland gains or losses;
plot delineations were also completed. For example, for the 1980s to
1990s analysis, 21 percent of the sample plots were verified.
What the Data Show :

When European settlers first arrived, wetjarjd acreage in the area that
would become the 48 states was more than 220 million acres, or
about five percent of the total area of the conterminous U.S. Since
then, extensive losses have occurred, and over half of our original
wetlands have been-drained and filled. By 1997, total wetland acreage ',
was estimated to be 105.5 million acres '(CJahl, 2000). Of that total,
nearly 95 percent or 100.2 million acres Were fresh water and about
five percent or 5.3 million acres were int:erj:idal marine and estuarine.
Between 1986 and 1997, 98 percent of'allj wetland losses in the con-
terminous U.S. were fresh water wetlands.;

Rates of annual wetland losses have been decreasing from almost
500,000 acres a year three decades ago to less than 100,000
acres, averaged annually since 1986 (Exhibit 2-5). The USFWS
estimated the annual rate of loss at 58,500 acres per year
between 1S86 and 1997. This represent^ an 80 percent reduction
compared to the previous decade's ratejof loss. The slower rate of
wetland loss is due to several factors, including:
• Federal farm policies that discourage drainage and encourage
restoration. j
II More effective government regulation.
H Better land stewardship. • ;
H Acquisition and protection of sensitive environmental areas.
H More state, tribal, and local involvement in wetland protection
programs.
2-14
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
tnapter 2 - Purer Water :
-------

Wetland extent and cnange - Category:1 (continued1)
Exhibit 2-5: Average annual wetland loss,
1954-1974,1974-1983,1986-1997
600,000
500,000
1954-74 1974-83

Coverage: Conterminous United States

Source: Frayer et al. Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats in the Conterrn'mous United States, 1950s to 1970s. T983;
Dahl, T.E. and C. E. Johnson. Wetlands Status and Trends in the '
Conterminous United States:.! 970s to 1980s. 1 991; Dahi.T.E. Status
and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to
7997.2000. ... . ... ... ..... ..
In addition to loss of wetland acreage, a major ecological impact has
been the conversion of one wetland type to another, such as clear-
ing trees from a forested wetland or excavating a shallow marsh to
create an open water pond. Open water ponds have more than dou-
bled in area since the 1950s and are not the ecological equivalent
of fresh water emergent marshes. These types of conversions change
habitat types and community structure in watersheds and impact
the animal communities that depend on them.

Wetland types include fresh water forested, shrub, and emer-
gent wetlands, plus open water ponds. Forested and emergent
wetlands make up over 75 percent of all fresh water wetlands.
Since the 1950s, fresh water emergent wetlands have declined
by nearly 24 percent—more than any other fresh water wet-
land type. Fresh water forested wetlands have sustained the
greatest overall losses—10.4 million acres since the 1950s
(Exhibit 2-6).

Coastal wetlands are the vegetated interface between aquatic and
terrestrial components of estuarine ecosystems. Estuarine emer-
gent wetlands account for nearly 75 percent of coastal wetlands.
The loss of coastal wetland habitats in the U.S. is significant
(Exhibit 2-7). Since the 1950s, coastal and estuarine losses were
about 1.4 million acres-a nearly 12 percent decline. Emergent
and forested intertidal wetlands experienced the greatest absolute
and proportional losses during this four-decade measurement
period. Proportional losses along the West Coast have been the
largest (68 percent), although the actual number of acres lost
there is among the smallest. Absolute and proportional acreages
lost in the Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico are also high (about
50 percent of wetlands that existed in pre-colonial times). Even in
more recent years (mid- to late 1990s), wetland losses in south-
eastern and Gulf of Mexico states continue at a high rate—more
than one percent per year.
txhibit 2-6: Long-term trends in selected
freshwater wetlands, 1954-1997
s (in Thousands)
~6T,150
66,6.06.
~ ~ .™_ = _ t^m
A. Freshwater Forested IB
-^ 56,000-
jgr54.666
SS.-.-S2,000-
fcso.ooo1
1 950s
1970s
1980s
£=.-v Acres (in Thousands)
Ss:2o;ooo-
B™*-~ - '
B. Freshwater Shrubs

15,506
18,366
S"ource: Frayer et al. Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the ":•
Conterminous United States, 79SOs.fo 7970s. 1983; Dahl, T.E. andCE. Johnson. "^
. Wetlands Status and Trends in the Conterminous United States: 1970s to 1980s. 1991;,;,
.. Dahl, f. E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to "
7997.2000. "..-...
Chapter 2 - Furer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-15
-------

Ililll:
Wetland extent and change - Category I (continued)
wr
6.200
'Exnioit 2-7: Long-term trends in
selected" estuarine wetlands, IQ54-I997
1950s
1970s
1980s
1990s
B. Estuarine Vegetated Wetlands
1950s 1970s 1980s 1990s
741
i" „
C. Estuarine Non-vegetated Wetlands
678
~IT— **-——— _J80 580 '.
sc*
Of
H flf mil •
»
t?'
» Ift * q
Slim in I iiiiii KHIIUI
Is* ''„ '"
• *

1950s
1970s
1980s
1990s
Coverage; Conterminous United States

Sour cc Frayer et »L Stains and Trends of Wetlands and Deepmter Habitats in the '.;
G»»(«tiiiK«(Me(lState, TSSOsto 1970s. 1983;Dahl,T.EandCE.Johnson. ,.;
WdfanAStetasoikf Trends in tlw Conterminous United States: I970sto 1980s. 1991;..
DM, T. L State oaf Trends ofWettamli in the Conterminous United States 1986 to '
I9J7, 2000.
4r*VnflFT-p»r™-ErHigp-t-1'fp
. Indicator Gaps and Limitations

This indicator' does not effectively address the question of wet-
land condition. While it is possible to inventory wetlands that
have been lost, many wetlands have suffered degradation of con-
dition and functions, which cannot be quantified nationally.
i
Different methods were used in some of the early classification
schemes to classify wetland types. The currently used classifica-
tion system was not applied to some of the earlier (1970s) maps.
As methods and spatial resolution have improved over time,
acreage data were adjusted, resulting in changes in the overall
wetland base over time. Thus, the evaluation process is evolving,
which contributes to reducing the accuracy of the trends
observed.
Forested wetl.snds are difficult to photointej-pret and are generally
underestimated by the USFWS. Ephemeral Wetlands and effectively
drained palustrine wetlands observed in farfn production are not
recognized as a wetland type by the USFWJi and, therefore, are not
included. Also, USFWS does not survey wetlands under 3 acres in
size; therefore, no record exists of the exterjit and change in these
valuable resources. Pacific coast estuarine wetlands are not surveyed
due to the discontinuity in their patch sizes,. The temporal coverage
of the coastal wetland loss indicator (length of record) is not
consistent ac'oss the U.S.
i i
Data Source
The data for this indicator are from the Department of the
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, S,taj;us and Trends Report.
(See Appendix B, page B-9 for more information.)
2-16
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Cmapter 2 - Furer Water
-------
sources OT
f wetland cnanqe/ loss - Cateqory 2
:gory.
This indicator attempts to estimate the causes or sources of wet-
land losses. The extensive survey data collected in the NRI by the
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation
with the Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory provides land
use information that can be associated with estimates of wetland
extent. This database is a compilation of natural resource informa-
tion on non-federal land, which comprises nearly 75 percent of
the nation's total land area. The 1997 NRI captures data on land
cover and use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat
diversity, selected conservation practices; and related resource
attributes at over 300,000 primary sample units (nominally 160
acres each) containing over 800,000 sample points.

Data used for the NRI were collected using a variety of imagery,
field office records, historical records and data, ancillary materials,
and a limited number of on-site visits. The data have been com-
piled, verified, and analyzed to provide a comprehensive look at
the state of the nation's non-federal lands.
What the Data Show

According to the USDA Agricultural Research Service, between
1954 and 1974, agriculture accounted for 81 percent of all
wetlands conversions. As a result of changing federal agricultural
policies that emphasize wetlands conservation, agriculture
accounted for only 20 percent of national wetlands conversion
between 1982 and 1992 (USDA, 2000). In surveys conducted
between 1992 and 1997, NRI determined that 506,000 acres of
wetlands on non-federal lands were lost, while 343,000 were
gained, for a net loss of 163,000 acres. Agriculture accounted for
26 percent of the net national wetlands loss for this survey
period, although this varies by region. For example, in the Midwest
and northern plains, about 50 percent of the losses were from
agriculture (Exhibit 2-8). Since the mid-to late 1980s, urban,
suburban, and commercial development have been the major
contributors to net losses of wetland resources and were
responsible for 49 percent of those losses. The East, Southeast,
and South Central states had the highest percentages of wetland
losses due to development. In the East, 67 percent of the wetland
losses were a result of development (USDA, 2000). Timber
harvesting practices and conversion of land to silvicultural uses
•Exhibit 2-8: Non-Federal wetland losses and gains and reasons for conversion, 1992-1997
Silviculture
Development
coverage does not include Alaska, Hawaii or Puerto Rico
Sburce: Summary Report 1937 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000). 2000.
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-17
-------
I ^WiMB^"
Indicat
Sources of wetland cnange/loss - Category 2 (continue/:
j^^T^-niw^^ipm^^iTn yp^j^Bfn^iYSjta^ ^"'^11

lliStlllf^
have also contributed to losses in wetland resources. The NRI
analysis attributed 12 percent of the wetland losses between
1992 and 1997 to silviculture.

Using different methods, the USFWS reported a similar result from
1986 to 1997: 30 percent of wetland losses were attributed to
urban development; 21 percent to rural development; 23 percent
to silviculture; and 26 percent to agriculture (Dahl, 2000).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The differences in survey design between NRI and USFWS will
continue to cause difficulties in assessing the effectiveness of
current wetlands policies. The USFWS dataj are gathered from
interpretation of aerial imagery and remotely sensed data, and are
repeated every 10 years. The NRI data are based on statistical
sampling, but cio not include an adequate sample of coastal
resources. They provide information at a coarse scale, summarized
by state, and jire useful for national reporting. The NRI does not
collect data oi) federal lands or for the state of Alaska.

Data Source
i
Data for this indicator come from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Niational Resources Inventory (;2000).
(See Appendix B, page B-10, for more information.)

Indicators
Water clarity in coastal waters
Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters
Total organic carbon in sediments
Chlorophyll concentrations
Coastal waters—the interface between the land and the sea—
provide a wide range of habitats for animals and plants essential to
global ecosystems, and they support the majority of commercial and
recreational fisheries in the U.S. Coastal waters also contain
significant energy and mineral reserves, travel lanes for shipping, and
a base for outdoor recreation and tourism industries (EPA, ORD,
OW, September 2001).

Coastal waters include estuaries—bodies of water that are balanced
by fresh water and sediment influx from rivers and tidal action of
the oceans. They provide a transition zone between fresh water and
saline water. Estuaries are unique environments that support wildlife
and fisheries and contribute substantially to the economy of
coastal areas. These natural areas are under the most intense devel-
opment pressure in the nation. This narrow fringe accounts for only
17 percent of the total conterminous U.S. land area, but is home to
more than 53 percent of the population, today, that proportion is
growing faster than in any other area of the U.S. (NRC, 2000).
: i
Four indicators have been selected to address the condition of
coastal waters: water clarity, dissolved oxygen content, organic
carbon content of sediments, and chlorpphyll concentrations. The
first three—water clarity, dissolved oxygen, and organic carbon
content—are I derived from EPA's EMAP, which samples estuaries
using a probability- based design. •;
i

For water clarity and dissolved oxygen, estuaries in the East, West,
and Gulf of Mexico coast are well represented. These two indicators,
as reported in EPA's Coastal Condition Report (EPA, ORD, OW,
September 2C 01), show that water clarity ?nd oxygen conditions are
good. Organic; carbon data indicate that 1^ percent of the area of
mid-Atlantic estuaries have enriched carbon levels. About 33 percent
of the mid-Atlantic estuarine area had chlorophyll concentrations
exceeding the Chesapeake Bay restoration goal for survival of
submerged aquatic vegetation. Coastal waters overall exhibited much
lower chlorophyll concentrations. Chlorophyll concentrations were
the most proriounced in the Gulf of Mexico.

Eutrophication is also an important parameter for understanding the
condition of coastal waters; however, insufficient data were available
to develop a scientifically robust indicator for this parameter at the
national level. Eutrophication is discussed following the indicator
descriptions. j .; . |
2-18
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Chapter 2 - furer Water
-------
Water clarity in coastal waters - Category 2
Light penetration is an important characteristic of many estuarine
and coastal habitats. Reduced penetration is often associated with
eutrophic conditions, algal blooms, and erosional events. Reduced
clarity can impair the normal algal growth that contributes to
oligotrophy and the extent and vitality of submerged aquatic
vegetation. This is a critical habitat component for many aquatic
animals.

For purposes of this indicator, water clarity is defined as a measure
of light penetration (i.e., the amount and type of light reaching a
one - meter water depth compared to the amount and type of

|" Exhibit 2-9: Estuarine area with good (>25% of light incident
S-at the surface),-fair (between 25 and 10% of incident light), and
|:: poor (
-------
Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters - (Category 2
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a fundamental requirement for all
estuarine life. Low levels of oxygen often accompany the onset of
severe bacterial degradation, sometimes resulting in algal scums,
fish kills, and noxious odors, as well as loss of habitat and
aesthetic values. Often, low dissolved oxygen occurs as a result of
the process of decay of large algal blooms whose remnants sink to
the bottom. Concentrations of oxygen below about 2 parts per
million are thought to be stressful to estuarine organisms (Diaz
and Rosenberg, 1995; EPA, OW, October 2000).

Under EPA's EMAP, data were collected generally at one-meter
above the bottom using electronic DO meters. In some cases, data
were point-in-time measurements taken once during the summer
months (e.g., in the Virginian Province), while in other cases data
were predominantly collected by continuous readings over a mul-
tiple day/time period (e.g., in the Louisianian Province). Values of
dissolved oxygen were classified into three condition categories:
• Poor, less than 2 parts per million (ppm)
• Fair: between 2 and 5 ppm
• Good: greater than 5 ppm

What the Data Show

Dissolved oxygen conditions in the nation's estuaries are reported
by EPA, ORD, OW (September 2001) in its Coastal Condition
Report as "good" because 80 percent of the estuarine waters
assessed exhibited dissolved oxygen at concentrations greater
than five ppm. Both EMAP and NOAA's National Eutrophication
Assessment examined the extent of estuarine waters with low
dissolved oxygen. EMAP estimates that only about four percent of
bottom waters have low dissolved oxygen (Exhibit 2- 10).
However, low dissolved oxygen is a problem in some individual
estuarine systems like the Neuse River Estuary and parts of the
Chesapeake Bay.

Hypoxia resulting from anthropogenic activities is a relatively
local occurrence in Gulf of Mexico estuaries, accounting for about
4 percent of the total area, however, hypoxia in the shelf waters of
the Gulf of Mexico is more significant. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxia
zone is the largest anthropogenic coastal hypoxic area in the
western hemisphere (CAST, 1999). Since 1993, mid-summer
bottom water hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico has been
larger than 3,860 square miles (except in 2000). In 1999, it
reached over 7. 700 square miles (CENR, 2000).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Coverage of the nation's coastline is limited. Probabilistic surveys
like those in the Northeast, the Southeast, and the Gulf Coast do
not exist for areas north of Cape Cod or for the Great Lakes.
Similar probabilistic data do not exist for Ruget Sound or San
Francisco Bay. ',
I . j
The relationship between threshold values and effects on aquatic
life is neither well established nor expected(to be consistent
across all regions. For example, warm water|environments would be
naturally lower in DO. The criteria of two ppm might not be
sufficiently protective in cold water environments. Much of the data
apparently represent point-in-time measures. If so, the data contain
limitations, and the length of time that dissolved oxygen concen-
trations were below two ppm would riot haye been considered.
j f
The data set incorporates a mix of time series and point-in-time
measures based on historical data sets collected. Where time
series data are available and used, better estimates of oxygen
conditions would be achieved. Point-in-tirrje measures are weaker.
Since only one season, the summer, was generally represented,
oxygen stressi in other seasons would be rpissed.

Data Source ;
! i j

Dissolved oxygen data used for this indicator are from the EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Estuaries
database. (See Appendix B, page B-10, fo|r more information.)
2-10:,Estuarine area with |>oor (<2 ppm),
.ween 2 and 5 ppm), and good (>5 ppm)
| j'gsojved oxygen conditions, 2000
4%
•Ppm
16%
807o
' I Coverage Urated States eas^ coast (exclu3mg*wa tersViortli of" Cape CoclJ,
west coanTand Gulf of Mexico " * """ ..... ' .......... """""* ........ ""
' *
Source
'" Naiiomjj
^ ^ •[ ^ft <
fc. |, j H jf *
|PA, Office, of Research and Development ond Office of Water. ^
*C
-------

Total organic carton in sediments - Category 2
Total organic carbon (TOC) is a measure of the concentration of
organic matter in sediments. It represents the long-term, average
burial rate of organic matter in the sediments. High TOC values
can arise from frequent algal blooms in the overlying waters or
transport of sewage or high organic waste from point sources
TOC can also sequester or chelate organic compounds and some
metals and make them less biologically available for uptake
fEftt 2-11: Wages of Mid-Atlantk estuarine area
| witn low, intermediate, and Kign total organic carbon
content in sediments, 1997-1998
Note: High is > 3%; Intermediate is >1 to 3%; Low is <1%
rCh 3nd DeVel°Pment- Mid-Atlantic Integrated
>^^!>°rt. Mai;2003.
TOC values are calculated as percent carbon in dried sediments
Assessment categories for the Mid-Atlantic estuaries were-
• Low: 1 percent
• Intermediate: >1 to 3 percent
• High: >3 percent

What the Data Show

Carbon values ranged from 0.02 to 13 percent throughout the
m.d-Atlantic estuaries (Paul, et al., 1999). For the mid-Atlantic
reg.on, about 60 percent of the estuarine sediments had low
rOC values, about 24 percent had intermediate TOC values
and 16 percent had high TOC sediment values (EPA ORD
May 2003); (Exhibit 2,11). Values ranged from Delaware Bay
w,th about 95 percent of its sediments having low TOC values
to the Chowan River in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary with
65 percent of its sediments having high TOC values (EPA, ORD
May 2003). The Chesapeake Bay mainstem had about
65 percent of its .sediments with low TOC values and about
15 percent with high TOC values.

Indicator Caps and Limitations

These data are from a survey of mid-Atlantic estuaries and cannot
be extrapolated to national-scale estimates. Samples were collected
dunng an EMAP-defined index period of summer months.

Data Source

The total organic carbon data for this indicator come from EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Program. (See Appendix B,
page B-10, for more information.)
Chlorophyll
concentrations - Category 2
Chlorophyll concentrations are a measure of the abundance of
phytoplankton. Phytoplankton account for most of the plant
production in the ocean. Excessive growth of phytoplankton as
measured through chlorophyll concentrations, can lead to
degraded water quality, such as noxious odors, decreased water
clarity, oxygen depletion, and harmful algal blooms. Excess
phytoplankton growth is usually associated with increased nutrient
inputs (e.g., watershed or atmospheric transport, upwelling) or a
declme ,n filtering organisms such as clams, mussels, or oysters
(The Heinz Center, 2002).
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-21
-------
^^-. -a--: i... —I-TT— (. r:'«sjE;:iH«;ss
CKIoropKyll concentrations - Category 2 (continued)
Chlorophyll concentrations were considered for both estuarme
and ocean waters within 25 miles of the coast (The Heinz Center,
2002). Three categories of concentrations were established by
EPA for mid-Atlantic estuaries:
• Good: 15 ppb
• Fain 15-30 ppb
• Poor: > 30 ppb

The lower threshold of 15 ppb chlorophyll is equal to the restoration
goal recommended for the survival of submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) in Chesapeake Bay (Batiuk, et al., 2000).

For ocean waters, the indicator reports the average value for the sea-
son, displaying the highest concentrations for each region. Estuarme
chlorophyll concentrations are not available for national reportmg.
Ocean data, based on surface reflectance, were inferred from National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Sea-viewing W,de
field-of-View-Sensor. Data were analyzed for nine ocean regions by
NOAA's National Ocean Service. The estuarine chlorophyll concentra-
tions were obtained from field measurements as part of the EPA EMAP
Mid-Atlantic Estuaries Program.
ibit 2-12: Chlorophyll concentrations in
U.S. coastal waters, 1Q98-2OOO
—•— North Atlantic ';,„»

—•— Mid-Atlantic S-S

•— South Atlantic ;,;,„;

—•— Gulf of Mexico j-|

—•— Southern ^ >
California p-|

" • • Pacific pi
Northwest g™,™

t Alaska ;,; a

—•-- Bering Sea r. J

8 Hawaii ' :
Coverage: all U.S. waters,
including Alaska and Hawaii,
within 25 miles of the coast.
1995 96 97 98 99 2000

Source; Modified from The Heinz Center. The Stale of the Nation's
Eeo»!«ms, 2002. Data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
^Service.
What the Data Show

Analysis of the data showed that: j
• Ocean chlorophyll concentrations ranged from average season-
al concentrations of 0.1 to 6.5 ppb '(Exhibit 2-12) (The Heinz
Center, 2002). ;
• The highest ocean chlorophyll concentrations (4.8 to 6.5 ppb)
occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, with the lowest concentrations (
0.1 ppb) in Hawaiian waters (Exhibit 2-1^).
• Southern California had the next lowest cjhlorophyll concentra-
tions—between 1.1 and 1.5 ppb (Exhibit 2-12).
H Other ocean waters (e.g, north, mid-, ancj south Atlantic, and the
Pacific Northwest) had chlorophyll coricejntrations ranging from
2 to 4.5 ppb (Exhibit 2-12). j
a Chlorophyll concentrations in the mid-A{lantic estuaries ranged
from 0.7 to 95 ppb in 1997 and 1998 ^EPA, ORD, May 2003).
• About 33 percent of the mid-Atlantic estuarine area had chloro-
phyll concentrations exceeding 15 ppb. ;
• The Delaware Estuary showed a wide range of chlorophyll concen-
trations, from a low (< 15 ppb) in the Delaware Bay, to intermediate
(15-30 ppb) in the Delaware River, to very high (> 80 ppb) in the
Salem river. ; I .
• The western tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay were consistently
high in chlorophyll a, with more than 25 percent of the area
showing > 30 ppb chlorophyll concentrations.
• Chlorophyll concentrations in the cqastal bays were generally
low (< 115 ppb), even though nutrients were elevated because
of increased turbidity and low light penetration.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Algorithms used to translate spectral reflectance data into chlorophyll
concentrations currently provide only roijgh estimates of concentra-
tions in those waters where concentrations of suspended sediments
and colored dissolved organic matter arejhigh (e.g., near-shore waters
influenced by surface and ground water discharges, coastal erosion,
and sediment resuspension). ;

The data presented here are based on a [fairly coarse scale (six-mile.
resolution). Currently, data showing relative changes in chlorophyll
within a region can be reliable; however, data showing actual concen-
trations for any given region might vary by a factor of two. Thus,
unless differences are large, meaningful comparisons between reg,ons
are not yet possible. • :

The mid-Atlantic estuary data are one-time estimates of chlorophyll
content in mid-Atlantic estuaries only, sp these data cannot be pro-
jected to the national scale or to different time periods. Samples were
2-22
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Qapter 2 •• Purer Wateri
-------
if"?
Indicator--
Chlorophyll concentrations — Category 2 (continued)
collected during an EMAP-defined index period of summer months
and do not represent conditions at different times.

Data Source

Ocean data are found'in the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's Sea-Viewing Wide Reld-of-View Sensor. Estuarine
chlorophyll concentrations are found in the EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program, Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Program. (See Appendix B, page B-11,
' for more information.)
- Additional Consideration: Eutropnication
Another key issue relevant to understanding the condition of
coastal waters is eutrophication. Eutrophication is a natural process,
through which there is "an increase in the rate of supply of organic
matter" to a waterbody (Nixon, 1995). This process usually repre-
sents an increase in the rate of algal production. Under natural con-
ditions, algal production is influenced by a gradual buildup of plant
nutrients in ecosystems over long periods of time and generally
leads to productive and healthy estuarine and marine environments.
However, in recent years, human activities have substantially
increased the rate of delivery of plant nutrients to many estuarine
and marine areas (NRC, 2000; Peierls, et al., 1991; Turner and
Rabalais, 1991). As a result, algal production in many estuaries has
increased much faster than would occur under natural circum-
stances. This accelerated algal production is referred to as "cultural"
or "anthropogenic" eutrophication and often results in a host of
undesirable conditions in estuarine and marine environments.

These conditions, which include low dissolved oxygen concentrations,
declining sea grasses, and harmful algal blooms, might impact the
uses of estuarine and coastal resources by reducing the success of
commercial and sport fisheries, fouling swimming beaches, and
causing odor problems from the decay of excess amounts of algae
(NRC, 2000; Duda, 1982). Despite much research, however, the link
between coastal eutrophication and effects on living marine resources
and fisheries is not well understood or quantified (NRC, 2000;
Boesch, et al., 2001).

Between 1,992 and 1998, NOAA conducted a survey and series of
regional workshops to synthesize the best available information on
eutrophication-related symptoms in 138 estuaries. Data from these
surveys are presented in NOAA 's National Estuarine Eutrophication
Assessment (Bricker, et al., 1999). They indicate that the nation's
estuaries exhibit strong symptoms of eutrophication, which were
reported by EPA to be "poor" (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001).
When data on the symptoms of eutrophication are combined, they
suggest that 40 percent of the surface area of the nation's estuarine
waters exhibit high levels of eutrophic condition (Exhibit 2-13).
Exhibit 2-13: Percent of estuaries with high, moderate,
and low levels of eutrophic condition, 1998

IF-
fjuC,,Coverage: United States, excluding the Great Lakes
^j Source: Bricker et al. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of
|_ .Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation's Estuaries. 1999; EPA, Office of Research and
is:.;: Development and Office of Water. National Coastal Condition Report.
fj:':: September 2001.-

Many of these waters are in the mid-Atlantic and gulf regions of the
U.S. Moreover, based on expert opinion, eutrophic conditions are
expected to worsen in 70 percent of U.S. estuaries by 2020
(Bricker, et al., 1999).

These eutrophication estimates are largely based upon best
professional judgement. They do not adequately reflect regional
differences that may occur naturally, so high scores may not be a true
measure of eutrophication. Also, there are no strong scientific data to
indicate that the thresholds used are indeed indicative of eutrophic
conditions on a region-by-region basis. Use of SAV loss, macroalgae,
and epiphytic growth is not appropriate for regions/areas where SAV
beds or macroalgae are not present (e.g., South Carolina, Georgia).
Standard methods do not appear to have been used among states..
For all these reasons, these data were judged not to be sufficiently
robust to qualify as an indicator for purposes of this report.
Nevertheless, accelerated eutrophication can be an important
symptom of environmental decline in estuarine and marine areas.
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-23
-------
Therefore, eutrophication should be reconsidered as an indicator in
the future if and when scientifically sound data become available.
.a •^at*v'w- t'-i1 *. - ;.;; ::!.::«: t
Indicators
Percent urban land cover in riparian areas
Agricultural lands in riparian areas
Population density in coastal areas
Changing stream flows
Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in
grassland/shruWa nds
Sedimentation index
Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen
Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water
Total nitrogen in coastal waters
Phosphorus in farmland, forested and urban streams
Phosphorus in large rivers
Total phosphorus in coastal waters
Atmospheric deposition of mercury
Chemical contamination in streams and ground water
Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water
Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams
Toxk releases to water of mercury, dioxin, lead, PCBs, and PBTs
Sediment contamination of inland waters
Sediment contamination of coastal waters
Sediment toxlcity in estuaries
A complex suite of pressures weighs on surface water resources. EPA
data on water qualify provide some measure of the major stressors.
Under the Clean Water Act, EPA requires states to define and list
waters under their jurisdiction that are impaired, and to identify the
causes of those impairments and develop a program to manage and
control the causes. In 1998, more than 21,000 waterways were
identified as impaired under the provisions of Section 303 (d) of the
CWA (EPA, OW, March 2003). The following top five causes of
impairment accounted for 60 percent of the cases:
• Sediment/siltation
• Pathogens
• Metals
• Nutrients
• Organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen

The next five causes account for additional 21 percent of
impairment:
• Habitat alteration
• Thermal modifications
• Low or high pH
• Pesticides ! r
• Fish consumption advisories ;

Twenty indicators have been identified to help answer the question
"What are the! pressures to water quality?" These indicators have
been divided jnto three categories:

General pressures—Section 2.2.4.a presents six indicators of general
pressures that relate in some way to habitat quality but do not fall
into a specific: stressor category. j
i ' i I
Nutrient pressures—Section 2.2.4.b presents six indicators that
relate specifically to nutrient enrichment. ;
I
Chemical contaminant pressures—Sectiori 2.2.4.C discusses eight
indicators that describe chemical contamination.
1 • i
These indicators do not address sediment/siltation or pathogens
(the two most important causes of water quality impairment as iden-,
tified under Section 303 [d] of the Clean Water Act), nor do they
address another key concern—the impact of invasive species.
Additional pressures to water quality are discussed in the Ecological
Condition, Better Protected Land, and Clejaner Air chapters.

2.2.4.a Querieral Tressures [

General pressures that alter aquatic ecosystems and for which
indicators are; available, include (1) the extent of urban land cover
and agricultural lands in stream riparian;areas, and (2) the extent of
coastal development, as represented by population density.
Additional indicators of pressures on streams relate to changes in
stream flow and altered in-stream habitatThese six indicators,
discussed in -;his section, address pressures directly on stream
ecosystems and coastal areas, but they dcj not attempt to define
pressures on lakes, ponds, reservoirs, or wetland resources, even
though the pressures are likely comparably.

The difference in pressures related to urban development versus
pressures from agricultural activities generally are a function of the
location of, extent of, and change in urban and agricultural areas.
Coastal deve'opment data, in the form of population density,
suggest strong pressures on coastal systems today and in the future.
Data on stream flow indicate that changes in minimum and maximum
flow have inc'eased slightly over the last three decades and that
maximum flows in some areas have increased significantly. Zero (no)
flow data forgrassland and shrubland streams are consistent with
these observations in that the percent of istreams with no- flow
periods has decreased. ;
I
2-24
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
-------
•a??gf s?^?ps^-dOT^\3«£SHmsigES(p»^*^^

Percent urban land cover in riparian .areas - Category 2
This indicator provides a snapshot in time of the potential stress
to stream ecosystems across the nation due to urban develop-
ment. Specifically, the indicator examines the extent of land
cover within riparian zones, which are defined as the 30-meter
buffer on each side of a stream or river. The indicator focuses
on land cover along streams or rivers within watersheds catego-
rized by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as eight-digit HUCs
under its hydrologic unit code (HUC) categorization system.

To calculate the extent of urban land cover, each of these buffer
zones was divided into grid cells (of IS minute latitude by IS
minute longitude dimensions). The extent of urban land cover was
calculated as the percent of grid cells with land cover, divided by
the total number of grid cells. To make this calculation:
• Stream map sets were derived from remote sensing techniques,
generally aerial photography and satellite imagery.
• The land cover data sets were collected using remote sensing
techniques, generally satellite imagery, with ground truth field-
work.
• Stream extent and. locations were defined as any line or poly-
gon feature attributed as "stream/river." This is consistent with
the definition in the USGS's National Hydrography Dataset
(NHD), a key data source for this indicator.
• Urban land cover was defined as (1) the sum of low-intensity
residential, high-intensity residential, and commercial/industri-
al/transportation land cover types in the National Land Cover
Database (NLCD) and (2) the sum of both high-intensity and
low-intensity developed land cover types in the Coastal Change
Analysis Program (C-CAP).

What the Data Show

The analysis indicates that nearly 80 percent of the watersheds
(8-digit HUCs) in the continental U.S. have less than 2 percent
urban land uses within 30 meters of streams. Five percent of
watersheds (8-digit HUCs) have urban land uses of greater than
8 percent within 30 meters of streams. Less than 1 percent of the
nation's watersheds (8-digit HUCs) have more than 25 percent
urban uses within stream riparian areas. Watersheds with stream-
side urban development tend to be concentrated in certain parts
of the country (e.g., the Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The streams data set is known to contain both systematic and
random errors. Many of these errors, such as positional accuracy
of stream segments due to digitizing accuracy, are minimized due
to the scale of this analysis (i.e., at the 8-digit HUC level). But
stream omission, the degree of which varies between different
scale maps (i.e., 30- by 60-minute quadrangle maps), has a higher
impact on potential error. In addition, the accuracy of whether or
not a stream was perennial also varied between quadrangle maps,
preventing a more accurate representation of riparian areas.

This indicator only examines urban land within 30 meters of
streams and rivers, which means that more significant urban devel-
opment at distances beyond 30 meters is not evaluated. The
analysis is not a standardized ongoing assessment. Because the
land cover data sets exists only for a single year, changes in the
amount of urban land cover over time are not addressed by this
indicator at present.

Data Source

Information is available from the specific program datasets
(National Land Cover Database, Coastal Change Analysis Program,
National Hydrography Dataset, and Hydrologic Unit Code). Data
were summarized by the EPA. (See Appendix B, page B-11, for
more information.)
Chapter 2 - Turer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-25
-------
jfaBJSl Agricultural lands in riparian areas - (Category 2

Agricultural land uses in riparian areas may have environmental
effects, due to erosion and disturbance of riparian habitat. When
land immediately adjacent to streams is used for agricultural pur-
pose, this may affect water quality in a number of ways:
I Runoff from plowed fields can potentially become a source of
stream sediment
• Fertilizers and pesticides are often conveyed to streams by
runoff or by drainage.
• Grazing animals may contaminate streams with coliform
bacteria.

Results for this indicator are expressed in bank miles, calculated as
the percent of agricultural land cover within the stream corridor,
multiplied by the total length of stream bank within the 8- digit
HUC. The data sets and analytical procedures are the same as
those for the urban land in riparian areas indicator described
above.

What the Data Show

The major areas of high agricultural activities in riparian areas of
the U.S. are found in the Midwest, in the Southeast, east of the
Cascade Mountains in Washington state, and in the inland valleys
of California. The arid Southwest has very few stream miles in
agriculture, due both to a low stream density and limited agricul-
ture. Conversely, areas with the highest number of stream miles in
Srl^ffPI^!^
agriculture are in watersheds that have expensive agriculture and
high stream density. Only one percent of the watersheds (8-digit
HUCs) in the: conterminous U.S. have no Stream miles in agricul-
ture. Ten percent of the watersheds (8-di^it HUCs) in the conter-
minous U.S. have more than 1,500 miles of streams in agriculture.
About half of the watersheds (8-digit HUCs) in the conterminous
U.S. have lesis than 250 miles of streams in agriculture.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The issues associated with this indicator are the same as those
described for the previous indicator "percent urban land cover in
riparian areas." Because the classified land cover data sets were
only produced once, changes in the amount of agricultural land
cover over time are not addressed by this indicator at present.
Refer to the ^'Indicator Gaps and Limitations" section in the
discussion oFthe previous indicator for details.

Data Source ;

EPA's Office of Research and Developmenjt analyzed and summa-
rized data from the National Land Cover Database for stream
miles with agricultural uses. Information is available from the spe-
cific program datasets (NLCD, C-CAP, NIJD, and HUC). (See
Appendix B, page B-TI for more information.)
fopulation density in coastal areas - Category 2
Land along the U.S. coastline is experiencing more acute pressure
from population growth than other areas. Using primarily census
data, NOAA has produced several reports on population distribu-
tion, density, and growth in coastal areas. These reports describe
the pressure on coastal environments from land development.

What the Data Show

The NOAA reports find that coastal areas are the most devel-
oped in the nation. The narrow fringe of coastline, comprising
17 percent of our nation's total land area, contains 53 percent
of the nation's population. The rate of population growth along
the coast is faster than for the nation as a whole. At an average
growth rate of 3,600 people per day, coastal population is
expected to reach 165 million by 2015 (NOAA, 1998).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The NOAA estimates of coastal population and pressures are likely
to be an overestimate, as data are aggregated by counties, which
have extensive inland areas in addition to coastal shoreline.
Data Source
Data for this indicator are from a report !on urban development in
coastal areas by the U.S. Department of,Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (See Appendix B,
page B-11, for more information.) '
2-26
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Gnapter 2 - Purer Water
-------
,. , ^_* ~-_ , ™*

(—hanging stream flows - (Category
Flow is a critical-aspect of hydrology in streams. Low flows define
the smallest area available to stream biota during the year; high
flows shape the stream channel and clear silt and debris from the
stream. Also, some fish depend on high flows for spawning (The
Heinz Center, 2002). The timing of a stream's high and low flows
can influence many ecological processes. Changes in flow can be
caused by dams, water withdrawal, changes in land use, and cli-
mate trends. This indicator reports the percentage of streams or
rivers with major changes in the magnitude or timing of their high
or low flows over three decades (1970s, 1980s, 1990s) compared
to a reference period from 1930 to 1949.

The USGS stream gauge database, which served as the data
source for this indicator, contains 867 gauging sites with at least
20 years of discharge records within the target dates 1930 to
1949, and 10 years of records for the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
The measures were 7-day low flow and the corresponding Julian
days and the average 1 -day high flow and Julian day.
|; Exhibit 2-W: Percent of streams with changes in high
| flows (l97Os-I990s) compared to baseline high flow
F~ data (1930-19U9)
100
;"- ra
lu
80
60
II'
II
40
rs 20
rs
f£
Increase
Decrease

Timing
1970s , 1980s

Coverage: lower 48 states
1990s
, Note: Totals may add to more than 100%, because both the timing and
magnitude may change in a single stream or river.
• 1
Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002- Data „
from the U.S. Geological Survey.
What the Data Show

The percentage of streams and rivers with major changes in their
high or low flows or the timing of those flows (i.e., compared to
the same data for those streams or rivers as recorded between
1930 and 1949) increased slightly from the 1970s to the 1990s
(The Heinz Center, 2002). The number whose high flows were
well above the flows in those same streams and rivers between
1930 and 1949 increased by approximately 30 percent in the
1990s (Exhibit 2-14). The baseline period of 1930 to 1949
included some droughts, which may partially explain the increase
in high flows in subsequent decades. However, much of this base-
line period also preceded widespread irrigation projects, which
means that fewer high flows would be expected in subsequent
decades.

Indicator Caps and Limitations

Data from the period 1930 to 1949 are being used here as a
practical baseline for historical comparison, even though many
dams and other waterworks had already been constructed by this
time, and even though this period was characterized by low rainfall
in some parts of the country. For this reason, it may be more use-
ful to compare changes in stream flows on a decade-by-decade
basis rather than to the 1930 to 1949 baseline period selected
here. '

Although the sites analyzed here are spread widely throughout
the U.S., gauge placement by the USCS is not a random process.
Gauges are generally placed on larger, perennial streams and
rivers, and changes seen in these larger systems may differ from
those seen in smaller streams and rivers. In addition, the USGS
gauge network does not represent the full set of operating stream
flow gauges in the U.S. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for
example, operates gauges, and those data are not available
through the USGS; they were not used in this analysis.

Data Source

Data for this indicator came from the U.S. Geological Survey
gauging station network, compiled for The Heinz Center (2002).
(See Appendix B, page B-12, for more information.)
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-27
-------
Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in grassland/snruDiands - Category 2
Many grassland/shrublands are located in arid climates where
water availability is critical. The number and duration of dry peri-
ods in streams and rivers is used as a hydrology/geomorphology
indicator in the Heinz report (The Heinz Center, 2002). Changes
in the number and/or duration of no-flow periods can significantly
stress aquatic plants and animals. These alterations can result
from changes in agricultural management or irrigation practices,
development, change in flow regulation below dams, or depletion
of shallow ground water. Riparian condition is critical for grassland
and shrubland streams. Because most of the streams are
ephemeral, aquatic organisms have evolved to complete their life
histories during periods when water is available (Fisher, 1995).
Increasing the percentage of no-flow periods can significantly
stress riparian and aquatic communities.

Gauging sites with at least 50 percent grassland/shrubland were
identified for 4-digit HUC watersheds. The NLCD coverage was
used to identify these areas as grassland/shrubland. The number
of sites with at least one no-flow day in a year was determined for
each year from 1950 to 1999. The corresponding percentage of
area as grassland/shrubland for that year was also calculated. To
analyze the duration of no-flow, only sites with at-least one no-
flow day in each decade between October 1,1949, and
September 30,1999, were considered. This analysis considered
whether there was an increase, decrease, or minimal change in the
number of no-flow days, compared to the long-term (50-year)
average for each stream.
What the Data Show
i
The percentage of no-flow periods has decreased in all grass-
land/shrubland regions of the West (ThejHeinz Center, 2002).
The percentage of no-flow periods was sifnilar in the 1950s and
1960s and then generally decreased in the 1970s, 1980s, and
1990s (Exhibit 2-15) (The Heinz Center, 2002). The 1980s was
a relatively wet period, during which some of the smallest per-
centages of no-flow periods existed in a 5,0-year period of record
(The Heinz Center, 2002). The duration 6f no-flow periods also
decreased during the 1970s through the 1990s, compared to the
1950s and 1960s (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

These data are from USGS gauging stations, which may be found
on larger, perennial streams; thus, these, data may not reflect con-
ditions on very small streams. Data limitations, generally, are simi-
lar to those described for the "number/duration of dry stream
• f i j
flow periods in grasslands/shrublands" indicator described on the
previous page. ' j

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was the:U.S. Geological Survey
gauging stations, analyzed by Colorado State University for The
Heinz Center. (See Appendix B, page B-12, for more information.)
Exhibit 2-15: Percent of streams that hi
periods, I950s-1990s
2 zero-rlow
100
IK:

Coverage: grassland/shrubland regions in lower 48 states,
1 . ' ' ' ' IB] _ _ _
Source: The Heinz Center, The State of the .Nation'} Eco Stems 2002 Data "
from the U.S. Geological Survey. F
2-28
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Chapter 2 - Furer Water
-------
Sedimentation index - C-ategory 2
Stream channels undergo a long-term adjustment to a region-
specific rate of sediment supply that is delivered by erosion
processes from natural disturbance. The size distribution of
streambed particles is dependent upon the relationship between
sediment supply and stream sediment transport capability. Under
a natural disturbance regime, sediment supply in watersheds that
are not altered by human disturbances may be roughly in long-
term equilibrium with stream sediment transport In watersheds
that are relatively undisturbed by humans, the relationship
between bed particle size and stream transport capability should
tend toward a characteristic value that is typical to the region.
Human activities may increase sediment input rates to streams,
resulting in higher amounts of fine substrates in sediments tha.n
the predicted regional value.

Higher sedimentation rates can significantly alter instream habitat.
These alterations are the greatest stressor to mid-Atlantic streams
and many other streams throughout the U.S. For example, change
in channel morphology can affect stream biota and ecological
condition. Thrush, et al. (2000) provide 10 geomorphic attributes
that are needed for suitable stream habitat, in addition to critical
channel morphological indicators.

A sedimentation index was developed for Mid-Atlantic Highland
streams to assess the quality of instream habitat to support
aquatic communities (Kaufmann, et al., 1999). Stream
sedimentation was defined as an increase or excess in the amount
of fine substrate particles (smaller than 16-mm diameter) relative
to an expected reference value that is based on the region and
the sediment transport capability of each sample stream reach.
Streams were given the following ratings with respect to
sedimentation:
• "Good" when the proportion of fine particles was at least 10
percent below the predicted value.
• "Fair" when the population of fine particles ranged from 10 per-
cent below to 20 percent above the predicted value.
• "Poor" when the proportion of fine particles was more than 2Q
percent above regional mean expectations.

What the Data Show

Based on the sedimentation index, about 35 percent of the
Mid-Atlantic Highland stream miles had good instream habitat,
&^ - ' •
^Exhibit 2-16: Percent of Mid-Atlantic highland streams
{^exhibiting good, fair, and poor habitat condition based
jfe» upon a sedimentation index, 1993-1994
- -• • ,-~ • • • --
£ "Source: EPA Region 3 and the Office of Research and Development. Mid-Atlantic
1 Highlands Streams Assessment._August 2000.
*^~ ^_ _^ __-.__ '. ,-•----;._• ,^ T . . J^ ^ .. ' - ., •- .
40 percent had fair instream habitat, and 25 percent of the
stream miles had poor instream habitat (Exhibit 2-16) (EPA,
ORD, Region 3, August 2000).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

This sedimentation index has been applied only in the context
of the mid-Atlantic region and cannot be used for a national
assessment. The index itself may not apply equally to other
regions of the nation.

Data Source
The data source for this indicator was EPA's Mid-Atlantic
Highlands Streams Assessment, part of the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program. (See Appendix B,
page B-12, for more information.)
C-napter 2 - furer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-29
-------

2.2 AD Nutrient Pressures

Nutrient enrichment by nitrogen and phosphorus is one of the
leading causes of water quality impairment in the nation's rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. In a 1998 water quality report to Congress,
nutrients were listed as a leading cause of water pollution. About
half of the nation's waters surveyed by states do not adequately
support aquatic life because of excess nutrients. In 1998, states
reported that excessive nutrients have degraded almost 2.5 million
acres of lakes and reservoirs and over 84,000 miles of rivers and
streams to the extent that they no longer meet basic uses such as
supporting healthy aquatic life. Nutrients have also been associated
with both the large hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, the hypoxia
observed in several East Coast states, and P/ister/a-induced fish kills
and human health problems in the coastal waters of several East
Coast and Gulf states.

Many of the nutrients used in chemical fertilizers are water soluble.
Consequently, one of the major potential environmental effects of fer-
tilizer usage Is the nitrogen or phosphorus that may find its way into
water systems, affecting water quality and aquatic habitats. Another
major source of nutrients from agricultural lands are those related to
animal feed operations. Nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phospho-
rus, increase the levels of algae in receiving waterbodies.

Most of the streams that are enriched with nutrients lie in drainage
areas for agricultural and/or urban land. Forested landscapes rarely
contribute to heightened water concentrations of these nutrients.
Ground water from more than half the sites sampled in a nationwide
study contained nutrients at concentrations higher than natural
background levels. Data presented in Chapter 3, Better Protected
Land, describe a USGS risk analysis that evaluated the likelihood of
ground water contamination from nitrate resulting from a combina-
tion of well-drained soils and a high proportion of cropland to wood-
land. The data illustrate a clear relationship between potential
ground water contamination and predominantly agricultural areas of
the country (see Chapter 3-Better Protected Land).
i

"Nitrogen export" is the annual quantity of total nitrogen produced
by nitrogen sources in a watershed that leaves the watershed
through a river or stream that connects to other watersheds down-
stream. Estimates of total nitrogen (TN) export were developed by
Smith, et al. (1997) through analysis ofdata from monitoring sta-
tions in the LiSGS's National Stream Quality Accounting Network
(NASQAN) SPARROW (SPAtially-Referenc^d Regressions On
Watershed attributes). This model relates jn-stream measurements of
TN export to point and non-point sources of pollution, and to land-
surface and stream-channel characteristics in the watersheds that
contain the monitoring stations. This modeling was performed using
data from approximately 400 long-term stream monitoring sites.
Using these data, the model empirically estimated the delivery of
nutrients to streams and the outlets of watersheds from point and
non-point sources. ' |
; • • : I
This section presents six indicators of pressures on water quality
related to nutrient enrichment: \
• Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen
• Nitrates in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water
• Total nitrogen in coastal waters
• Phosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams
• Phosphorus in large rivers i
• Phosphorus in coastal waters j

Chapter 3-Bstter Protected Land, discusses the potential for nutri-
ent runoff from farmlands.

Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen - Category 2
Nitrogen, essential to life, is a component of proteins and
nucleic acids. Natural and human processes convert nitrogen gas
to a variety of usable forms, including nitrogen oxides, ammonia,
and organic nitrogen. Natural sources of nitrogen oxides and
ammonia include volcanic eruptions, lightning, forest fires, and
certain microbial processes. Anthropogenic sources contribute
about the same amount of nitrogen oxides and ammonia to the •
environment as do natural sources. The largest single source of
nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere is the combustion of fossil
fuels (such as coal, oil, and gas) by automobiles and electric
power plants (Schlesinger, 1997). The largest sources of ammo-
nia emissions are fertilizers and domesticated animals (such as
hogs, chickeris, and cows).

In some placeis, nitrogen deposited from the atmosphere is a large
percentage of the total nitrogen load. For instance, Albemarle-
Pamlico Sound in North Carolina receives 38 percent of its nitro-
gen from the Atmosphere (EPA, OAQPS, Jijne 2000). As human
sources of nitrogen compounds to the atifiosphere increase, the
importance of atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to bodies of
water will increase as well. !
2-30
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
apter 2 - furer Water
-------
-jT -' ' ',, J, a'dtl-JU^f ijjjp. ^iM.^^iiiSrfi^.-WY^W^^
-—i—-™.- ..^i-^Wi..... Jn*^^^-^a.^i^^i4fl;ag^^
:mospheric deposition of nitrogen - Category 2 (continued)
.Exhibit 2-17: Ammonium wet deposition, 2OOI
AK01 0.1 kg/ha
AK03 0.1 kg/ha
HI99 0.5 kg/ha
VI01 0.3 kg/ha
National Atmospheric Deposition Program, National Trends Network. 2001.
' ttP:""afa*WSM'
i
Exnitit 2-18: Nitrate wet deposition, 20OI
LCqverage: lower 48 states .. . . .
^?M=r3;: &at™rr!AiT.os!?J'eric DeP°?'tion Program, National Trends Network. 2001.
(March 25, 2003; http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/hopteths/maps200T/no3dep.pdf).
"c
The deposition of nitrogen compounds
* on land or water can take several forms.
Wet deposition occurs when air pollu-
tants fall with rain, snow, or fog. Dry
deposition is the deposition of pollu-
: tants as dry particles or gases. In either
form, the pollutants can reach bodies
of water as direct deposition falling
directly into the water or as indirect
i deposition—falling onto land and
passing into a body of water as runoff.
In either case, atmospheric deposition
• is often one of the major sources of
: nitrogen in surface waters.

This indicator focuses on atmospheric
' deposition of inorganic nitrogen, as it
- is the most immediately available form
of nitrogen in the environment. Its
components, nitrate and ammonium,
are presented using the National
Atmospheric Deposition
Program/National Trends Network
(NADP/NTN) data collected in 2001.

What the Data Show
Ammonium deposition is lowest in the
western states, where it is generally less'
than 1 kg/ha. Highest rates occur in
:; the upper midwestern states in the
; upper Mississippi River watershed
i (Exhibit 2-17). Nitrate deposition also
is low in the western states (< 4 kg/ha).
; Highest deposition rates occur in the
upper Midwest and in the eastern
i states (Exhibit 2-18). High ammonium
values'are associated with wastes from
animal agriculture, while nitrates are
largely from fertilizers used in row crop
: agriculture.

i Indicator Gaps and
§ Limitations

J This indicator measures wet deposition,
* not dry deposition. Total nitrogen dep-
I osition is not measured.
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-31
-------
H""1"""'""" "" " !nhjl" '"'"' " """"" J p """
Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen - Category 2 (continued)
Additionally, the indicator estimates deposition only to the sur-
face areas, not directly to the water, except where large waterbodies
are present
Data Source I
i
The data source for this indicator was thejinteragency National
Atmospheric Deposition Program. (See Apjpendix B, page B-12 for
more information.)
. „ tiiiiiiiiiiiJiiHiliJfiii
I ~" 1. ,
ndicator
Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water - Category 2
if TV »i* '
Nitrogen is a critical plant nutrient, and most nitrogen is used and
reused by plants within an ecosystem. Thus, in undisturbed
ecosystems, minimal "leakage" occurs into either surface runoff or
ground water, and concentrations are very low. However, when
amounts of nitrate in streams and ground water are elevated, this
generally indicates that inputs from human sources have increased
or that plants in the system are under stress. Elevated nitrogen
levels might come from fertilizer use, disposal of animal waste,
onsite septic systems, sewage treatment plants, or rain and snow-
fall (in the form of atmospheric deposition).

This indicator reports on the concentration of nitrate in streams
and ground water in farmland, forested, and urban areas.
Specifically, the indicator reports the percent of streams with
average nitrate concentrations in one of four ranges: less than
two ppm; two-six ppm; six-10 ppm; and 10 ppm or more. The
data, comprised of samples collected at over 100 stream sites in
farmland areas, were collected and analyzed by the NAWQA
program in 36 large watersheds across the U.S. during 1993
to1998. Thirty-six forested streams and 21 urban/suburban
streams also were evaluated. Ground water samples were collect-
ed from 20 to 30 private wells in each of 36 agricultural study
areas and 13 urban study areas.

What the Data Show

USGS data, compiled for The Heinz Center (2002), indicate that:
• Nitrate concentrations were above two ppm (mg/L) in about
half of-the stream sites and 55 percent of ground water wells
sampled in areas where agriculture is the primary land use
(Exhibit 2-19).
• Most nitrate concentrations in forested streams were less than
0.5 ppm (SO percent had concentrations of nitrate less than
0.1 ppm, 75 percent had concentrations of less than 0.5 ppm,
and only one had a concentration of more than 1.0 ppm).
i Forty percent of urban/suburban streams had nitrate concentra-
tions above 1.0 ppm (25 percent had Concentrations below 0.5
ppm, and three percent had concentrations below 0.1 ppm).
About 20 percent of the ground water wells and about 10
percent of stream sites had concentrations that exceeded the
federal drinking water standard (10 trig/In), Only three percent of
urban ground water wells had nitrate concentrations exceeding the
standard. Sa triples of ground water in agricultural areas have
nitrate concentrations higher than ground waters of forested or
urban areas. !

In four of 33 major drinking water aquifers sampled, the federal
drinking waller standard for nitrate was exceeded in more than
15 percent of samples collected. In these aquifers, all of which
underlie intensive agricultural areas, nitrate most often is elevated
in karst (carbonate) areas or where soilsiand aquifers consist of
sand and gravel. These natural features enable rapid infiltration
and downward movement of water and chemicals. Some of the
more vulnerable areas of the nation are the Central Valley of
California, and parts of the Pacific North-west, the Great Plains,
and the Mid-Atlantic region. In contrast,^ contaminants are barely
detectable "n ground water underlying farmland in parts of the
upper Midwest, despite similar high ratei of chemical use. In these
areas, ground water contamination may be limited, because of the
relatively impermeable, poorly drained sbils and glacial till that
cover much of the region, and because tile drains provide quick
pathways for runoff to streams (Gilliom,jet al., 2002).

Nitrate contamination in shallow ground water (less than 100 feet
below land surface) raises potential cbnterns for human health,
2-32
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Chapter 2 - "Purer Water
-------
^^C^^ *• 57"
** ^ " 't-l^tt W~ W-t f^ * \
Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground Water - Category 2 (continued)
particularly in rural agricultural areas where shallow ground water is
used for domestic water supply. Furthermore, high levels of nitrate
in shallow ground water may serve as an early warning of possible
future contamination of older underlying ground water, which is a
common source for public water supplies (USGS, 1999).

Indicator Caps and Limitations

These data only represent conditions in the 36 major river basins
and aquifers sampled by the NAWQA program. While they were
subjectively chosen to be representative of watersheds across the
U.S., they are the result of a targeted sample design.

The data also are highly aggregated and should only be
interpreted as an indication of national patterns. For example, the
definition of agricultural land included land use by cropland or
pasture. The percentage of land used for agricultural purposes
within specific watersheds varied from 10 to 99 percent of the
land cover, so the characterization of lands as agricultural is
subject to this degree of variation in land use.

Data Source

Data for this indicator were compiled for The Heinz Center
(2002) from the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water
Quality Assessment Program. (See Appendix B, page B-13 for
more information.)
Exhibit 2-19: Nitrates in Farmland streams and ground water, 1992-1998
2-6 ppm
6-10 ppm
10 ppm or more
fir;? less than 2 ppm
H 2-6 ppm
6-10 ppm
1992-1998
Farmlands
Forests
Urban
t
Coverage: lower 48 states. Each sampling area was sampled intensively for approximately 2 years during 1 992-1 998.
Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. .Qata from the U.S. Geological Survey:
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-33
-------
Total nitrogen in coastal waters - Category 2
tWSS^^fR!^
' ''' " ::''- . • ;' '; •-' .' ' "\>'l. '.' /'";:," "V1.:" : .', ,"-" . c

Nitrogen in estuaries is commonly regarded as the most important
limiting nutrient. Nutrients can originate at either point sources
(e.g., sewage treatment plants and industries) or non-point
sources (e.g., farmlands, lawns, leaking septic systems, and the
atmosphere). Excess nutrients can lead to eutrophication.

Total nitrogen (TN) in the mid-Atlantic estuaries was calculated by
summing the concentrations of total dissolved nitrogen and
particulate organic nitrogen (EPA, ORD, May 2003). Assessment
categories were determined based on the 25th and 75th
percentiles. The categories are (EPA, ORD, May 2003):
• Low: < 0.5 ppm nitrogen
• Intermediate: 0.5 to 1.0 ppm nitrogen
• High: > 1.0 ppm nitrogen

Currently there are no national-level water quality criteria for total
nitrogen in estuaries, but states are in the process of determining
nutrient criteria for their waters.

What the Data Show

This analysis yielded the following results:
• For the mid-Atlantic region, about 35 percent of the estuarine
area had low TN concentrations, 47 percent had intermediate
TN concentrations, and 18 percent had high TN concentrations
(Exhibit 2-20).
• About 50 percent of the mainstem area of the Chesapeake Bay
had low TN concentrations, with only about five percent having
high TN concentrations.
• In contrast, about fives percent of coastal bays had low TN con-
centrations, and about 35 percent had high TN concentrations.
• The entire Delaware River estuary portion of Delaware Bay had
high TN concentrations.
ipil^jyii:;, Btjji'niii^ii ^:3^^ ^^^^4;^ ^ ^"4^ ^*« .^11*^-• i^M

I Exhibit 2-'|6: Extent of Mid-Atlantic estuaries with low,
|g::,L^ *.ij ;.,,'>.^1 :.:;i.::5|p^.!:;ss.:.^;S:ps^^^^^^
and high total nitrogen concentrations,
lll|"'™l|l|""!"p"" —" - — - ~'TS5E3!MK*ISK5W2T3;*'EET1J.a
ip I' J*. '**»*» ,. >, i 1 rsir*j**fe"{ i**j fr y
Source: EPA, Office of Research and Development. Mid-Atlantic Integrated
f- AssessmentjtdAlA - Estuaries "l])97-98, Summary 'Report ^ May"2003.

Indicator Caps and Limitations

These TN estimations for estuaries apply only to the mid-Atlantic
region and cannot be used to make national estimates of nitrogen
concentrations. •

Data Source !

The data soiirce for this indicator was EPyji's Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Program, part of
EPA's Enviror.mental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
(See Appendix B, page B-13, for more information.)
2-34
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Cnapter 2 - Purer Water
-------
llMM|pIi

Thosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams - Category 2
Phosphorus, an essential nutrient for all life forms, occurs naturally
in soils and aquatic systems. However, at high concentrations; phos-
phates, the most biologically active form of phosphorus, can cause
significant water quality problems by overstimulating algae growth.
This is both aesthetically unappealing and can contribute to the
loss of oxygen needed by fish and other animals. Human activity can
increase phosphorus levels through fertilizer use, disposal of animal
waste, sewage treatment, and use of some detergents.

This indicator reports on the concentration of phosphorus in
streams that drain watersheds comprised primarily of farmland,
forested, or urban land use. Specifically, the indicator reports the
percent of these streams that have average annual phosphorus
concentrations in one of four ranges: less than O.I ppm; 0.1 to 0.3
ppm; 0.3 to 0.5 ppm; and 0.5 ppm or more. Thirty-six forested
streams and 21 urban/suburban streams also were evaluated.

What the Data Show

Data compiled by the USGS indicate that:
• About three-fourths of farmland stream sites had concentra-
tions of phosphorus above 0.1 parts per million (mg/L)
(Exhibit 2-21).
• About 15 percent of farmland stream sites had phosphorus
concentrations greater than 0.5 ppm of phosphorus.
• Phosphorus concentrations in streams of agricultural lands were
similar to but slightly higher than those in urban streams and
much greater than those in forest streams.
EPA has recently set new regional water quality criteria for phos-
phorus levels in streams in agricultural ecosystems. These criteria
range from 0.023 to 0.076 ppm and vary according to differences
in ecoregions, soil types, climate-, and land use.

Compared to nitrogen, a smaller proportion of phosphorus
(originating mostly from livestock wastes or fertilizers) was lost from ,
watersheds to streams. The annual amounts of total phosphorus
measured in agricultural streams were equivalent to less than
20 percent of the phosphorus that was applied annually to the
land. This is consistent with the general tendency of phosphorus to
attach to soil particles that move more slowly with runoff to surface
water. Even though less phosphorus is transported from land than
nitrogen, phosphorus is more likely to reach concentrations that
can cause excessive aquatic plant growth. Nitrogen concentrations
are rarely low enough to limit aquatic plant growth in fresh water,
whereas phosphorus concentrations can be low enough to limit such
growth. Thus, adding phosphorus to an aquatic system can have a
greater impact than adding nitrogen. Hence, excessive aquatic plant
growth and eutrophication in fresh water generally result from ele-
vated phosphorus concentrations (typically greater than 0.1 ppm)
(EPA, OW, June 1998). In contrast, nitrogen typically is the limiting
nutrient for aquatic plant growth in saltwater and coastal waters.

Indicator Caps and Limitations

These data only represent conditions in the 36 major river basins
and aquifers sampled by NAWQA. While they were subjectively
Exhibit 2-21: Phosphorus in farmland streams and ground water, 1992-1998
less than 0.1 ppm
0.1 to 0.3 ppm
0,3 to 0.5 ppm
J 0.5 ppm or more
Forests
Urban/Suburban
Coverage: lower 48 states. Each sampling area was sampled intensively for approximately 2 years during 1 992-1 998

Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002 Data from the U S Geological Survey
Cnapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-35
-------

Phosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams -
ategory 2 (continued)
,,-^::,...d
chosen to represent watersheds across the U.S., they are the
result of a targeted sample design.

The data also are highly aggregated and should only be interpret-
ed as an indication of national patterns. For example, watersheds
dominated by agricultural land included land use by cropland or
pasture. The percentage of land used for these purposes varied
from 10 to 99 percent, so the characterization of lands as agricul-
tural is subject to this degree of variation in land use.
Data Source
i '
Data used for this indicator were compiled for The Heinz Center
(2002) from the U.S. Geological Survey'? National Water
Quality Assessment Program. (See Appendix B, page B-13, for
more informsition.) :
Pnospn
lospnorus in large rivers
-Cab
:egory
Increased phosphorus in large rivers and other waterbodies leads
to an increase in growth of algae. While small amounts of algae
provide the critical base of the food chains in these waterbodies,
larger amounts lead to eutrophication. As discussed in Section
2.2.3, eutrophication can lead to loss of oxygen, shifts in fish •
population, and "nuisance blooms" of algal species. Algal blooms
generally degrade aesthetic and recreational values.

Data on phosphorus were collected from 140 sites in large rivers
(i.e., rivers with flows exceeding 1,000 cubic feet per second) at
least 30 times over a 2-year period between 1992 and 1998 by
the USCS (The Heinz Center, 2002).

What the Data Show

Half of the rivers tested had total phosphorus concentrations
equaling or exceeding 100 parts per billion (The Heinz Center,
2002) (Exhibit 2-22), which is EPA's recommended goal for pre-
venting excess algal growth in streams that do not flow directly
into lakes. None of the rivers had concentrations below 20 parts
per billion, a level generally held to be free of negative effects
(EPA, OW, November 1986).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Phosphorus measurements in rivers were restricted to those large
rivers with flows exceeding 1,000 cubic feet per second. To
ensure proper characterization of average values for each river,
only sites that had at least 30 samples over the course of 2 years
were included. Thus, only large rivers with adequate sampling are
represented.
£
> Jj
lit 2-22: Distribution of phosphorus
's*'? v^^TSSisf-- "',, A ~ /
In large rwers, 1991-1996
-
„-4
The data used for this indicator are from larger rivers. Larger rivers
typically have both larger discharge volutnes and watersheds with
more diverse land uses. These samples, therefore, represent the
integrating influences of many different (and uses. Also, they were
the result of a targeted sample design, a|nd may not be represen-
tative of large rivers across the U.S.

Data Source

The data u;;ed for this indicator were from the U.S. Geological
Survey as compiled for The Heinz Center (2002). (See Appendix
B, page B-14, for more information.) ;
2-36
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
-------

lotal phosphorus in coastal waters - Category 2
Phosphorus is an essential plant nutrient. It is derived from
weathering and erosion of natural mineral deposits, runoff of fer-
tilizers applied to agricultural and urban areas, and point source
discharges of sewage, detergents, Pharmaceuticals, and other
phosphorus-containing products. Phosphorus is generally
considered the limiting nutrient in fresh water systems (Schindler,
1977), but it can also become limiting in estuarine areas if total
nitrogen becomes abundant (EPA, ORD, May 2003).

Total phosphorus data were collected in the mid-Atlantic
estuaries (EPA, ORD, May 2003) during 1997 and 1998. TP
assessment categories were based on the 25th and 75th per-
centile concentrations measured throughout the mid-Atlantic
region. These categories are:
• Low: <0.05 to 0.1 ppm
• Intermediate: O.OS to 0.1 ppm
• High: >0.1 ppm

What the Data Show

Analysis of the data showed that:
• TP concentrations in mid-Atlantic estuaries ranged from 0 to
0.34 ppm.
• For the mid-Atlantic region, about 58 percent of the estuarine
area had low TP concentrations, 30 percent had intermediate
TP concentrations, and 12 percent had high TP concentrations
(Exhibit 2- 23).
• About 85 percent of the mainstem area of Chesapeake Bay had
low TP concentration with no areas having high TP concentrations.
• The coastal bays, in contrast, had no areas with low TP concen-
trations and about 35 percent with high TP concentrations.
• The Delaware River estuary portion of Delaware Bay had
100 percent of its area with high TP concentrations.
|£xhit>it 2-23: Extent of Mid-Atlantic estuaries with low,;
tpntermediate, and high total phosphorus concentrations,
£J..-.,l;..±,,_._;.,,.;i997-l.998.... '
'-- Source: EPA, Office of Research and Development Mid-Atlantic Integrated
^-Assessment, MAIA - Estuaries _W7-98, Summary Report. May 2003.
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

These TP estimations apply only to estuaries of the mid-Atlantic
region and cannot be used to make national estimates of phos-
phorus concentrations.

Data Source

Data for this indicator came from EPA's Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program, Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
(MAIA) Estuaries Program. (See Appendix B, page B-14, for more
information.)
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-37
-------
2.2.4.C Chemical Contaminant Pressures

The waters of our rivers, lakes, and oceans have been contaminated
by pollutants. Some of these pollutants, such as the pesticide DDT
and the industrial chemicals known as PCBs, were released into the
environment long ago. The use of DDT and PCBs in the U.S. was
banned in the 1970s, but these chemicals persist for many years.
Other contaminants enter our waters every day. Some flow directly
from industrial and municipal waste dischargers, while others come
from non-point source pollution in urban and agricultural areas.
Additionally, other contaminants are carried through the air and
eventually are deposited on lands and in lakes and streams far from
the facilities that produced them. When this happens, sediments in
waterbodies may serve as a reservoir for these contaminants and,
ultimately, as a source of contamination.

The USGS has compiled contaminant data for waterbodies as part of
Its National Water Quality Assessment Program. Gilliom, et al.
(2002) summarized some of major NAWQA findings as follows:
• Detectable concentrations of pesticides were widespread in agri-
cultural area streams. DDT was the most commonly detected
organochlorine compound, followed by dieldrin and chlordane.
• Water in urban areas has a characteristic "signature" that is reflec-
tive of the chemicals used in the watersheds. Insecticides—such as
diazinon, carbaryl, cholorpyrifos, and malathion—were detected
more frequently and usually at higher concentrations in urban
streams than in agricultural streams.
• Concentrations of selected trace elements, such as cadmium, lead,
zinc, and mercury, are elevated above background levels in heavily
populated urban settings.
• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are used in plastics,
cleaning solvents, gasoline, and industrial operations, are prevalent
in shallow urban ground water.
Eight indicators have been chosen to describe chemical contaminant
pressures on water resources: ;
• Atmospherip deposition of mercury. ,
• Chemical contamination in streams and ground water.
• Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water.
• Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams. :
• Toxic releases to water of mercury, dioxifi, lead, PCBs, and persist-
ent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals (PBJTs).
• Sediment contamination of inland watete.
• Sediment contamination of coastal waters.
H Sediment toxicity in estuaries. ,

Mercury contamination of waters and sediments is one of the lead-
ing causes of closed fisheries and fish consumption advisories in
the U.S. (see Section 2.5). Atmospheric [deposition in the Great
Lakes and northeastern area of the U.S. is the primary source of
this contaminant. Discharges to waterways as indicated by data
from EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRIJ are a relatively small
source of mercury contamination.
I ' ; j
The EPA National Sediment Inventory (NSIJ) has extensively reviewed
sediment qusility data collected predominantly from sampling programs
targeted at sites of known contamination (See ). NSj classifies these sites as
demonstrating, by association or otherwise, probable biological effects
related to the contamination. Not surprisingly, the most contaminated
watersheds are found in the Great Lakes region and northeast corridor
in areas of dense populations and industrial development. Data show
that a small proportion (1 percent or less) of the sampled estuarine
areas of the eastern U.S. and Gulf of Mexico coasts contain chemicals
at concentrations high enough to be associated with biological effects.
'"

Atmospheric deposition of mercury - Category 2
The primary sources of mercury emissions on a national level are
coal-fired power plants (33 percent), municipal waste incinerators
(18 percent), and medical waste incinerators (10 percent)
(EPA, OW, December 1997). Coal-fired power plants produce
mercury by burning coal, which contains trace amounts of
mercury that are released during combustion. Incinerators emit
mercury when they burn wastes containing mercury. For medical
waste incinerators, mercury waste comes from medical devices like
thermometers and blood pressure cuffs. For municipal waste
incinerators, mercury comes from discarded appliances, such as
thermostats and fluorescent lights and lamps.
Mercury deposition was estimated from measurements made by
the Mercury Deposition Network (MDN), which is part of the
National Atmospheric Deposition Program. Precipitation samples
were collected weekly and analyzed for fatal mercury and
methylmeniury. The MDN began a transjtion network of 13 sites in
1995 and, !n the next year, became an official network in the NADP
with 26 sites. During 2000, more than ko sites were in operation.
2-38
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
;Chapter2-Purer Water
-------
- > 'i-f.f-y-- « ww-es? S-J£i«v ™rscP'«typia9«8
Atmospheric deposition of mercury - Category 2 (continued)
What the Data Show
Estimates of annual mercury wet deposition in 2001 are
presented in Exhibit 2-24. Mercury deposition ranges from a low of
2.4 micrograms per square meter (pg/m2) measured at a California
site to over 14 pg/m2 at sites in eastern Texas, south Florida, and
eastern Wisconsin. The Great Lakes and southeastern states are
those most greatly affected by mercury deposition.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations for this indicator include:
• The spatial coverage provided by the Mercury Deposition
Network is somewhat limited, though the measurement sites
have been distributed relative to major mercury emission
sources.
• Only wet deposition of mercury was measured.

Data Source

The interagency National Atmospheric Deposition Program served
as the data source for this indicator. (See Appendix B, page B-14,
for more information.)
Exhibit 2-24: Annual mercuiy wet deposition in 2OO1
per square meter (|Jg/m2)
Note: Coverage does include Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico

Source: National Atmospheric Deposition Program, Mercury Deposition Network 2001.
March 25, 2003; (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edU/mdn/maps/200T/0 7 MDNdepo.pdf).
Chapter 2 - Turer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-39
-------

iilili
Cnemical contamination in streams and ground water -
Category 2
The U.S. Geological Survey reported on contaminants in stream
waters and streambed sediment for the entire U.S. (see The Heinz
Center, 2002). The contaminants reported include many pesticides,
selected pesticide degradation products, PCBs, polyaromatic hydro-
carbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds, other industrial con-
taminants, and trace elements. In sufficient concentrations, any of
these chemicals can harm wildlife, but for many of these com-
pounds, there are no standards or guidelines for acceptable levels in
aquatic systems.

In the USGS analysis, water contaminant data were derived from
36 major river basins, which included 109 stream sites with data
sufficient to calculate annual averages. Stream water samples gen-
erally were collected on 20 to 40 occasions over a one-year peri-
od (Cilliom, et al., 2002) during 1992 to 1998. Ground water
data were collected from 3,549 wells in these major river basins
and aquifers.

What the Data Show

All stream waters averaged one or more contaminants at
detectable levels throughout the year. More than 80 percent
averaged five or more (Exhibit 2-25). About 90 percent of
ground water sites averaged one or more detectable contaminants.
40 percent contained five or more contaminants.

Indicator Caps and Limitations

The sites sampled are representative of a wide range of stream
sizes, types, and land uses broadly distributed across the U.S.
(Gilliom, et al., 2002; The Heinz Center, 2002).
it
100
o
I*
ij*
;is
t£o
., JE 43
_ c
. f. ro
|||
&a
ft
80
60
40
20
licit 2-25: Occurrence of contaminants in
|S i i| , 1 t '- * iJ*
|t
st
gtreams and cjroi
d around water, IQ92-1998
C oVe
I
"
SKiii-L'i*iii"h ,1 rt-S"*»r I m 1 "n * fe T
llrcei'f he "fleinz Center The 5ta& of the Nation's Ecosystems 2002
SI'K'«!!!»> *|-:|y;™« n* IfT^ *^%y4^rw ^ y | st
a from the U.S Geological Survey
?ss*i",! -ffKtfi fi r* p si n ; '( t i i 11
t it _ I'll f L| '* * 1' U J J 1 *»^
Data Source
i
i i
Date for this indicator came from U.S. Geological Survey, as com-
piled for The Heinz Center (2002). (See Appendix B, page B-15,
for more information.) •

Testicides in farmland streams and ground water - Category 2
Nearly one billion pounds of pesticides are used in the U.S. each
year to control weeds, insects, and other organisms that threaten
or undermine human activities such as agriculture. The vast
majority of pesticides—about 80 percent—are used for agricul-
tural purposes. Although pesticide use has resulted in increased
crop production and other benefits, it has also raised concerns
about potential adverse effects on the environment and human
health. Pesticide contamination of streams, rjvers, lakes, reser-
voirs, coastal areas, and ground water mjay cause unintended
adverse effects. These water resources support aquatic life and
related food chains and are used for recreation, drinking water,
irrigation, and many other purposes. In addition, water is one of
the primary pathways by which pesticides are transported from
their application areas to other parts of the environment.
2-40
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Chapter 2 - Furer Water
-------
lesticides in farmland streams and ground water - Category 2 (continued)
From 1992 to 1998, the USGS, under its National Water Quality
Assessment Program, conducted the largest data collection effort
ever performed for pesticides (including insecticides and herbi-
cides) in ground and surface waters. This effort involved analysis
for 76 pesticides and seven selected pesticide degradation prod-
ucts in 8,200 samples of ground water/surface water in 20 of the
nation's major hydrologic basins. Sampling sites included streams
and ground water in both agricultural areas and urban areas.

What the Data Show

In all streams, at least one pesticide was present at detectable
levels throughout the year. Data were analyzed separately for
agricultural and urban areas:
• Agricultural areas. About 75 percent of monitored farmland
streams had an average of five or more pesticides at detectable
levels, and over 80 percent had at least one pesticide that
exceeded aquatic life guidelines. About 60 percent of ground
water sites in agricultural areas had a least one detectable
pesticide, and seven percent had an average of five or more
compounds at detectable levels. A very small proportion (less
than one percent) of ground water sites in farmland areas had
one or more pesticides in concentrations that exceeded human
health standards or guidelines (The Heinz Center, 2002). A
relatively small 'number of these chemicals—specifically the
herbicides atrazine (and its breakdown product desethylatrazine),
metolachlor, cyanazine, and alachlor—accounted for most
detections in ground water. The high detection frequency for
these pesticides is related to their use. All are among the top
five herbicides used in agriculture across the nation (Gilliom,
et al., 2002).
• Urban areas. Water in urban areas has a characteristic "signa-
ture" that is reflective of the chemicals used in the watersheds
serving those areas. Insecticides such as diazinon, carbaryl,
chlorpyrifos, and malathion were detected more frequently, and
usually at higher concentrations, in urban streams than in agri-
cultural streams. Herbicides were detected in 99 percent of
urban stream samples and in more than SO percent of sampled
weljs. The most common herbicides in urban streams and
ground water were simazine and prometon.

Frequency of detection, expressed as a percentage of pesticides in
water samples, serves as a basic indicator (Exhibit 2-26):
• Streams. The data suggest that pesticides are fairly ubiquitous
in both farmland and urban streams and rivers. As noted above,
at least one pesticide was present at detectable levels through-
out the year in all monitored streams. Most pesticide detec-
tions were found in rivers associated with mixed land uses, fol-
lowed by streams associated with urban land use, then streams
associated with agricultural land uses.
• Ground water. Significantly fewer detections of pesticides were
found in shallow ground water, and the least detections were
found in major aquifers.

For the 21 most detected pesticides, data suggest that their
occurrence, in both streams and ground.water, closely mirrors
their use. Surprisingly, pesticides were detected as frequently, or
sometimes more frequently, in urban streams than in streams
associated with agricultural lands. The NAWQA data indicate that,
in urban and agricultural streams and shallow ground water, pesti-
cides most often occur in mixtures (i.e., more than one compound
is present in the sample). The human health and environmental
impacts of pesticide contamination, particularly when the pesti-
cides occur as mixtures, are not well understood.

Data Gaps and Limitations

Knowing how many pesticides are detected and at what concen-
trations provides basic information on the extent to which these
compounds are found in streams and ground water. However, the
presences of pesticides does not necessarily mean that the levels

I Exhibit 2-26: jummaiy of detections of one or more
ilif"- pesticides in streams and ground water, 1992-1998

f • All Detections H Detections >0.01 |ig/L I: Detections >0.05 ug/L
.
!f;9°
6% 80
I 70
"- Streams Shallow
, . CW
!. Agricultural

.Coverage: lower 48 states..
Streams Shallow
GW
Urban
Rivers Major
Aquifers
Mixed Land Use
Source: Modified from The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002.
Data from the U.S. Geological Survey.
Cnapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-41
-------
,j!,
Testicides in farmland streams ana ground water - (_ategi
sry 2 (continued)
are high enough to cause problems. Comparison to standards and
guidelines provides a useful reference to help judge the signifi-
cance of contamination.

Drinking water standards or guidelines do not exist for 43 percent
(33 of 76) of the pesticides analyzed, and aquatic life guidelines
do not exist for 63 percent (48 of 76) of the pesticides analyzed.
Current standards and guidelines do not account for mixtures of
chemicals and seasonal pulses of high concentrations. In addition,
potential effects on reproductive, nervous, and immune systems,
as well as on chemically sensitive individuals, are not yet well
understood.
Data Sources \
I ' :,.. , i I
The data sources for this indicator were The U.S. Geological
Survey's National Water Quality Assessment Program, as compiled
for The Heinj: Center (2002), and The EPA's Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.(See Appendix B, page B-15, for
more information.)
Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams - Category 2
" ?
Airborne nitrogen and sulfur gases (i.e., nitrogen oxides and sulfur
oxides) are referred to as acid precursors because they react with
water, oxygen, and other compounds to form sulfuric acid and
nitric acid. For example:
• They combine with water vapor and oxygen in the atmosphere
to form acids that fall to earth as a component of snow, fog,
dry particles, gases, or acid rain.
• When they reach a waterbody through dry deposition, they
combine with surface water to form nitric acid and sulfuric acid.
• Indirect deposition can occur when these precursors are
deposited on land and then washed into a waterbody by storm
water runoff. The effects of indirect deposition are particularly
serious if the storm deposits acid rain.

Acidification is common in waterbodies in the eastern U.S., where
weather patterns deposit acids made from air pollutants generated
in the Midwest and points further west. Also, many eastern water-
bodies are naturally acidic, making them more susceptible to the
effects of acid deposition because their underlying soils and rock
are not able to buffer incoming acids. This is particularly true for
many lakes in the Adirondack Park, located in upstate New York.

Acidification affects ecosystems in many ways. For example:
• Aquatic organisms in acidified waters often suffer from calcium
deficiencies that can weaken bones and exoskeletons and can
cause eggs to be weak or brittle.
• It affects the permeability of fish membranes and, particularly,
the ability'of gills to take in oxygen frotjn water.
• Increasing 'amounts of acid in a waterbody change the mobility
of certain trace metals like aluminum, cadmium, manganese,
iron, arsenic, and mercury. Species that are sensitive to these
metals, particularly fish, can suffer as a iresult.

Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams is determined based on a
suite of chemical measurements, including pH, conductivity, dis-
solved organ'c carbon (DOC), cations, an|ons, and acid-neutraliz-
ing capacity (ANC). Using data for these parameters, it is possible
to distinguish, on a national scale, natural: sources of acidity such
as wetlands, from anthropogenic sources such as acid deposition
and mine drainage (Baker, et al., 1991). For example, in low pH
waters: '
• High conductivity and high sulfate concentrations indicate acid-
mine drainage.
• High DOC concentrations with low conductivity indicate acid
contributions from wetlands. |
• Low conductivity, moderate sulfate concentrations, and low
DOC concentrations indicate acid deposition.
i

What the Data Show

EPA's 1984 to 1986 National Surface Water Survey (NSWS) esti-
mated that, in acid-sensitive regions of the northern and eastern
2-42
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Cnapter 2 - Purer Water
-------
Acid sensitivity in laRes and streams - Category 2 (continued)
U.S., 4.2 percent of lakes and 2.7 percent of streams were acidic.
Of those acidic lakes and streams, 75 percent were acidic due
to acid deposition, 22 percent were acidic due to organic
sources, and three percent were acidic due to acid-mine drainage
(Exhibit 2-27).

These surveys have been repeated periodically for smaller proba-
bility samples of lakes in the Northeast, the Adirondacks and
streams in the Appalachians (Stoddard, et al., 1996). More inten-
sive monitoring also has been conducted on lakes in the
Northeast, the Appalachians, and the Midwest, and on streams in
the Appalachian Plateau and Blue Ridge to assess long-term acidi-
^ , -,^ ^ „ .__,_ _ ,n_r_r^. ^
~~ • ' "':','. "'•'--:' ' ~ ~ • ~ - , "^
txnioit 2-27: jources or acidity in acid-sensitive
lakes and streams, 1984-1986
Watershed
sources 3%
Coverage: Acid sensitive regions of the United States north and east, inclusive
of the upper midwest, New England, Adirondack Mountains in New York, the
' northern Appalachian Plateau, and the Ridge and Blue Ridge Provinces of
- Virginia

Source: Baker et al. Acid Lakes and Streams in the United States: The Role of
Acidic Deposition. (1991).
fication trends (Stoddard, etal., 1998). Based on these programs,
EPA estimated that in three regions, one-quarter to one-third of
lakes and streams previously affected by acid rain were no longer
acidic, although they were still highly sensitive to future changes
in deposition (EPA, ORD, January 2003). EPA has concluded that
the decrease in acidity is a result of reduced sulfate emissions
under its acid rain programs. Specifically:
• Eight percent of lakes in the Adirondacks are currently acidic,
down from 13 percent in the early 1990s.
• Less than two percent of lakes in the upper Midwest are cur-
rently acidic, down from three percent in the early 1980s.
• Nine percent of.the stream length in the northern Appalachian
plateau region is currently acidic, down from 12 percent in the
early 1990s.

Lakes in New England did not show decreases in acidity, and
streams in the Ridge and Blue Ridge regions of Virginia were
unchanged. Even though acid deposition has been decreasing in
the Ridge and Blue Ridge regions, waterbodies in these areas are
expected to show a lag time in their recovery due to the nature of
the soils in those regions. Immediate responses to decreasing
deposition were neither seen nor expected in these two regions.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The NSWS has not been repeated nationwide since the mid-
1980s, so there are no data to assess trends in surface water
acidification in other sensitive areas of the country.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was EPA's National Surface
Water Survey. (See Appendix B, page B-1S, for more information.)
C-napter 2 - Furer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-43
-------
Toxic releases to water of mercury, dioxin, lead, TCDS, a,id TDis - Category 2
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) contains information on toxic
chemical releases and other waste management activities reported
annually by certain industries as well as by federal facilities. This
inventory was established under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), which requires
facilities to use their best readily available data to calculate their
releases and other waste management estimates. This indicator is
based on reported TRI releases of mercury, dioxins, PCBs, sum of
all persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals (PBTs), and lead to
water in calendar year 2000 (EPA, OEI, May 2002).

PBT chemicals include dioxins, mercury, PCBs, PAHs, and pesti-
cides (but not lead). PBT pollutants are chemicals that are toxic,
persist in the environment, and bioaccumulate in food chains, thus
posing risks to human health and ecosystems. They transfer easily
across and among ecological systems.

Under EPCRA, most dischargers must report releases of toxic
chemicals. Specifically, a facility must report to TRI if it meets all
of the following criteria:
• Conducts manufacturing operations within Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39 or, beginning in the
1998 reporting year, is in one of the following industry cate-
gories: metal mining, coal mining, electric utilities that combust
coal and/or oil, chemical wholesale distributors, petroleum ter-
minals, bulk storage facilities, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C hazardous waste treatment
and disposal facilities, and solvent recovery services. Also, fed-
eral facilities must report to TRI regardless of their SIC code
classification.
• Has 10 or more full-time employee equivalents.
• For all but certain PBT chemicals, manufacturers or processes
more than 25,000 pounds or otherwise uses more than
10,000 pounds of any listed chemical during the calendar year.
What the Data Show .

During 2000, facilities reporting to the TRI released over 7 billion
pounds of chemicals (EPA, OEI, May 2002J). Of that total, nearly
261 million pounds (3.7 percent) were discharged to water,
including 21318 pounds of PBTs, 29 pouijds of PCBs, 5 pounds
of dioxin compounds, and 2,302 pounds of mercury compounds.
(Note that the total for PBTs includes all RBT compounds report-
ed under TRI. Total releases for specific types of PBT compounds,
such as PCBs and mercury compounds, ate also aggregated and
reported separately.)

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The TRI data have several limitations:
• The TRI program only accounts for direct releases to water (i.e.,
it does not include releases from nonrppint sources). However,
it does identify releases of metal and metal compounds from
publicly owned treatment works (POT\Vs).
• It does not include releases below the reporting thresholds.
• Reporting is made by the releasing facilities, and no standard
estimation procedure is employed (see Chapter 3-Better
Protected Land).

Data Source

The data souxe for this indicator is EPA's Toxics Release Inventory
program. (Sec Appendix B, page B-15, formore information.)
2-44
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
-------
jediment contamination of inland waters - Category 2

Contaminated sediments generally have localized impacts, with the
severity of impact depending on the degree of chemical contami-
nation. Contaminated sediments affect benthic organisms, such as
worms, crustaceans, and insect larvae that inhabit the bottom of
waterbodies. In some cases, toxic sediments kill these benthic
organisms, reducing the food available to larger animals such as
fish. Also, some contaminants in sediments may be taken up by
benthic organisms and passed onto larger animals that fe'ed on
these contaminated organisms. In this way, toxins in sediment
move up the food chain in increasing concentrations. As a result,
fish and shellfish, waterfowl, and fresh water and marine animals,
as well as benthic organisms, may be affected by contaminated
sediments.

As part of EPA's National Sediment Inventory (described in the
introduction to Section 2.2.4c), sediment chemical concentra-
tions were evaluated in over 19,000 samples in the U.S. and cate-
gorized into three groups:
• Tier 1 (associated adverse effects on aquatic life or human
health are probable).
• Tier 2 (associated adverse effects on aquatic life or human
health are possible).
• Tier 3 (no indication of associated adverse effects on aquatic
life or human health).

Tier 1 sampling stations were distinguished from Tier 2 sampling
stations based on the magnitude of a contaminant concentration
in sediment, or the degree of corroboration among the different
types of sediment quality measures.

What the Data Show

Of the sampling stations evaluated, 8,348 stations (43 percent)
were classified as Tier 1, 5,846 (30.1 percent) were classified as
Tier 2, and 5,204 (26.8 percent) were classified as Tier 3. The
sampling stations were located in 5,695 individual river reaches
(or waterbody segments) across the conterminous U.S., which
constitute approximately 8.8 percent of all river reaches in the
country (based on EPA's River Reach File 1).
• Approximately 3.6 percent of all river reaches in the contermi-
nous U.S. had at least one station categorized as Tier 1.
• Approximately 3 percent of reaches had at least one station
categorized as Tier 2 (but none as Tier 1).
• In about 2.3 percent of reaches, all of the sampling stations
were classified as Tier 3.

In the National Sediment Inventory, watersheds (8-digit HUC)
containing areas of probable concern (APCs) for sediment con-
tamination were defined as those that include at least 10 Tier 1
sampling stations and in which at least 75 percent of all sampling
stations were classified as either Tier 1 or Tier 2. APC designation
could result from extensive sampling throughout a watershed, or
from intensive sampling at a single contaminated location or a few
contaminated locations.

Analysis of survey data showed that:
• Ninety-six eight-digit HUC watersheds were identified as con-
taining APCs (Exhibit 2-28).
• These watersheds represent about 4.2 percent of all eight-digit
HUC watersheds in the U.S. (96 of 2,264).
• In many of these watersheds, contaminated areas may be con-
centrated in specific river reaches in the watershed. For example,
within the 96 watersheds containing APCs across the country,
97 individual river reaches or waterbody segments have 10 or
more Tier 1 sampling stations.
• Twenty-four percent of reaches in watersheds (eight-digit HUC)
containing APCs have at least one Tier 1 sampling station and
18.3 percent have no Tier 1 sampling station but at least one
Tier 2 sampling station.
*
The evaluation results indicate that sediment contamination asso-
ciated with probable or possible adverse effects for both aquatic
life and human health exists in a number of watersheds across the
country.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Two general types of limitations are associated with the National
Sediment Inventory:
• Limitations of the compiled data. These limitations include the
mixture of data sets derived from different sampling strategies,
incomplete sampling coverage of geographic regions and moni-
tored chemicals, the age and quality of the data, and the lack of
measurements of important assessment parameters, such as
TOC and acid volatile sulfide.
• Limitations of the evaluation approach. These include uncertain-
ties in the interpretive tools used to assess the sediment
quality, use of assumed exposure potential in screening-level
quantitative risk assessment (e.g., fish consumption rates as a
surrogate for human health risk), and the subsequent difficul-
ties in interpreting assessment results. Also, because this
analysis is based only on readily electronically formatted data,
the survey does not include a vast amount of information
available from sources such as local and state governments and
published academic studies.
Chapter 2 - Furer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-45
-------
Sediment contamination of inland waters - Category 2 (continued)
-ti,—_... «..«_ H.,™™-*—™ . ——i : : . i ., . ... L .... _. iffcmft nr ,|iui ,iin,; 1111 ,*„ „ ; j in VI
Exhibit 2-28: Watersheds in sediment quality inventory (198O-1999) identified as containing areas of

particular concern (Af Cs)
- 'I
ERA. Oflke of Water. T/u Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in
Another key limitation is that most of the NSI data were compiled
from monitoring programs that focus their sampling efforts on
areas where contamination is known or suspected to occur. While
this is important for meeting the stated objective of the NSI sur-
vey, which is to identify contaminated sediments, it means that
the data cannot be used to accurately characterize the overall
condition of the nation's sediment, because national sampling
coverage is incomplete and because uncontaminated areas are
most likely substantially under-represented. In addition, the data
analyzed for this indicator were collected over a relatively long
time period; therefore, they do not definitively assess the current
condition of sediments, but can serve as a baseline for future
assessments.
Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Qualify

Data Source

The data are described in Appendix A of the draft report The
Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters
of the U.S., National Sediment Quality Survey; second edition (EPA-
822-R-01 -01). A draft is available. The final report is expected to
be released in 2003. Summary reports oh the data are not avail-
able. (See Appendix B, page B-1S, for more information).
2-46
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Cpapter 2 - "Purer Water
i i
-------
Sediment contamination of coastal waters - Category 2
Estuaries are important habitats for migratory birds, and many
species offish and shellfish rely on the sheltered waters of estuaries
as protected places to spawn. Contamination of sediments in estu-
aries can pose a threat to individual species and to estuarine
ecosystems.

Contaminated sediments may harm benthic organisms that feed
on these sediments, and they may accumulate up the food chain
as larger organisms feed on smaller organisms, eventually posing a
risk'to human health. Additionally, contaminants in sediments may
be resuspended into the water by dredging and boating activities.

One of the challenges of assessing sediment contamination is
distinguishing among naturally occurring contaminants, such as
certain organics and metals, from those created by human
activities. PAHs and metals occur naturally in estuarine sediments,
so a specia[ approach must be used to determine how much of
their concentrations in sediment are contributed by human
sources (Windom, et al., 1989). On the other hand, pesticides
and PCBs are relatively easy to evaluate, as they can only come
from human activities.

Under the EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP), contamination was measured for sediments from
estuaries in the Virginian, Carolinian, and Louisianian Provinces of
the eastern U.S. Chemical concentrations were identified as
enriched by human sources if they exceeded values expected to
occur naturally. Sediment chemical concentrations also were com-
pared to NOAA-derived effects range low (ERL) values and effects .
range median (ERM) values. These values identify threshold con-
centrations that, if exceeded, are expected to produce ecological
or biological effects 10 percent and SO percent of the time,
respectively. A site was considered contaminated if five or more
chemical concentrations exceeded the ERL, or if one or more
exceeded the ERM.

What the Data Show

Sediment contaminant concentrations indicate that 40 percent,
45 percent, and 75 percent of U.S. estuarine sediments that were
sampled are enriched with metals from human sources, PCBs, and
pesticides, respectively (Exhibit 2-29).

One to. two percent of estuarine sediments show concentrations
of contaminants (PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals) that are
above ERM values (Exhibit 2-30). Between 10 and 29 percent of
sediments have contaminant concentrations between the ERM val-
ues and lower-level ERL values (Exhibit 2-30). Most of the loca-
2-29: 'Regional sediment enrichment (1990-1997)
• /' "- due to numan sources
Source: EPA, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water. National
ondition Report. September 2001.
tions exceeding the ERM guidelines are in the northeast coastal
area, while the Gulf of Mexico coast contains many locations
where concentrations of five or more contaminants exceed the
ERL values. The highest contamination is found in the Northeast.
Estuaries most affected are: Hudson River-New York, New Jersey
Harbor system; eastern Long Island Sound; Delaware River;
Potomac River; and upper Chesapeake Bay.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Several limitations are associated with this indicator:
• Assessment of contamination is limited to the three provinces
noted above. Probabilistic assessments of coastal watersjaf the
Great Lakes, West Coast, and northern New England do not
exist, so this indicator does not include data for these regions.
I The sampling design did not proportionately represent shallow
habitats (less than 3 meters), which may represent as much as
50 percent of the total estuarine area in the Southeast and
Gulf of Mexico.
• While the data currently are adequate to address regional con-
dition, they provide little information on gradients from major
sources of contamination (e.g., large urban areas).
• Many factors control availability of contaminants in sediments,
including organic content, acid volatile sulfides, pH, particle size
and type, and the specific form of chemical (e.g., chromium).
Therefore, sediment chemical concentrations, in and of them-
selves, do not directly estimate the biological availability of
those contaminants.
C-napter 2 - Turer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-47
-------
Sediment contamination or coastal waters - Category 2'
II-
(continuea)
Exhibit 2-30: Distribution of sediment contaminant concentrations in sampled estuarine sites, 1990 - 1997

1 % > ERM
i 10%
i between ERL
and ERM
Pesticides
Metals
PAHs/PCBs
Contaminant Concentrations with Adverse Effects on Organisms
I Below Levels Associated with Adverse Affects • Effects Possible But Unlikely S Effects likely
t Umted States fust coast (excluding waters north of Cape Cod) and Gulf of Mexico

Source Ef%, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water. National Coastal Condition Report September 2 301
1 I
• The scientific basis for the ERL/ERM criteria may vary among
estuaries, habitats, and regions depending upon the kinds and
abundances of indigenous biota.
H Sediment contamination is not directly related to the biological
availability of contaminants in sediments. Bioavailability of con-
taminants in sediments can be directly measured by sediment
toxicity testing, which forms the basis for the next indicator dis-
cussed, "sediment toxicity in estuaries."
Data Source ,

Sediment contamination data are from the EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program Estuaries dataset.
(See Appendix B, page B-16, for more information.)
|1 Pill,
Indicatot
Sediment toxicity in estuaries - Category 2
Many factors control the biological availability of contaminants in
sediments, including acid volatile sulfides, pH, particle size and
type, organic content, resuspension potential, and specific
species/form of contaminant (e.g., chromium). Sediment toxicity
tests are the most direct current measure for determining the
bioavailability of contaminants in sediments. These tests provide
information that is independent of chemical characterization and
ecological surveys (Chapman, et al., 1987). They improve upon
the direct measure of contaminants in sediments (the basis for
the previous indicator "sediment contamination of coastal
waters"), because many contaminants are tightly bound to sedi-
ment particles or are chemically complex and are not biologically

available. Thus, the presence of contaminants in sediments does
not necessarily mean that the sediments are toxic.
To assess bioavailability of sediment contaminants in estuaries, the
EPA's EMAP Estuaries Program, in conjunction with the NOAA
Status and Trends Program, conducted sediment toxicity tests on
estuarine sediments.
What the Data Show
i
The EPA's EMAP Estuaries Program found that about 10 percent
of the sediments in estuaries in the Virginian, Carolinian,
Louisianian, West Indian, and Californian provinces were toxic to
2-48
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
-------

Sediment toxicity in estuaries - Category 2 (continued)
the marine amphipod, Ampelisca abdita, over a 10-day period
(EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). The NOAA Status and Trends
Program also used a sea urchin fertility test and a microbial test to
evaluate chronic toxicity in selected estuaries, NOAA found that
43 to 62 percent of the sediment samples from these selected
estuaries showed chronic toxicity.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Sediment toxicity tests are a useful tool to establish the potential
availability of contaminants in sediments. That availability can,
however, be affected by artifacts of laboratory procedures that
may make contaminants more or less available. Also, natural sedi-
ment features such as particle size and the presence of ammonia
and sulfides may cause toxicity that is not related to the presence
of contaminants.

Data Sources

Data for this indicator came from EPA's Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program, Estuaries Program to Estuaries Dataset,
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Status and Trends Program. (See Appendix B, page B-16, for more
information.)

No single program examines the ecological condition of our nation's
surface waters. However, a number of regional programs do track the
biotic condition of aquatic organisms and attempt to relate degrada-
tions in their condition to observed pressures on aquatic systems.
Biotic condition does not fully represent the breadth of ecological
parameters that ideally would be needed to answer the question,
"What are the ecological effects of impaired waters?" However, bio-
logical condition is widely acknowledged as a valuable indicator that
contributes to an understanding of overall ecological condition.

There are several pleasures of biotic condition; three were selected
for this report:
• Fish index of biotic integrity (IBI) in streams.
• Macroinvertebrate IBI for streams.
• Benthic community index (coastal waters).

These indicators are discussed in detail in Chapter 5, Ecological
Condition. As they are relevant to water quality, they are briefly sum-
marized below to demonstrate their effectiveness for future national
assessments.

Fish and Macroinvertebrate Indices of Biotic Integrity

Consistent sampling methods and index development procedures were
used to measure the biotic integrity offish and benthos in streams in
the Mid-Atlantic Highlands (EPA, ORD, Region 3, August 2000). The
mid-Atlantic streams were assessed using both fish and benthic insect
indicators. Of the stream miles assessed in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands,
the fish IBI indicated that 17 percent of the streams were in good con-
dition and 31 percent were in poor condition. The macroinvertebrate
condition measures indicated that 17 percent of the Mid-Atlantic
Highland streams were in good condition, while 26 percent were in
poor condition. (See Chapter S-Ecological Condition, for definitions
of these categories.)

The assessment permits estimates of both the number and propor-
tion of stream miles in good, fair, or poor condition, but it does not
provide information about where these categories of streams are
located. Associations of biological condition with specific stressors
have not been completed. While the stressors found in the streams
can be identified, it is not possible to determine which stressors are
contributing to the observed biological condition.

uentnic Community Index (Coastal Waters)

Samples of bottom sediments were collected and benthic index
scores were assessed for the northeast, southeast, and Gulf coastal
areas. In these three areas, 56 percent of the coastal waters were "
assessed in good condition, 22 percent in fair condition, and
22 percent in poor condition. The work of associating biological
condition with specific stressors has been completed for these
coastal waters, so the stressors that co-occur with poor benthic
condition can be evaluated. Of the 22 percent of the coastal
areas with poor benthic condition, 62 percent also had sediment
contamination, 11 percent had low dissolved oxygen concentration,
seven percent had low light penetration, and two percent showed
sediment toxicity (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001).
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.2 Waters and Watersheds
2-49
-------
2.3 Drinking Water
Drinking water comes from surface water and ground water. Large-
scale water supply systems tend to rely on surface water resources
(including rivers, lakes, and reservoirs), while smaller water systems
tend to use ground water. Slightly more than half of our nation's
population receives its drinking water from ground water by means of
wells drilled into aquifers (USGS, 1998).

To protect human health, EPA, under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), sets health-based standards (called maximum contaminant
levels, or MCLs) for contaminants in drinking water. These standards
specify the maximum allowable level of each regulated contaminant
In drinking water. The standards also prescribe protocols, frequen-
cies, and locations that water suppliers must use to monitor for
about 90 regulated contaminants. The SDWA standards and associ-
ated monitoring and treatment by water suppliers provide a critical
barrier that serves to protect the quality of much of our nation's
drinking water. Some 55,000 community water systems in the U.S.
test and treat water to remove contaminants before distributing it to
customers.

This section addresses three questions relevant to evaluating
progress in drinking water protection:
• What is the quality of drinking water?
• What are sources of drinking water contamination?
• What human health effects are associated with drinking contami-
nated water?

An indicator has been developed to help answer the first of these
questions (Section 2.3.1). The second and third questions are
addressed in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, respectively; however, no
indicators were identified to answer these questions.
Indicators
Population served by community water systems that meet all
health-based standards
In 2002, state data reported to EPA showed that approximately
251 million people were served by community water systems that
had no violations of health-based standards. This number repre-
sents 94 percent of the total population Served by community
water systems, up from 79 percent in 1993. Under-reporting
and late reporting of violations data by, states to EPA affect the
accuracy of this data. :
! i • i
The drinking water standards set by EPA under the Safe Drinking
Water Act apply to public water systems (P^WSs). PWSs are systems
that serve at least 25 people or 15 service connections for at least
60 days a year. They may be publicly or privately owned. PWSs
include: !
• Community water systems (CWSs)— systejns that supply water to
the same population year- round. Thereiare some 55,000 commu-
nity water systems in the U.S. ;
• Non-transient non-community water systems—systems that regularly
supply water to at least 25 of the same
people at least 6 months
per year, but not year-round (e.g., schools, factories, office build-
ings, and hospitals that have their own Water systems).
• Transient non-community water systems—systems that provide water
in a place where people do not remain for long periods of time
(e.g., a gas station or campground). :

Under the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA, EPA must go through
several steps to determine, first, whether setting a standard is appro-
priate for a particular contaminant, and if £o, what the standard
should be. To make these determinations, JEPA considers many fac-
tors for each contaminant, including:
• Its occurrence in the environment. ;
• Human exposure and the risks of adverse health effects in the ,
general population and sensitive subpopulations.
• Analytical .methods of detection. I
• Available technology. !
• How the regulation would impact water systems and public health.

As of 2003, about 90 contaminants are regulated in drinking water
under the SDWA. ;
2-50
2.3 Drinking Water
Cpapter 2 - furer Water
-------
• -.vp-igesg
IndicatQC
Topulation served by community water systems that meet all health-based standards - Category I
Under SDWA regulations, all-public water systems must monitor
the quality of their drinking water and report the monitoring
results to their state. Using these results, states determine
whether a maximum contaminant level has been violated and must
report all violations of federal drinking water regulations to EPA
quarterly. The indicator presents the total population across the
nation that is served by community water systems that met all
health-based drinking water standards.

What the Data Show

In 2002, community water systems (CWS) served 268 million
people—just over 95 percent of the U.S. population as recorded
in the 2000 census. Analysis of state-reported violations data
shows that, in 2002, 94 percent of this population was served
by systems that met all drinking water standards (i.e., did not
report violations of health-based standards) for the entire year
(Exhibit 2-31).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Under-reporting and late reporting of CWS violations data by
states to EPA affect the ability to accurately report the quality of
our nation's drinking water. EPA last quantified the quality of viola-
tions data in 1999. Based on this analysis, the agency estimated
that states were not reporting 40 percent of all health-based vio-
lations to EPA. EPA is continuing to verify state-reported CWS
data and expects to issue an updated estimate of data quality in
2003.

Data Source

The underlying database for this indicator is EPA's Safe Drinking
Water Information System/Federal version. (See Appendix B,
page B-16 for more information.)
txnibit 2-31: Topulation served by community water
systems (CWSs) with no reported
violations, of heajth-oased standards,
1993-2002
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
250,596,287
239,927,650
239,299,701
229,805,285
224,808,251
215,351,842
213,109,672
208,700,100
202,626,433 -
196,229,162
94
91
91
91
89
87
86
*84
83
79
{^Coverage: all 50 states
jESource: EPA, Office of Water. Safe Drinking Water Information Systems/Federal version
f(SBWIS/FED).20te. " . ;,.,.,,
C_-napter 2 - Turer Water
2.3 Drinking Water
2-51
-------
Ill !* I a I Ill B £ II
^

Microbiological, chemical, and radiological contaminants can enter
water supplies. These contaminants may be produced by human
activity or occur naturally. For instance, chemicals can migrate from
disposal sites or underground storage systems and contaminate
sources of drinking water. Animal wastes, pesticides, and fertilizers
may be carried to lakes and streams by rainfall runoff or snow melt.
Nitrates from fertilizers can also be carried by runoff and percolate
through soil to contaminate ground water. Arsenic and radon are
examples of naturally occurring contaminants that may be released
into ground water as it travels through rock and soil.

Human wastes from sewage and septic systems or wastes from animal
fecdlots and wildlife carrying microbial pathogens may get into
waters ultimately used for drinking. Coliform bacteria from human
and animal wastes may be found in drinking water if the water is not
properly treated or disinfected. These bacteria are used as indicators
that other harmful microbial pathogens, such as Ciardia,
Cryptosporidium, and E. coli O157:H7, might be in the water.

Disinfection of drinking water is a critical public health measure as it
provides a barrier against harmful microbes. Under the SDWA, all
surface water supplies, and ground water supplies with close hydro-
logical connections to surface water must disinfect (and most must
also filter) their water to remove pathogens. However, disinfectants
such as chlorine react with naturally occurring organic matter in
source water and in distributions systems to form chemical by-prod-
ucts (known as disinfection by-products) such as trihalomethanes
and haloacetic acid compounds.

For systems that disinfect, water leaves the plant with a disinfectant
residual. However, in some cases water could become contaminated if
there is a breach in the distribution system.
• Chemical contaminants. Chemical contarpinants found or expected
to occur ir drinking water can include metals, pesticides, and sol-
vents. Most of these would be expected to cause no health effects
at the levels found in treated drinking water, but they may cause a
variety of biological responses at high doses. These could include
cosmetic effects (such as skin discoloration) or unpleasant odors,.
as well as more severe health effects such as nervous system or
organ damage, developmental or reproductive effects, or cancer.
One well-studied consequence of drinking contaminated water is
the formation of methemoglobin in iiifaVits drinking formula with.
more than! 10 ppm nitrate. This altered [hemoglobin does not carry
oxygen efficiently; too much of it in the blood of very young chil:
dren can be fatal (i.e., blue baby syndrome).
• Pathogens. The consequences of consuming water with pathogenic
microbes can include gastrointestinal illnesses causing stomach
pain, diarrhea, headache, vomiting, and fever. Waterborne
pathogens can cause diseases that are jess common in the U.S.,
such as typhoid fever and cholera, as w|ell as more common water-
borne diseases such as giardiasis or cryptosporidiosis. Pathogenic
microbes can enter water from human and animal wastes. One of •
the largest outbreaks of disease from contaminated water
occurred in Milwaukee in 1993, when an estimated 400,000 peo-
ple became ill from exposure to Cryptosporidium, a single-celled
parasite that is found in the large intestines of a large number of
animals, including cattle and humans! That outbreak killed more
than SO people, the vast majority of whom had seriously weak-
ened immune systems (Hoxie, et al., 1997).

Drinking water disinfection is one of the great public health success
stories of the 20th century. It has been a critical factor in reducing
the incidence of waterborne diseases such as typhoid, cholera,
and hepatitis, as well as gastrointestinal illness in the U.S. Though
drinking water disinfection is a critical public health measure, the
process does generate disinfection by-products, as mentioned
earlier. These compounds have been associated with cancer, develop-
mental, and reproductive risks, the extent of which is still uncertain
(see Chapter 4-Human Health). ,

Effects of exposure to contaminants in drinking water will vary
depending on many factors, including the type of contaminant, its
concentration in drinking water, and how much contaminated water is
consumed over what period of time.
2-52
2.3 Drinking Water
lapter 2 - Purer Water
-------
i^^-MliMMiS^^
2.4 Recreation in and on
the Water
Our nation's rivers, lakes, and oceans are used for recreation in many
different ways, including swimming; fishing, and boating. .
Environmental programs implemented under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) have significantly improved the quality of many of our
nation's waters since the early 1970s. These programs help to main-
tain the quality of waters that have been specifically designated for
recreational uses and ensure that they do not become degraded in
the future. Despite this progress, recreational waters are threatened
or affected bypollution at some times and in various locations. For
example:
• During and following heavy rainfall, the sewer systems in some
cities may become overloaded, resulting in the temporary dis-
, charge of raw sewage, wastewater, and storm water into rivers and
coastal areas.
• Lakes and ponds may be affected by non-point source pollution,
for example from septic tanks and agricultural sources, resulting in
chemical contamination and elevated levels of nutrients.
• Industries are issued permits under the Clean Water Act that allow
discharges of certain treated wastewaters to rivers and streams.
These discharges compromise our ability to also use those waters
for recreational purposes.

Perhaps the greatest human health concern associated with pollution
of recreational waters is the potential for exposure to human
pathogens. Many Americans risk illness from exposure to contaminated
recreational waters. Epidemiology studies in the U.S. and abroad have
consistently found an association between disease burden and con-
taminated waters. State and local officials monitor water quality at pub-
lic beaches and close the beaches or issue advisories when monitoring
indicates that pathogens in water may have exceeded thresholds for
public safety. The fact that hundreds of beach advisories and closings
are issued every year at recreational rivers, lakes, and coastal waters
throughout the U.S. suggests that our recreational waters are signifi-
cantly impacted by pollution. Three questions are posed with regard to
recreational waters:
• What is the condition of waters supporting recreational use?
• What are sources of recreational water pollution?
• What human health effects are associated with recreation in con-
taminated waters?

An indicator has been developed to help answer the first of these
three questions; at least with regard to pathogens in recreational
waters. The second and third questions are addressed in Sections
2.4.2 and 2.4.3, respectively. No indicators were identified to
answer these two questions. Note that concerns associated with
consumption offish and shellfish, including fish and shellfish caught
through recreational activities, are discussed in Section 2.5.

Indicators
Number of beach days that beaches are closed or under
advisory
As described in Section 2.2.1, a number of programs collect infor-
mation on the condition of waters at a national scale, including the
conditions that support recreational uses of waters. However, for a
variety of reasons described in Section 2.2.1, none of these pro-
grams (including the widespread CWA-mandated 305 [b] state data
collection and reporting program) produce data with sufficient confi-
dence and scientific credibility to serve as a national indicator for
water quality condition. Nevertheless, data from an entirely different
source (state and local monitoring of water quality at beaches) can
be used to help answer the question "What is the condition of sur-
face waters that support recreational use?"—at least with respect to
pathogen contamination.

When local and state officials monitor water quality at beaches, they
generally test for indicator.organisms, such as coliforms. Not all of
these organisms are harmful themselves, but their presence generally
suggests that disease-causing microorganisms are also likely to be
present When indicator organisms exceed certain thresholds, local
or state officials will close the beach to the public. The number of
days that beaches are closed or under advisory provides the basis
for an indicator for recreational water quality with respect to
pathogen contamination. This indicator reflects decisions made by
state and local governments about whether pathogen levels are
above their public health thresholds at beaches under their jurisdic-
tion. Beach closure/advisory data predominantly represent coastal
and Great Lakes areas. Data on inland waterways generally are not
available or are not collected and reported. Thus, the question
"What is the condition of surface waters that support recreational
use?" can only be addressed for a portion of coastal and Great Lakes
beaches on a national level at this time.
CJnapter 2 - Turer Water
2.4 Recreation in and on the Water
2-53
-------
Number of beach days that beaches are closed or undei
advisory - (Category 2
Data on beach closures are collected by EPA under the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Program.
This program is authorized by Section 104 of the Clean Water Act
and described in EPA's Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational
Waters (EPA, ORD, OW, March 1999).

The BEACH program collects data for the National Health
Protection Survey of Beaches by sending a questionnaire to man-
agers (usually in health or environmental quality departments in
states, counties, or cities) who are responsible for monitoring
swimming beaches on the coasts or estuaries of the Atlantic
Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico, and the shoreline of
the Great Lakes. Information on some other inland fresh water
beaches has also been collected. Responses to these surveys are
voluntary and have increased substantially from 159 local, state,
and federal agencies reporting in 1997, to 237 agencies reporting
on 2,445 beaches in 2001.

What the Data Show

Using the survey data, EPA compiles the number of days that
beaches are closed or under advisory and compares that to the
total number of "beach days"—i.e., days that the beaches would
normally be open to the public. In 2001, survey respondents
reported a total of approximately 320,000 beach days during the
swimming season for the 2,445 beaches for which data were col-
lected. These beaches were closed or uncjer advisory on almost
six percent (over 19,000) of those beacrj days.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations
I . . ;
This indicator has a number of limitations:
H Since reporting is voluntary, the data cannot be extrapolated to
accurately! determine the suitability on ja national level of sur-
face waters to support recreation. '•
H The indicjitor applies primarily at this time to coastal and Great
Lakes beaches, as relatively few fresh water inland beaches are
surveyed.; r
H The causes of closures vary greatly ampng states; therefore,
linking bench closures to human health problems or stressors is
difficult. ' '.
H Some reports are based upon infrequent monitoring. Infrequent
monitoring could miss events that woujd cause closures.
• In interpreting the data, the assumptioji is made that the public
was at minimal risk of exposure to waterborne illness on days
the beach was open. However, this may not always be true.

Data Source

Data for this indicator came from EPA's National Health
Protection Siurvey of Beaches. (See Appendix B, page B-17 for
more information.) '

-••..•'
As mentioned earlier, beach advisories and closings in the U. S. are
generally due to elevated levels of indicator organisms, such as
coliforms, some of which do not themselves cause disease but may
indicate the presence of disease-causing microorganisms. In the
survey of beaches (see Section 2.4.1), respondents are asked to
identify, based on best professional judgment, the sources of pollu-
tion (i.e., the indicator organisms and any associated pathogens)
that caused a beach advisory or closing. Exhibit 2-32 presents the
sources reported for the 2001 swimming season.

For just over half the cases, the sources were unknown. Storm water
runoff was the reported cause for one-fifth (20 percent) of the
beach closing or advisories. Rainfall, particularly heavy rain, creates
runoff from farmland, city streets, construction sites, suburban lawns,
roofs and driveways. This runoff contains harmful contaminants,
including human and animal wastes, sediments, and excess nutrients.
Runoff can enter waterbodies directly or yia the storm water
drainage system. Other reported causes of beach closings and advi-
sories were: wildlife (10 percent), sewage line blockages and breaks
(four percept), improperly functioning .onsite wastewater facilities
(i.e., septic systems—see Chapter 3-Better Protected Land) (three
percent), combined sewer overflows (three percent), sanitary sewer
overflows (two percent), boat discharges!(two percent), and publicly
owned treatment works (one percent). No indicators have been
identified to answer the question "What iare the sources of recre-
ational water pollution?" at this time.
The primary health concern associated With recreational waters is
the risk of infection from waterborne pathogens. People may be at
2-54
2.4 Recreation in and on the Water
(Chapter 2 - Turer Water
-------
Exnioit 2-32: Reported sources of pollution that
resulted in oeacn closings or advisories, 2001
: Septic system 3% rp°TW1%
SSO 2% —v \ \ T Sewage line blockage/break 4%
Boat discharge 2% •
CSO 3%
Wildlife
10%
Stormwater
runoff
20%
Unknown
52%
it CSO - Combined Sewer Overflow
Is: SSO - Sanitary Sewer Overflow '.....' ..".-.'..'."'. .'. .
p POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment Works
flrSource: EPA, Office of Water. EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 2007 Swimming Season.
EOvfay2002.. " • •-------.-
risk if they ingest or inhale contaminated water, or simply through
general dermal contact with the water. Some people may be more
vulnerable than others, either because they are more susceptible to
infection or because they have greater exposure to the water. For
example, children may be more vulnerable to environmental exposure
due to their active behavior and developing immune systems. Elderly
and immunosuppressed persons may also be more vulnerable.

The health effects of swimming in contaminated waters are usually
minor—sore throats, ear infections, and diarrhea. In some instances,
however, effects can be more serious and even fatal. Waterborne
microbes can cause meningitis, encephalitis, and severe gastroenteri-
tis (EPA, ORD, OW, March 1999). However, data on the effects and
number of occurrences are limited. The number of occurrences are
likely under-reported because individuals may not link common
symptoms (e.g., gastrointestinal ailments, sore throats) to exposure
to contaminated recreational waters. At this time, .no indicators have
been identified to quantify the health effects associated with recre-
ation in contaminated waters. Additional research is needed to better
understand the types and extent of health effects associated with
swimming in contaminated water.
CJiapter 2 - turer Water
2.4 Recreation in and on the Water
2-55
-------
2.5 (Consumption of Fish
and jnellrisn
Many coastal and fresh water environments are contaminated with
a variety of toxic substances. Of particular concern are mercury,
DDT, and PCBs because they persist in the environment and
bioaccumulate in the food chain. Though PCBs and DDT are no
longer manufactured or distributed in the U.S., they persist in his-
torical deposits in watersheds and near-shore sediments. These
deposits continue to provide an active source for contaminating
fish and shellfish. Mercury can come from several sources, including
industrial releases, abandoned mines, the burning of fossil fuels for
electric power generation, and natural sources such as weathering
of rock and volcanoes.

Persistent chemicals enter the food chain when they are ingested
by bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms. Benthic organisms are
eaten by smaller fish, which in turn are eaten by larger fish, which
may be consumed by humans or wildlife. Levels of PCBs and DDTs
are a concern fn bottom-feeding fish and shellfish, as well as in
higher-level predators. Mercury is concentrated particularly in
larger and longer-lived predators, such as large-mouth bass, tunas,
swordfish, and some sharks. Concentrations of all these com-
pounds, especially in larger fish, can reach levels that are harmful
to humans. To protect human health, state and local officials
monitor levels of these compounds in fish and shellfish, and issue
advisories when tissue concentrations exceed threshold levels.
Typically, a fish or shellfish advisory will suggest that intake of a
particular species be limited, especially for those at higher risk of
health effects such as children, pregnant women, and nursing
mothers.

Three questions have been posed concerning consumption offish
and shellfish:
• What is the condition of waters that support consumption offish
and shellfish?
• What are contaminants in fish and shellfish, and where do they
originate?
• What human health effects are associated with consuming con-
taminated fish and shellfish?

Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3, respectively, discuss these ques-
tions and, where available, the indicators that are used to help
answer these questions.
Indicators
Percentage of river miles and lake acres with fish consumption
advisories;," , -,••••
Contaminants in fresh water fish
^ - -, ,-;,-•
Number fif watersheds exceeding health-based national water
ijrjtKi'1,,' "". „',,»', ; „ i ,
quality cttena.. for mercgry and PCB? in fish tissue
Three indicators, presented on the following pages, are available to
help answer this question: j
• Percentage of river miles and lake acres with fish consumption
advisories. :
• Contaminants'in fresh water fish.
• Number of watersheds exceeding health-based national water
quality criteria for mercury and PCBs iri fish tissue.

The first indicator describes the extent of fish advisories, such as
closed fisheries and/or restricted fish consumption. Fish advisories
are issued by state or local authorities when levels of contaminants
J • i
in monitored fish exceed threshold levels. These advisories, which are
widespread across the U.S., limit or restrict consumption of contami-
nated species. Mercury, dioxin, PCBs, D,DT, and chlordane are
responsible for many of these advisories (EPA, OW, May 2002a).
Increases in the number of advisories over the years may reflect
increased monitoring, increased contamination, and in some cases,
more stringent health standards. :
5

The second indicator examines the number of contaminants in fish
tissue from samples across the nation. This indicator shows that
more than 90 percent of sampled fish had at least one contaminant
and more than half had at least five. j

The third indicator compares average fisrrtissue concentrations of
mercury and PCBs across watersheds to rjuman-health based water
quality criteria. This analysis showed that more than 30 percent of
the watersheds for which there are data exceed mercury criteria.
These watersheds are predominantly located in eastern coastal
states, New England, and the lower portidn of the Mississippi River
watershed. ! ;
i
For all three indicators, data are based on; fish tissue data collected
by state or local government agencies, which tend to focus primarily
on areas where these agencies believe there may be contaminated
fish. This bias may result in inaccurate estimates of the extent of
contamination.
2-56
2.5 Consumption of Fish and Shellfish
Gliapter 2 - Purer Water
-------
C-oastal risk

For coastal fish, insufficient data on the edible portion of these fish
are available to provide a national indicator. However, examination of
fish tissue collected in coastal waters of the eastern U.S. and Gulf of
Mexico shows that compounds of concern were present at levels
above EPA's threshold for issuing an advisory.
No national indicators are available for shellfish. However, as discussed
below, data are available on the extent of shellfish waters that were
classified as harvest-limited or harvest-prohibited from 1966 to 1995.
These data show a steady decrease over this time period in the extent
of waters classified as harvest-limited or harvest-prohibited. Still, as
of 1995, harvesting was limited in 31 percent of shellfish waters and
prohibited in 13 percent (NOAA, 1997). The predominant causes of
closures are both human and non-human coliform bacteria.

Data on shellfish waters come from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which records areas that are
closed to shellfishing or are subjected to restricted or conditional
harvesting. NOAA obtains its data from coastal states, which identify,
survey, and classify shellfish-growing waters according to National
Sanitary Survey Program (NSSP) guidelines (FDA, 1993).
Classification status is based on sanitary surveys of water quality and
shoreline surveys of pollution sources. Individual shellfish-growing
areas are classified either as approved for harvest or as one of four
harvest-limited categories: conditionally approved, restricted, condi-
tionally restricted, and prohibited.
All identified shellfish-growing waters must be classified as prohibited
unless sanitary surveys indicate that water quality meets specific :
NSSP standards for the other categories. Harvesting is permissible in
approved areas year-round. The conditionally approved and condi-
tionally restricted categories are for voluntary use by states when a
predictable pollution event such as seasonal population, heavy rain-
fall, or fluctuating discharges from local sewage plants affects the
suitability of an area for harvest. Most shellfish harvest restrictions
are made based on the concentration of fecal coliform bacteria in
shellfish. This organism is not directly harmful to humans, but typi-
cally is associated with human sewage and with organic wastes from
livestock and wildlife.

The National Shellfish Register provides a record of the acreage of all
classified shellfish-growing waters in the conterminous U.S. The
Register was first published in 1966 to meet the need for summary '
information on the status and extent of the nation's commercial
shellfish-growing areas. Since the publication of the first Register, the
acreage of classified shellfish-growing waters has increased more
than two-fold from 10 million acres to more than 21 million acres
(Houserand Silva, 1966; FDA, 1971; EPA, OE, 1975; DOC and HHS,
1985; NOAA, 1991; NOAA,1997), primarily due to an expanding
consumer demand for shellfish.

Since 1966, the percentage of all classified waters approved for har-
vest has decreased 10 percent. However, data compiled for the 7995
Register, the last available compilation, suggest significant improve-
ments. For example, the overall percent of harvest-limited waters
decreased from a high of 42 percent in 1985 to 31 percent in 1995.
The percent of prohibited waters also decreased from a high of 26
percent jn 1974 to 13 percent in 1995—the lowest percentage
recorded.
CJiapter 2 - Purer Water
2.5 Consumption of Fish and Shellfish
2-57
-------

Percent of river miles and lake acres under fish consumption advisories - Category 2
State and local governments protect people from possible risks of
eating contaminated fish by monitoring local waters and issuing
fish advisories when contaminant levels are unsafe. A consumption
advisory may recommend that people limit or avoid eating certain
species offish caught from certain lakes, rivers, or coastal waters.
Advisories are often very specific. They may apply to specific
water types (such as lakes), or they might include recommenda-
tions for specific groups (such as pregnant women or children).
Advisories apply to locally caught fish or wildlife as well as fish
purchased in stores and restaurants. EPA has compiled these advi-
sory data into the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
(NLFWA) database, which lists, among other things, the species
and size offish or wildlife under advisory, the chemical contami-
nants covered by the advisory, the location and surface area of
the waterbody under advisory, and the population subject to the
advisory.

What the Data Show

Exhibit 2-33 shows the percent of the nation's river miles and lake
acres under advisory for the years 1993 to 2001. Note that the
Great Lakes and their connecting waters are considered separately
from other waters and are not included in the calculations of total
lake acres or river miles. Except for 1998, the percentage
increased continuously during this 8-year period. Approximately
79,119 lakes (11,277,276 lake acres) and 485,205 river miles were
under advisory in 2001, compared to 14,962 lakes and 74,505
river miles under advisory in 1993. Note that the increase in the
total size of waters under advisory is due in part to increased
monitoring for chemical contaminants in fish and wildlife tissue
Exnioit 2-33: Trends in percentage or river miles and
lake acres under fish consumption advisory,
1993-2001
1993 1994 199S 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Coverage: ad SO jUtes
Source: EPA, Office of Water. Update: National Listing of Tab and Wildlife
Mtisoria, May 2002.
and the states' increasing use of statewide advisories. Currently,
the 2,618 advisories in the national listing represent almost
28 percent of the nation's total lake acreage and 14 percent of
the nation's total river miles. .:

In addition to the NLFWA data, much information is available on
the advisory status of our nation's waters. EPA and FDA issued a
national mercury advisory in January 200|l recommending that
women of childbearing age and young children limit their con-
sumption offish ().
:• f
Many great waters of the U.S. are currently under fish advisories
for a variety of pollutants. The great waters include the Great
Lakes, Lake Champlain, the Chesapeake Bay, 20 National Estuary
Program (NEP) sites, and 14 National Estuarine Research Reserve
System (NERRS) sites. , •
M All of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters are under
advisory. ;
n Lake Charnplain is under advisory for PCBs and mercury.
H Although the Chesapeake Bay is not under any advisories, the
Potomac, )ames, Back, and Anacostia Rivers, which connect to
it, are all under PCB advisories. ;
SI Baltimore Harbor, which also connects; to the Chesapeake Bay,
is under advisory for chlordane and PCB contamination in fish
and blue crabs.
II Many of the major estuaries listed in the NEP and/or designated
as NERRS sites are under fish and/or shellfish advisories for multi-
ple chemical contaminants. Sixty-five percent of the total number
of NEP, NERRS, and combined sites are under fish consumption
advisories. Seventeen sites have no current fish consumption
advisories.

Several states have issued fish advisories for all of their coastal
waters. An estimated 71 percent of the coastline of the
conterminous 48 states currently is under advisory. This includes
92 percent of the Atlantic coast and 1o6 percent of the gulf
coast. The Atlantic coastal advisories have been issued for a wide
variety of chemical contaminants, including mercury, PCBs, dioxins,
and cadmium. All of the gulf coast advisories have been issued for
mercury, although other contaminants may also be present. No
Pacific coast state has issued a statewide advisory for any of its
coastal waters, although several local areas along the Pacific coast
are under advisory. :

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Currently, fish consumption advisories are being used as a way of
informing the public of risks associated with eating contaminated
2-58
2.5 Consumption of Fish and S.hellfish
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
-------

tercent of river miles and lake acres under fisK consumption advisories - Category 2 (continued)
fish in certain waterbodies. Advisories are based on fish tissue
monitoring data collected by states and are largely focused on
areas where states know fishing occurs or suspect contamination.
Criteria used to issue advisories vary among states, with some
having more stringent criteria and more robust advisory programs
than others.

Due to the large range in geographic size of lake acres and river
miles affected by chemical contaminants that may be contained
under a single advisory, the number of advisories is not as accu-
rate a measure of the contamination as geographic extent. As a
result, information is now provided on total lake acres and river
miles where advisories are currently in effect. A large-scale fish
tissue study is underway and will help identify waters that
require further monitoring to determine whether advisories are
necessary.

This indicator is based on fish tissue monitoring data collected
by the states. It does not provide unbiased geographical cover-
age, and it is largely focused on areas where states know fishing
occurs or suspect contamination problems. At present, 43
states issued risk-based advisories.

Data Source

Fish advisory indicator data are from the National Listing of Fish
and Wildlife Advisories program. (See Appendix B, page B-17, for
more information.)
Contaminants in fresn water fish- Category 2
From 1992 to 1998, fish samples were collected from 223 stream
sites in the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water
Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. Tissue composites from
whole fish were analyzed for PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, and
trace elements. These contaminants may harm organisms directly
or by affecting their reproduction, and they may make fish unsuit-
able for consumption by humans. These data were compiled for
the entire U.S.

What the Data Show

More than 90 percent of sampled fish had at least one contami-
nant detected and about half of the fish tested had at least five
contaminants at detectable levels (Exhibit 2-34) (The Heinz
Center, 2002). All fish tested from the Great Lakes had five or
more detected contaminants.

Indicator Caps and Limitations

The sites sampled are representative of a wide range of stream
sizes, typesrand land uses broadly distributed across the U.S., but
they do not represent a probability sample, so confidence bounds
on the estimates could not be calculated (Gilliom, et al., 2002;
The Heinz Center, 2002).
Fish .tissue concentration data are derived from composites of
whole fish and not from edible portions alone. Thus it is not pos-
sible to compare tissue concentrations to aquatic or human health

ig=« exhibit 2-34: Occurrence or contaminants in stream
-^-:•_:'--" : fish, 1992,1998
flCpyerage: lower 48 states.
|p Nate: Partial indicator data: freshwater stream fish only,
tSburce: The Heinz Center, Tte State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. Data from the
^r U.S. Geological Survey.
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.5 Consumption of Fish and Shellfish
2-59
-------

Contaminants in fresk water fisn - Category 2 (continued)
13!WRW:53fB!f:W^
u
guidelines. These data do, however, indicate organism exposure to Data Source
measured chemicals.
Data for this indicator came from the U.S. Geological Survey's
National Water Quality Assessment Program as compiled for The
Heinz Center (2002). (See Appendix B, page B-17, for more
information.) •
Number of watersheds exceeding health-based national
in fish tissue - Category 2
water quality criteria for mercury and
For this indicator, fish tissue concentrations of each chemical in
the NLFWA database were averaged across 8-digit hydrologic unit
code (HUC) watersheds. The average concentration was then
compared to fish- tissue based criteria for mercury and PCBs. The
average fish tissue concentration is for all monitored species, fillet
samples only (whole fish samples were omitted from the analysis
as these are not recommended for use in assessing human health
i: Watersheds with fisn tissue concentrations exceeding health-based national water c
criteria for mercury, 2001
dality
I Cortta-m Other Sources
I NoCtcnfnoxcdMDju
Coverage does not include Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico
Stale* cumn% u$e wtter column concentration-based mercury water
quatcty itandwdj and wouid need to adopt, Rsh tissue-based tanjet
te«h XI orftr to tnc Ml apprca* for nanny Total Majiimim Da«y
Id**, A*S6wat ndtKttaw "">* be moored to meet EPA rational
aifld jwert vtate Ith adittwy te«,«h, *hich are often set below the
Note: Watersheds highlighted yellow have "significant" mercury sources ot^j
deRned as where the total estimated load frojn Publicly Owned Treatment^!
impact). Thus, the average is meant to represent the potential
exposure concentration for persons consuming fish from typically
frequented local lakes, streams, and rivers.

The mercury criterion used in this comparison was the national
fish-tissue-based criterion. The PCBs criterion was based on the
fish tissue levels used to derive the curreht national health-based
water concentration criteria. Criteria
~1 exceedancesi can be interpreted as
| meaning that the watershed, on aver-
1 age, is not meeting maximum tissue
contaminant levels designed to be
protective of human health.

What the Data Show

The data for mercury are a fairly
good representation of conditions in
the eastern U.S. and California. Of
the 696 8-digit HUC watersheds with
available data, 225 exceeded the mer-
cury criterion (Exhibit 2-35). These
are predominantly located in eastern
coastal states, New England, and the
lower portion of the Mississippi River
watershed. Data for PCB concentra-
tions are less available; 114 of 153
watersheds where data were available
contained tjssue above the criterion
level (Exhibiit 2-36).
r, than deposition
s (POTW/s) and pulp
and paper mills is greater than 5% of estimated wateitody delivered merdjry^at a typical air
deposition load (10 gAm2/yr) and/or wrier* mercury ceH chlor Jluli faciln res mercury raineS
significant past producer gold mines are present
! SMK« CM, Ofltee of Wrtec Htbatml t&tiy of Tab
-------
ass
Number of watersheds exceeding health-based national water quality criteria for mercury and fCBs
in fish tissue - Category 2 (continued)
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Several limitations should be noted for this indicator:
• The data were compiled based on voluntary contributions
from individual states and have not undergone an independ-
ent quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review. Data
quality is a function of the distinct programs for which the
data were collected.
• Sampling by state agencies was not generally done on a
statistical basis, but rather was targeted toward specific water-
bodies and fish species. Some selection of sampling locations
was based on fishing pressure and/or suspected elevated con-
taminant levels. For example, there appears to be a bias in the
mercury data towards top predator or sport fish (of the top 10
most frequent species sampled, 83 percent are trophic level 4
species). This bias could potentially skew the average watershed
concentration level to higher than actual exposure depending on
real consumption patterns.
• Some states may not have reported tissue data when resultant
concentrations were found to be below state fish advisory levels.
• Substantially more data are available for the years 1990 to
1995. than for more recent years.
• Spatial gaps in the data are readily apparent from the indicator
maps. Since a large fraction (roughly two-thirds) of the data-
base was not georeferenced (i.e., no latitude/longitude coordi-
nates were created), those data
could not included in the indica-
tor. Bias imposed by these miss-
ing data was not examined.
Latitude/longitude coordinates
will be assigned in a database
update in the near future and
can be incorporated in future
indicators.
• The human health-based criteria
of 0.3 ppm methylmercury that
was used for comparison is
considerably higher than the
more recent federal advisory of
0.18 ppm for consumption of
mercury-contaminated fish. State
consumption advisories are
typically at levels closer to the
0.18 ppm than to the 0.3 ppm
level.
• Sampling patterns of state agen-
cies are largely being directed
toward areas of higher fishing
pressure or based on suspected
elevated contaminant levels. Thus this indicator, which is based
on generalizing from specific sampling locations to watershed
averages, is expected to represent a somewhat conservative
estimate of the average concentration in consumed fish in each
respective area.

Data Sources

The fish tissue indicator data are from the National Listing of Fish
and Wildlife Advisories program. (See Appendix B, page B-18, for
more information.)
Exhibit 2-36: Watersheds witji fish tissue concentrations exceeding health-based national water quality
criteria for polycWorinated biphenyls (f Cfis), 2OOI
I | All Results are Non-Detect
Half for Less Than Detection
8 Currently Meets EPA Criterion
>1000% Above Criterion
100% to 1000% Above Criterion
<100% Above Criterion
No Georeferenced Rsh Tissue Data
Coverage does not include Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico.
inr Note: Graphic was created for this report in ArcView using NLFVVA data.
ip—SSurce: EPA, Office of Water. National la&y offish ™K WiUifeAMsorlei (NLFWA>. June 2001.
C-napter 2 - Hirer Water
2.5 Consumption of Fish and Shellfish
2-61
-------
*,,ii!ji! "7\"»n"»i" jiff j '••••• j'li^^ 1 'BIB
^
i* a
djj
^S&^Jnll; 1EM^^
. • . ri!.'-i- ,-'•'•••'''• :"•;•'•••'-••; :1:' :•:«•.•;:•.^;
istiiSa tilSi^^
:W:^
ilini T* fi ijaiil / '" 4ri f*"l 'Cni n 3 T & * il|!t ;'":l'ii!!:ip|:i«:'ii!S!!'•• '''^"'i sis™: *. :!!Si!i;.i!i:i:::::i:". ^i1 :;::! i1 fes*1 ' 't::^:.;'::1!:^!^1!!;!':::!^^:.
iiiiiJ» iiii|H^
Information is available to help answer this question in a general
sense. Rsh and shellfish can be contaminated by both chemical pol-
lutants and pathogens. Chemical contaminants of greatest concern
tend to be those that are toxic and persistent and that bioaccumu-
late. Contaminants with these properties that are common in fresh
and coastal waters include:
• DDT mid PCBs.The manufacture and use of these compounds
have been banned in the U.S. However, deposits from past pollu-
tion persist in sediments and land-based sources, and these
deposits continue to pollute watersheds. In addition, PCBs can be
found in some products manufactured prior to the ban (e.g., elec-
trical transformers).
• Mercury This metal, a natural and highly toxic element, can now be
detected (although in small amounts) in all waters. Sources of
mercury include wastes from past mining practices and the burning
of fossil fuels and wastes, which can create mercury emissions that
settle on land and water. In water, bacteria convert mercury to
methylmereury, a toxic compound that is absorbed by fish and
accumulates in their tissue.

Biological threats to shellfish consumption include bacterial con-
tamination from human and animal wastes and contamination from
naturally occurring toxins that shellfish accumulate from consuming
certain algae.

Some data are availabte on the sources of bacterial contamination.
When state managers close or otherwise restrict a shellfish-growing
area due to high levels of fecal coliform bacteria, they typically cite
potential sources of that contamination. This information was col-
lected for the 1990 and 1995 Shellfish Registers (NOAA, 1991;
NOAA, 1997). In 1995, sources of shellfish contamination cited by
reporting officials were (in decreasing order of frequency):
• Urban runoff (40 percent)
• Unidentified sources upstream of coastal watersheds (39 percent)
• Wildlife (38 percent)
• Individual wastewater treatment systems (e.g., septic tanks) (32
percent)
• Wastewater treatment plants (24 percent)
• Agricultural runoff (17 percent)
• Marinas (17 percent)
• Boating (13 percent)
• Industrial facilities (9 percent)
• Combined sewer overflows (7 percent)
• Direct discharges (4 percent)
• Feedlots (3 percent)
The 1990 Register reflects the same top five sources of pollution,
although in slightly different order.

Marine biotoxins associated with "red tideb" and other naturally
occurring contaminants such as Vibrio spejdes (a free-living marine
and estuarine bacteria associated with stomach and intestinal disor-
ders of varying intensity) can also cause temporary closures,
although the;/ are not usually regarded as:a pollution source (Rippey,
1994; FDA, 1993). !
i : |
At this time, insufficient data are available to develop national-level
indicators about the type and origin offish and shellfish contaminants.
The health effects of consuming contaminated fish and shellfish
depend on many factors, including the type of contaminant, its con-
centration in the organism, and how much contaminated fish or shell-
fish is consumed. Health effects include the following:
' • Risk assessments show that exposure to sufficient levels of some
contaminants in fish tissues may increase the risk of cancer
• Mercury, in sufficient quantities, is toxif—especially to the
nervous system. ;
• Shellfish contaminated with fecal wastes can cause gastrointestinal
illness and even death in individuals with compromised immune
systems. Mollusks, mussels and whelks [are the main shellfish that
carry biotoxins causing common symptoms, such as irritation of
the eyes, nose, throat, and tingling of the lips and tongue.

Advisories warn the public of these risks and suggest limits or out-
right bans on consuming some species in certain problem areas.
Certain groups may be at higher risk for health effects from contami-
nated fish and shellfish. These include children, pregnant women, and
nursing mothers, who may be more vulnerable to effects, and tribal,
ethnic, and other populations that fish for subsistence and therefore
consume more fish or shellfish.

At this time,; insufficient data are availably to develop indicators that
can monitor! at the national level, the health effects of consuming
contaminated fish and shellfish. Chapter 4, Human Health, provides
more information on the human health impacts of contaminated fish.
2-62
2.5 Consumption of Fish and S>hellfish
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
-------
2.6 Challenges and Data
G
aps
Tremendous amounts of data are being collected on water resources.
These data provide evidence of water quality condition at the
national, regional, and state scales. Some of these data are
sufficiently comprehensive in scope to serve as the basis for
indicators of water quality at the national level. These indicators
provide a starting point for describing our nation's water quality.
However, as discussed below, they also have limitations.that make it
difficult to make confident statements about the condition of water
resources at the national scale or to thoroughly describe the
stressors that degrade that condition.

2.6.1 Waters and Watersheds '

Several indicators are available that provide information about the
quality of our nation's waters and watersheds. For wetlands, for exam-
ple, the relevant indicator shows that the rate of wetland loss has
dropped dramatically in recent years. However, as discussed in
Section 2.2.2, there currently are no indicators of wetland biological
condition and none are being implemented at the national or regional
scale. Without these indicators and an assessment process, ensuring
that the net gain goal is sustaining not only wetland extent, but also
wetland condition, will not be possible.

Drawing accurate conclusions about the condition of surface waters
can be equally as challenging as for wetlands, but the indicators in
this area do provide evidence of some success in reducing important
stressors. In addition, data suggest that atmospheric deposition of
sulfates has been reduced (EPA, ORD, January 2003), which will help
improve the quality of acidic surface waters. Ongoing efforts by EPA
(for example, through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit program), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and
individual states to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged to
our nation's waters from both point and non- point sources will also
help to improve water quality.

However, many challenges remain in monitoring water quality and
taking steps to improve water quality. This is, in part, because signifi-
cant environmental problems persist, despite environmental manage-
ment activities to address these problems. Persistent hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico and fish contaminated by toxic organics and mercury
are examples.

To better address water quality problems in the future, more and
better quality data on the condition of waters and watersheds will
be needed. This will require a greater collaboration among the
federal agencies that participate in monitoring and managing our
nation's waters so that results and metadata can be provided in a
common format. Data in a common format will be much more useful
for developing or improving indicators and can also more easily be
made available to the public. In addition, the relevant federal agen-
cies should work with the states to design and implement cost-effi-
cient water quality monitoring programs whose data will be useful
not only to the state water quality programs, but also to national
water quality characterizations. State resources often are limited for
such key activities as characterizing waters, identifying sources of
watershed stress, and monitoring the effects of implementing pollu-
tion controls. Therefore, it is critical to encourage the development,
dissemination, and use of cost-effective monitoring and assessment
tools, such as biological methods for water quality assessment and
a new framework for design and data collection in water quality
monitoring programs.

2.6.2 Drinking Water

The indicator for the quality of treated drinking water in the U.S.
shows that quality of drinking water has improved from the early
1990s through 2002. This indicator is based on health standards
violations by community water systems that are reported by states
to EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). The
systems that are monitored under SDWIS serve water to about
95 percent of the U.S. population. Compliance trencjs may change
in the future as new regulations create new compliance challenges
for public water systems.

The primary limitation of this indicator is under-reporting and late
reporting of community water systems violations by states to EPA.
This affects the accuracy of annual reports produced using SDWIS
and thus the quality of the indicator. EPA last quantified data
quality in 1999 and estimated that states were not reporting
40 percent of all health-based violations. EPA and states are taking
steps to address identified deficiencies and to improve data quality.
A survey of reporting completeness is underway. Another limitation
of the indicator is that it does not cover the quality of water from
private wells.

It is important to understand the condition of the raw waters
(both ground water and surface waters) that serve as drinking
water sources. For example:
• States are currently conducting assessments to delineate the extent
of source waters and identify potential contaminant sources.
• Data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey under its National
Water Quality Assessment program and occurrence data for unreg-
ulated contaminants collected by EPA under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) also provide information about raw water stres-
sors, and are used by EPA to determine whether additional con-
taminants should be regulated under the SDWA.
• It is important that EPA assure that the frequency of sampling is
adequate to characterize episodic events affecting source water
quality.
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
2.6 Challenges and Data Gaps
2-63
-------
The incidence of waterborne disease is another parameter that
could be used to describe and track water quality at the national
level. Additional efforts to obtain data could help provide a basis
in the future for a national-level indicator in this area. This would,
however, require significant new work, as the existing data likely
reflect an unknown but probably very large degree of under-
reporting. For example, there currently are no consistent national
surveillance and reporting requirements for doctors or states with
respect to incidence of diarrhea, except as associated with
Hepatitis A, cholera, salmonellosis, or shigellosis. Doctors rarely
order the tests that would identify these diseases, or tests that
would identify other, more common diseases that can be caused by
contaminants in drinking water.

2.6.3 Recreation in and on the Water •

The quality of recreational waters is compromised when pollution
increases the level of pathogens or (to a lesser extent) chemical con-
taminants in those waters past thresholds judged safe for human
exposure. When this happens at a monitored beach, particularly for
pathogens, local or state authorities close or issues advisories for
beaches. Sufficient information is available to provide the basis for
an indicator about the risks to public health from exposure to
pathogens in recreational water at coastal and Great Lakes beaches.
Although the indicator shows that the number of beaches with advi-
sories or closures has increased in recent years, this trend simply
represents the fact that more beaches are providing information. In
fact, as the indicator shows, the percent of beaches under advisory
or closure has been fairly constant over the last few years. Overall,
relatively few days (six percent of the days beaches could be open)
have been lost due to pathogen exposure. This indicator is limited by
three considerations:
• The number of beach days closed or under advisory does not
directly measure pathogens or contaminants in water.
• Reporting of beach days closed or under advisory is voluntary,
thus the ability of this indicator to describe conditions nationwide
is unknown.
• At this time, this indicator applies primarily to coastal and Great
Lakes beaches, as most fresh water inland beaches are not
surveyed.
• Improving the value of this indicator as a national measure of
recreational water qualify would entail an assessment of the pres-
ence of pathogens in all waters used for recreational activities.
Chemical contaminants would need to be selectively measured in
waters with known risk from contamination.

2.6.4 Consumption of Fish and Shellfish

Three indicators are available to help describe the condition of
surface waters that support fish and shellfish consumption. For
example, information about specific areas where contaminants in
fish are above public health thresholds is available. One indicator
suggests thsit the number of lake acres and river miles for which
fish consumption advisories have been issued is increasing. This
trend may represent an increase in monitoring, more stringent
state health standards, or increased contamination. Other indica-
tors show that the vast majority of sampled fish are contaminated
to some degree and that contamination for particular pollutants
(mercury and PCBs) tends to be concentrated in certain areas of
the country.i For all three indicators, it is important to note that
sampling tends to focus on areas where ;states know fishing occurs
or suspect there may be a contaminatiop problem, so the data may
over-report or under-report the degree pd extent of contamina-
tion. Also, monitoring offish and shellfish at the state level is very
inconsistent, and different criteria are used to issue advisories.

A true national assessment of the safety of fish and shellfish
for human consumption can only be accomplished through a
comprehensive, representative survey of pathogens and chemical
contaminants in edible fish tissue in all jvaters. A national survey
of this type, involving 500 lakes and reservoirs, is underway. Initial
data on 268 contaminants in the tissue'of fresh water fish have
been collected. These data are not presented in this report
because th«y reflect only one year of a [four-year study and, as
such, are not ready for public release. However, they should be
available for future use as a potential indicator.
2-64
2.6 Challenges and Data Claps
Chapter 2 - furer Water.
-------

f
-------
Indicators that were selected and included in this chapter were assigned to one of J3«q categories:
ijil,level data coverage for more than one time period.
I by sound collection methodologies, data management
• Category 1 -The indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by nations
The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are characterized '
systems, and quality assurance procedures.
I Categoiy 2 -The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data af
regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for more than c
indicator have been measured (e.g., data has been collected for birds, but not fi
comparable across the areas covered, and are characterized by sound collectiorj
quality assurance procedures. '
j"available only for part of the nation (e.g., multi-state
cine time period, or not all the parameters of the
>r plants or insects). The supporting data are
"methodologies, data management systems, and
-------
3.0 Introduction
The U.S. landscape can be characterized in many different ways—by
its diversity and distribution of natural resources, by its complex pat-
tern of land uses reflecting population distribution and management
. strategies, and by the various ecological systems that provide habitat
for thousands of plant and animal species. This landscape is continu-
ously changing due to population growth, the demand for resources
and energy, and changing land management practices.

Our nation's land provides the foundation on which cities are built
and from which food and other resources are derived to support the
population. At the same time, land used for these purposes can be
changed by pollution, waste disposal, and various physical processes
(e.g., land clearing) that can change natural processes, such as the
hydrologic cycle. Numerous laws and practices have been -
implemented—especially over the last 30 years—to help protect
human health and ecosystems from these types of human actions.

This chapter addresses the types, extent, and uses of land in the
geographic area of the U.S., which comprises approximately 2.3
billion acres of land and water (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). This
area includes all 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico, American Samoa,
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. In, total, 2.263 billion acres of the U.S. are land, while 116
million acres are water. This land acreage is the basis for all calcula-
tions of percentages in this chapter, unless otherwise noted.

Population growth is probably the single most important factor that
has changed and continues to change the land environment of the
U.S. The use of land is, to a major extent, a function of human needs
and population density. According to the 2000 Census, more than
281 million people live on our nation's land. The U.S. has added at
least 20 million people per decade to its population over the last 50
years, and in the last decade (1990-2000), the U.S. population has
increased by more than 32 million (13 percent) (Exhibit 3-1). The
density of population has also continuously increased, although not
evenly across the country (Exhibit 3-2). According to the 2000
Census, the average density of people across our nation is approxi-
mately 0.125 people per acre. This represents a significant change
from the first census of population, conducted in 1790, showing
only 0.007 people per acre (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).

The exponential growth in the U.S. and world population has created
demands for resources and uses of land that have major effects on
both human health and ecological condition. The land indicators
outlined in this chapter are descriptors of the status, trends, and
effects of various conditions and land practices. These indicators are
often limited in their capacity to paint an accurate picture of the
effects of various human practices, due to incomplete, inconsistent,
or dated data.
The specific issues explored in this chapter include changing uses of
land for development, agriculture, and forest management; the use
and presence of chemicals in the form of pesticides, fertilizers, and
toxic releases; the generation and management of various types of
waste; and the extent of contaminated lands. The chapter poses
fundamental questions about these issues and their health and
ecological effects, and it uses indicators drawn from well-reviewed
data sources to help answer those questions. Exhibit 3-3 lists these
questions and indicators, and identifies the chapter section where
each indicator is presented.

The chapter is divided into four main sections:
II Section 3.1 examines the extent of various ecological systems
and land uses in the U.S.
II Section 3.2 looks at the extent and potential disposition of
chemicals used or managed on land.
II Section 3.3 addresses waste generation and management on land
and the extent of contaminated lands.
H Section 3.4 reviews the challenges and data gaps that remain in
assessing the condition of our nation's land.

Each of the topic sections (e.g., land use, chemicals, waste) also
considers what is currently known about associated human health
and ecological effects.
I; Exhibit 3-1: Topulation and population density, 179O-2OOO
hPopu
jam
f — . ,.
1250
pa
fei-- -
13=:--- .-
po
OQQ
P"-' - ••
o
ation in millions
• Population (millions)
~ Population Density (per acre mile)
Population per acre of land area
/
/
^/
/
/\\
--— -"""fi 1 1 1
j. I • ! ajJU.1 iHiIiltl>iilil
I
1

L
/

L
0.109
0.09 ,
0.08
-0.06
0.05 :
0.03
0.02
1790 1810 1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990

Note: Large amounts of land area were added to the United States in the early
ISOQs (Louisiana Purchase, 1803), mid-1800s (adding the present states of
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado,
: Kansas, Arizona, and New Mexico), and in 1959 (Alaska and Hawaii statehood).
These land increases explain population density decreases during these periods.
ig these peri

.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statist/en/Abstract of the United States 2001: The
National Data Book. Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
3.0 Introduction
3-3
-------
,*.._*
K
Exhibit 3-2: United States population aensit)
:-jg-gg^^
ky county, 2000
Source; Brewer, Cynthia A. and Trudy A. Suchan. Mapping Census 2000: Tte Geography of U.S. Diversity JUrje 2001
Numerous gaps in the data exist that make it difficult or impossible
to answer some of the questions posed about the condition of our
nation's lands. The gaps and limitations of data are described briefly
under each question and in more detail at the end of the chapter.
There are several major sources of data that contribute to this
chapter, and a report titled The State of the Nation's Ecosystems,
developed oy The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics
and the Environment (The Heinz Center; 2002). These data sets
contribute directly and indirectly to many of the indicators
throughout the chapter.
3-4
3.0 Introduction
C^napter 3
- Better Protected Land
-------
Exhibit 3-3: Land - Questions and Indicators
f Land Use

1
f
i
1
• f-
sf
f
1
c---
9
st
1-
1
te_
i
K
1
1 - - - „ —...:.,.„..,. .... t.*-"~ JjL-Hif j. ^.'^^!*'""!"™''!:UtLiH"--- VtJferi3j.-;t) ;.i .--.a:. .;. Jn°'ga
-------

m El
Waste and Contaminated La
nds
How much and what types of waste are generated and Quantjty of RCRA hazardous waste generated and managed
managed ?
What is the extent of land used for waste management?
What Is the extent of contaminated lands?
What human health effects are associated with waste
management and contaminated lands?
What ecological effects are associated with waste
management and contaminated lands?
Quantity of radioactive waste gei
Number and location of municipa
Number and location of RCRA ha
Number and location of Superfur
Number and location of RCRA C<
No Category 1 or 2 indicator idf
No Category 1 or 2 indicator id<
L ;

•Hafff
(MSW)
:e gener
erated
I solid w
zardous
generated and managed
ated and managed
— i i
and in inventory
aste (MSW) landfills
waste management facilities
d National Priorities List (NPL) sites
>rrective Action sites ;
ntifled
•ntified
JipiliilHg
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

•JStSHES
3.3.1
3.3.1
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.2
.3.3.3
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3-6
3.0 Introduction
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land ',
-------
3.1 Land U
se
Land ownership and the management objectives of the owners tend
to determine how land is used; thus, U.S. lands are used for many
d,fferent purposes. Nearly 28 percent of the nation (630 million
.acres) is owned and managed by the federal government. State and
local governments manage another 198 million acres (GSA, 1999)
The more than 828 million acres of federal, state, and local
government lands in the nation are managed for various public pur-
poses. In contrast, the approximately 1.419 billion acres of private
and tribal land are more likely to be managed in the interests of
their owners, with various land use constraints imposed by zoning
and other regulations (CSA, 1999; USDA, NRCS 1997- Alaska
DNR, 2000).

Management objectives are constantly changing on private and
public lands and can have both positive and negative effects on the
natural environment and human health. Such effects include loss of
native habitat to agricultural practices; loss of prime agricultural
lands to urban/suburban development; changes in patterns of runoff
as a result of impervious surfaces, stream flow, dams, or irrigation
systems; habitat restoration based on land reclamation; and
urban/suburban development on previously contaminated land.

There are differing estimates of the extent of various land uses. Those
discussed in the context of the following questions are often due to
different classifications, definitions, approaches to data collection, and
the timing of data collection and analysis. Land cover and land use
represent two different concepts and both are discussed in this section
Land cover is essentially what can be seen on the land-the vegetation
or other physical characteristics—while land use describes how a piece
of land is being used (or not) by humans. In some cases, land uses can
be determined by cover types, which are visible (e.g., the presence of
housing indicates residential land use). Often, however, more informa-
tion is needed for those uses that are not visible (e.g., lands leased for
mining, "reserved" forest land, shrublands with grazing rights).
Techniques for assessing land cover and land use vary, with different
data required to accurately assess extent and practices. Remotely
sensed data are increasingly being used to track land cover. When
combined with knowledge^ local land use regulations or other infor-
mation, such data can be useful for tracking land use.
Six questions are posed in this section to examine the extent of
various ecological systems and land uses, including development
agriculture, and forest management. The questions considered are:

II What is the extent of developed lands?
II What is the extent of farmlands?
• What is the extent of grasslands and shrublands?
• What is the extent of forest lands?
• What human health effects are associated with land use?
H What ecological effects are associated with land use?

Tracking national patterns of land use and activities that affect the
land can be challenging, primarily because land use is regulated by
many levels of government and also because of the significant varia-
tions ,n land cover, geography, and land activities nationwide Data
produced by different agencies at different levels of government
must be integrated and analyzed continually to gain a national
perspective of patterns and trends.

The primary information sources for this section include the
National Resources Inventory (NRI) of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)-
the report titled The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, which was
developed by The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics
and the Environment (The Heinz Center, 2002); and data from the
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program.

This section presents various activities related to land use and land
cover. Two examples of activities for which indicators have not been
ident.fied, but that can have significant effects in different ways on
land are 1) the formal protection or reservation of land for habitat
or natural resources and 2) mining and extraction activities. Some
data are collected locally and for federal lands (e.g., National Park
acreage) or tracked for economic indicators, but the national picture
of the extent of land reservation and mining is not generally avail-
able. A snapshot of what is known is described in the two sidebars.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
3.1 Land Use
3-7
-------
PROTECTED LANP£
-

of protection. More than 4 percent of the nation ,s managed as ™™m«s'™ ™e | s of acres Of lands are also protected in the
wlrness, more than half are in Alaska (Wilde.ness^^^^^ ^! and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness
National Park Service System, within he U.S. Fish and ™^^™£ * J ona, wild ancf Scenic Rivers, in National Recreation
Study Areas, in National Forest Roadless Areas, ,„ &^^'il^--j^-^«^ systems,
r :r=t ;—-
providing restrictions from development in perpetuity.
MINING AND EXTRACTION
ACTIVITIES
.^
are known to be 1 ,879 coal mines and associated fac .ties m ^ ^^^ntf «?ttS«^ accounts far* 37 percent of U.S. coal
the U.S. coal, primarily from surface mines. The Appa achia are, ed by We ^^^S' 534,000 producing oi, wells (ranging
production, mainly from underground m,nes(DOE, November 2002). Otter energy
from one to millions of barrels of production per year) Top
CaHfornia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Wyoming (
ties produce most of the mmerals and metals ,n the U.S
removed in 2000. Overall, 97 percent was mined and q
in which mining for non-fue. minerals occurs are Nevada,
Pennsylvania (USGS, 2000b). In addition to act.ve > mines
"65 other mines and processing facili-
tons of non-fuel minera, materials were
iand 3 nt was mined un'derground; The major states
at the surface leve anc ' P ^ ohjo_ and
^s a p^ately 10,200 aban-
of abandoned mines on public and
w*«>. Mm*, o aanone mne
^^
3.1.1 What is the extent of
developed lands?
Indicators
Extent of developed lands
Extent of urban and suburban lands
Land development is a process of land conversion that changes lands
from natural or agricultural uses to residential, industrial, transporta-
tion, or commercial uses to meet human needs. Land development
has created urban and suburban ecological systems, which are areas
Where the majority of the land is devoted to or dominated by build-
ings, houses, roads, lawns, or other elements of human use and
construction (The Heinz Center, 2002). Urban and suburban
ecological systems are highly built up and paved, resulting in effects
such as more rapid changes in temperature, increased runoff, and
increased chemical contaminants than in more natural ecosystems.
Plant and animal life is more heavily influenced by species introduced '
in horticulture and as pets, and native:species may be more or less
completely removed from large areas and replaced by lawns, gardens,
and ornamentals (World Resources Institute, 2000).

The majority of Americans live in areas that are considered "devel-
oped larid." Between 1950 and 2000, the number of Americans
living in U S. Census Bureau-defined urban areas increased from 64
percent to 79 percent of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau,
2001). Estimates vary widely on the amount of land considered
developed in the U.S., depending on definitions of "developed" and
different assessment techniques. For example, the Census Bureau
definitio n is a measure of population density; not specifically a
measure of actual land use or conversion of land. Census urban areas
do not take into account low-density suburbs and other developed
lands such as commercial or transportation infrastructure areas that
do not include people. The Census definitions may underestimate ,
lands that would be categorized as low-level residential or lands
having dispersed development. (See the following sidebar for
definitions used in this discussion.) ;
3-8
3.1 Land Use
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Landj.
-------
The two indicators presented in this section provide an estimate of
the extent of developed land, with an estimate of urban and
suburban lands as a subset of developed lands. These estimates were
developed using different definitions and methodologies. The extent
of "developed land" indicator uses a national statistical sample that
takes into account various development types. The "extent of urban
and suburban lands" indicator identifies densely developed areas
classified using remotely sensed satellite data.
DEFINITIONS OF DEVELOPED AND URBAN/SUBURBAN LANDS

U.S. Census Bureau Definitions
Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters. The Census Bureau describes urban areas as Urbanized Areas (UAs) and Urban Clusters (UCs)
These are donations for densely settled areas, which consist of core census block groups that have a population density of at least
1 ,000 people per square mile and other surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile UAs
contain 50,000 or more people. UCs contain at least 2,500 people, but less than 50,000. Based on 2000 Census data there are 466
UAs and 3,172 UCs comprising nearly 60 million acres (or 2.6 percent of the U.S. land area). These definitions and delineations of urban
areas are used by the Office of Management and Budget to delineate the Census Metropolitan Areas, including Metropolitan Statistical
Areas, which are used for various federaland state budget allocation purposes (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).

USDA; NRCS, National Resources Inventory (NRI) Definitions
bUilt'UP ^ sma" built-uP areas' and ™al transportation land
Urban and built-up areas. A land cover/use category consisting of residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional land; construc-
tion s,tes; public administrative sites; railroad yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary landfills; sewage treatment plants- water
control structures and spillways; other land used for such purposes; small parks (less than 10 acres) within urban and built-up areas-
and highways, railroads, and other transportation facilities if they are surrounded by urban areas. Also included are tracts of less than 10
acres that do not meet the above definition but are completely surrounded by urban and'built-up land. Two size categories are recog-
nized in the NRI: areas of 0.25 acre to 10 acres and areas of at least 10 acres.
Large urban and built-up areas. A land cover/use category composed of developed tracts of at least 10 acres— meeting the
definition of urban and built-up areas.
Small built-up areas. A land cover/use category consisting of developed land units of 0.25 to 10 acres that meet the definition of
urban and built-up areas.
Rural transportation land. A land cover/use category that consists of all highways, roads, railroads, and associated rights-of-way
outside of urban and built-up areas, including private roads to farmsteads or ranch headquarters, logging roads, and other private
roads, except field lanes.

The Heinz Report Definitions
Urban and suburban lands. An area is considered to be urban/suburban if a majority of the lands within a 1 ,000 foot by 1 000 foot
area (pixel) fall into one of the four "developed" land cover types classified in the NLCD (low-density residential, high-density residential
commeraal-mdustnal-transportation, or urban and recreational grasses). In outlying areas, clusters of pixels fiad to total at least 270 acres
to be considered urban/suburban.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
3.1 Land Use
3-9
-------
Indicator
Extent of developed lands - Category 1
Land development generally results in significant changes in other
land uses or cover types. This indicator provides a measure of how
much developed land exists, where it is, and how it has changed.
The indicator relies on national statistical data samples conducted
every five years by the USDA NRCS.

What the Data Show

The NRI reports approximately 98 million acres of developed land
in the U.S., not including Alaska (USDA, NRCS, 2001). This figure
represents about 4.3 percent of the total land area. Exhibit 3-4
shows the distribution of non-federal developed lands nationwide.
Each dot on the map represents 15,000 acres. The map displays
the Census Metropolitan Area boundaries, which are larger in
western states due to the large size of many counties. States
along the Northeast corridor have the highest percentages of •
developed hand, exceeding more than one-third of a state's area
in some casas. j

Between 1982 and 1997, developed lands increased by 25 million
acres, primarily through conversion of croplands and forest lands
(USDA, NRCS, 2000a). This represents a 34.1 percent increase.
Developed lands as a percentage of the nation rose from 3.2
percent in 1982 to 4.3 percent in 1997 (USDA, NRCS, 2000a).
The pace of land development between [1992 and 1997 was more
than 1.5 times the rate of the previous JO years. The distribution
of changes in developed land varies nationwide, with extensive
changes in the eastern part of the country from south to north.
Exhibit 3-4: Extent of non-federal developed land, 1997
98,251,700 acres of developed land

Metropolitan areas are defined as U.S. Census
Bureau Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
Each red dot represents
15,000 acres of
developed land
95% or more
federal area
CJ Metropolitan area
boundaries
Metropolitan area
central cities
Hawaii
Alaska
Puerto Rico/U.S.-Virgin Island
Source: USOA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised D.Lember 2000- Acres of Developed Land, 1997 2000
yawary2QQ5;Mtp://wmnrcsMsda.gov/techmcal/land/meta/m4974.html). [^
' tit
3-10
3.1 Land Use
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
nvuiQnmen
Extent of developed lands - Category I (continued)
Exhibit 3-5 depicts the change in developed land (urban and
suburban areas and rural transportation land) by watershed in the
1982 to 1997 time frame.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The NRI data are limited in not providing data on Alaska and not
assessing development on federal lands, including
recreational development and transportation infrastructure.

Data Source

Acreage estimates and map data presented for this indicator are
from the National Resources Inventory, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1997
(Revised December 2000). (See Appendix B, page B-18, for
more information.)
National Resources Inventory

The NRI is a longitudinal survey designed to assess conditions
and trends of soil, water, and related resources on non-federal
lands in the U.S. The NRI statistical sample involves approximately
300,000 sample units and 800,000 sample points on non-
federal lands. The sample is a stratified two-stage unequal
probability design that can be modified to address specific
national survey goals or special studies. Stratification was devel-
oped county by county, based on the Public Land Survey System
(PLSS) where possible, and on latitude/longitude, Universal
Transverse Mercator Grid, or artificial superimposed lines when
necessary. The national sampling varies across strata and ranges
from 2 to 6 percent The NRI measures numerous variables, which
are then extrapolated as national totals. Variables include the
following: soil characteristics, earth cover, land cover and use,
erosion, land treatment, vegetative conditions, conservation treat-
ment needs, potential for cropland conversion, extent of urban
land, habitat diversity, and Conservation Reserve Program cover.
NRI sample data are generally reliable at the 95 percent
confidence interval for state and certain broad sub-state area
analyses (Goebel, 1998).
Exnikit 3-5: Land d
evelopment patterns, 1982-1997
25,005,900 New Developed Acres
New Acres
50,000 or more
25,000 to 50,000
15,000 to 25,000
O Less than 15,000
95% or more
Federal area
Metropolitan areas

Puerto Rico/US. Virgin Islands
?
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
3.1 Land Use
3-n
-------

Indicator
Extent of urban and suburban lands - Category 2
Urban and suburban lands are considered a subset of developed
lands and one of the ecological systems described in Chapter 5,
Ecological Condition. These are highly developed areas and
surrounding suburbs, including developed outlying areas above a
minimum size. Acreage estimates are based on an analysis of the
remotely sensed NLCD data conducted by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), Areas of at least 270 acres that are substantially
covered with roads, buildings, concrete, and other hard surfaces
must be identified to be classified and counted as urban/subur-
ban (The Heinz Center, 2002). This definition excludes smaller
built-up areas.

What the Data Show

Urban and suburban ecological systems occupied 32 million acres
in the conterminous U.S. in 1992, or about 1.7 percent of that
land area (The Heinz Center, 2002). This estimate was derived
from a re-analysis of the 1992 NLCD. The analysis includes
information on the amount and character of undeveloped land
Within urban/suburban areas. Most of the lands designated urban
and suburban are in the South and Midwest, but they account for
less than 2 percent of the land in those regions. In the Northeast,
urban and suburban lands account for more than 5 percent of
the landscape.
Indicator Gaps and Limitations
!
The NLCD database is derived from a one-time interpretation
of satellite imagery of the nation from the early 1990s.
Although limited by the ability to detect land use remotely
based on spectral characteristics, NLCD data are available for
all of the conterminous U.S. Original!estimates of the NLCD
indicated a total of 36.7 million acres pf land in three different
"developed" land cover classifications (low density residential,
high density residential, and commercial/industrial/transporta-
tion) (The Heinz Center, 2002). i

Data Source

Acreages presented for this indicator are derived from a
re-analysis of the National Land Cover Data, a product of the
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium,, which is a part-
nership belween the U.S. Geological Survey; the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service; the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration; and the EPA- (See Appendix B, page
B-18 for more information).
3.1.2 Wpat is the extent of
farmlandst
Indicators
Extent of agricultural land uses
The farmland landscape
Farmlands represent one of the nation's major ecological systems
and are discussed in Chapter S, Ecological Conditions.(The Heinz
Center, 2002). As noted in the sidebar, on the following page, crop-
lands, which can include pasturelands and haylands, are at the heart
of the farmland ecosystem. The broader "farmland landscape" also
includes other lands that are not actively used for crop, pasture, or
hay production. The composition of lands that surround croplands,
such as forests, wetlands, or built-up areas, are discussed further in
the "farmland landscape" indicator.
The U.S. produces a wide range of food crops, grains, and other
agricultural products over vast areas of the country that are part of
the farmland landscape (see adjacent sidebar). Agricultural lands can
be thought of as all those lands that contribute to this production.
Other words such as farmland, cropland, pastureland, rangeland,
grazing land, or grassland are also used to describe aspects of
agricultural lands. Some of these words define cover types, while
others define land use. The areas overlap but do not necessarily
coincide with each other. This situation creates challenges in estab-
lishing accurate estimates of extent. Under the discussion of the
agricultural land use indicator, an effort is made to distinguish the
various definitions and provide a measure of acreages. (Current
definitions as used by the USDA NRC^ NRl are shown in the sidebar
that follows.) I
3-12
3.1 Land Use
Chapter |3 - Better Protected Land ;
-------
Aside from the challenges of defining types of agricultural land,
assessing the amount of land used for crops is an imperfect science,
given the seasonally of agricultural practices and changes in
economics and technology. As with developed land, estimates vary
depending on the classification criteria and mapping or sampling
methodologies. Until the 1950s, the amount of agricultural land •
needed to meet demands for food continued to grow, reaching a
peak of more than a billion acres of cropland and rangeland in the
mid 1960s. Since then, crop and farmland acreages have decreased
and increased in cycles, as both economics and technology have
changed demands and as production capabilities have increased.

Two indicators are considered on the following pages. The first
assesses the extent of land used to grow food crops and forage. The
second considers the farmland landscape, which includes not only
land used for agricultural production but also adjacent areas.
NRI Land Cover Definitions for Agricultural Land

Cropland. A land cover/use category that includes areas used for the production of adapted crops for harvest. Two subcategories of
cropland are recognized: cultivated and noncultivated. Cultivated cropland comprises land in row crops or close-grown crops and also
other cultivated cropland, such as hayland or pastureland in a rotation with row or close-grown crops. Non-cultivated cropland includes
permanent hayland and horticultural cropland.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). A federal program established under the Food Security Act of 1985 to help private landowners
convert highly erodible cropland to vegetative cover for 10 years.

Pastureland. A land cover/use category of areas managed primarily for the production of introduced forage plants for livestock grazing.
Pastureland cover may consist of a single species in a pure stand, a grass mixture, or a grass-legume mixture. Management usually consists
of cultural treatments: fertilization, weed control, reseeding or renovation, and control of grazing. For the NRI, it includes land that has a
vegetative cover of grasses, legumes, and/or forbs, regardless of whether it is being grazed by livestock.

Rangeland. A land cover/use category on which the climax or potential plant cover is composed principally of native grasses, grasslike'
plants, forbs or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing, and introduced forage species that are managed like rangeland. This would include
areas where introduced hardy and persistent grasses, such as crested wheatgrass, are planted and such practices as deferred grazing,
burning, chaining, and rotational grazing are used, with little or no chemicals or fertilizer being applied. Grasslands, savannas, many wet-
lands, some deserts, and tundra are considered to be rangeland. Certain communities of low forbs and shrubs, such as mesquite, chaparral,
mountain shrub, and pinyon-juniper, are also included as rangeland.
(USDA, NRCS, 2000a)
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
3.1 Land Use
3-13
-------

Indicate
Extent of agricultural land uses - Category I
Land can be used for a variety of agricultural purposes. Two
general categories are differentiated in this discussion. The first
includes lands that are actively managed to cultivate food crops
or forage. This category comprises croplands, or lands that grow
perennial and annual crops such as fruits, nuts, grains, and vegeta-
bles; and pasturelands, or lands that are actively cultivated to
produce forage for livestock. The second category includes lands
that may be used to produce livestock as an agricultural commodi-
ty, but are not planted, fertilized, or otherwise intensively
managed. These livestock production lands may be called grazing
lands or rangelands and can include forest land, shrubland, and
grassland, which are described in the following sections. Livestock
production may also include concentrated animal feedlot
operations, acreages of which are not included in this discussion.
What the Data Show

In 1997, the NRI identified nearly 377 million acres of cropland
and more than 32 million acres of Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) land. CRP lands, as noted in the sidebar, are croplands that
are set aside (farmers are provided incentives) for up to 10 years
for conservation purposes, but that could be returned to crop
production if the program ceased. This total equals nearly 410
million acres of land currently growing or specifically identified
with the potential to grow crops in the U.S. (USDA, NRCS,
2000a) (Exhibit 3-6).

The NRI reports about 120 million acres of pastureland. As
defined in the sidebar, pastureland includes land that has a
vegetative cover of grasses, legumes, and/or forbs, regardless of
Exhibit 3-6: Extent of croplands, 1997
95% or more
Federal area
Each green dot represents 25,000
acres of cropland
Total acres: 376,997,900
Hawaii
Puertjj Rico/U.S.Virgrn Islands
I '
Source: USDA. National Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised Deci mfaer 2000. Acres of Cropland. 2000
Oanuafy2003iwvw.nrcs4isda.gov/technical/land/meta/m4964.html).' -1
3-14
3.1 Land Use
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
Indicate
txtent of agricultural lane! uses ": Category 1 (continued)
^^
whether it is being grazed by livestock. It is usually managed to
produce feed for livestock grazing, using fertilization, weed
control, and reseeding. Thus the total estimate from the NRI for
cropland, CRP land, and pastureland is 530 million acres.

The Heinz Center (2002), using four different sources of data,
estimated that cropland, including pasture and haylands, covered
between 430 and 500 million acres in 1997. For the most part,
the report did not include CRP lands in its estimates. According to
the 1992 NLCD, the U.S. had 510 million acres of agricultural land
in the 1990s (EPA, ORD, 1992).

Crazing to support livestock production can potentially occur
on pastureland, rangeland, and, in some cases, forest land. .
These lands can also be defined based on their cover type (e.g.,
grasslands, shrublands, or forested range). Not counting pasture-
land, the NRI identified nearly 406 million acres of non-federal
rangelands and another 62 million acres of non-federal forest land
that can be used for grazing livestock (USDA, NRCS, 2000a). In
addition, according to estimates generated by the Bureau of Land
Management, more than half of theJederal land in the lower 48'
states, or 244 million acres, is available for livestock grazing (DOI,
1994). The total of these estimates is 712 million acres of lands
that may be used for grazing, but are not cultivated. Adding in the
pastureland acreage results in 832 million acres of land that may
be used for grazing livestock nationwide (excluding Alaska).
exhibit 3-7: Change in cropland, Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) land and pastureland, I982-1Q97
600
1982
1987
1992
1997
Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Summary Report 1997 National Resources Inventory (revised December 2000). 2000.
Agricultural lands constantly shift among crop, pasture, range, and
forest land to meet production needs, implement rotations of land
in and out of cultivation, and maintain and sustain soil resources.
Within these shifts, however, trends indicate a gradual decrease in
cropland acreage. Between 1982 and 1997, cropland decreased
10.4 percent, from about 421 million acres to nearly 377 million
acres (Exhibit 3-7). Of this 44 million acre decrease, however,
30.4 million acres are now enrolled in the CRP, resulting an 13.6
million fewer acres of cropland as a result of conversion to other
land uses (USDA, NRCS, 2000a). During this same time frame,
pastureland area decreased 9.1 percent, or about 12 million acres
(USDA, NRCS., 2000a). The total change in acreage, considering
lands in the CRP was 23 million fewer agricultural land acres in
.1997 than in 1982.

Decreases in cropland have occurred particularly in the southern
and southeastern part of the U.S. The distribution of change in
cropland acreage is displayed in Exhibit 3-8. There are no
comprehensive estimates of changes in acreages of grazing lands.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

A specific objective of the NRI is to assess changes in cropland.
Again, however, the ability to couple it with current remote sens-
ing imagery would likely contribute to improved resolution and
national mapping of cropland types (See the discussion about
NRI data in the "Extent of Developed Land" indicator box).

There is no single, definitive, accurate estimate of the extent of
cropland. Estimates of the amount of land devoted to farming
differ because different programs use different methods to
acquire, define, and analyze their data. Cropland is also a flexible
resource that is constantly being taken in and out of production.
The Heinz report used four different data sources to describe the
range of estimates. The four data sets are not fully consistent, and
comparisons are difficult to make. For example, the USDA
Economic Research Service" (ERS) and Census of Agriculture data
include croplands in Alaska and Hawaii, while NRI does not. The
ERS data used in the Heinz report estimate included CRP lands,
while the Census of Agriculture and NRI estimates used by the
Heinz report did not (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Data Sources

The data sources for this indicator are the National Resources
Inventory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 1997 (Revised in December 2000);
Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised
December 2000), U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS; and
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
3.1 Land Use
3-15
-------

Indicator
.*~~-~—»r
Extent of agricultural land uses - Category I (continuedl
-_ tiki— -
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1994. The Heinz Center
estimates of cropland acreages are derived from the National Land
Cover Data, a product of the Multi-Resolution Land
Characteristics Consortium,
which is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey; the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; and the EPA.
(See Appendix B, page B-19, for more information.)
li^
Exhibit 3-8: Percent change in cropland trea, 1982-1997
There was a *10.4% decrease In cropland
are* between 1982 and 1997.
'* SN^-^X
Percent Change

Increase > 25

Increase of 5 to 25

Little change

Decrease of 5 to 25

Decrease .25

Less than 5% cropland

• 95% or more
Federal area
Piierto Rieo/U,S. Virgin Island;
; USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised Decemb^ ;2000: Percent Change in Cropland Area, 1982-1997.2000
(January 2Q03; www.nrc5lusda.gov/techmcal/!and/meta/m5874.html).
3-16
3.1 Land Use
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
! ne farmland landscape- Category 2
Examining the broader context of agricultural lands can provide
a better understanding of agricultural ecosystems. As previously
noted, the Heinz report defined this term as not only the lands
used to grow crops, but also the field borders, windbreaks,
small woodlots, grassland and shrubland areas, wetlands, farm-
steads, and small villages and other built-up areas within or
adjacent to croplands. These covers/uses support not only
agricultural production, but provide habitat for a variety of
wildlife species as well.

What the Data Show

The farmland landscape indicator describes the degree to which
croplands dominate the landscape and the extent to which other
lands are intermingled (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Croplands comprise about half of the farmlands in the East and
Southeast, while in the Midwest, almost three-quarters of the
farmland ecosystem is cropland (The Heinz Center, 2002). Forests
make up the remainder of the farmland ecosystem in the East,
wetlands the remainder in the Southeast, and both forests and
wetlands in the Midwest. In the West, about 60 percent of farm-
land ecosystem is cropland, with grasslands and shrublands
dominating the remainder in the western and northern Plains areas.
Forests and grasslands/shrublands are about equal in the farmland
landscape for the non-cropland area of the South Central region.
In many U.S. areas, other land cover types are almost as prevalent
as croplands arid can provide habitat for non-agronomic species.
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

This indicator uses satellite data from the early 1990s to describe
the farmland landscape. Remote sensing technology can underes-
timate dispersed land development that is denser than scattered
rural settlements, but not as dense as traditional "suburbs."

Data Source

The National Land Cover Database, with 21 land cover classes,
was used to estimate the area coverage for the U.S. The NLCD is
based on remotely sensed imagery from the Landsat 5 Thematic
Mapper. Data are available from .
(See Appendix B, page B-19, for more information.)
3.1.3. What is the extent of
grasslands and shrublands?
Indicator
Extent of grasslands and shrublands
Grasslands and shrublands can be viewed as one of the major
ecological systems of the U.S. and are discussed in Chapter 5,
Ecological Condition, (The Heinz Center, 2002). Grasslands and
shrublands can be used for grazing and, in that sense, overlap in
extent with agricultural land. As previously defined, pastureland and
rangeland are covered by grass and shrub species. This ecosystem is
one of the largest types in the U.S. and includes not only the
. grasslands and shrublands of the American West, but also coastal
meadows, grasslands and shrubs in Florida, mountain meadows, hot
and cold deserts, tundra, and similar areas in all states.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
3.1 Land Use
3-17
-------
Indicator
Extent of grasslands and sriruolanas - Category 2
There was an estimated 900 million to 1 billion acres of grass-
lands and shrublands in the lower 48 states before European
settlement (Klopatek, et al., 1979). By 1992, between 40 million
and 140 million acres had been converted to other uses. Many
pastures are managed in such a way that little of their original
grassland character remains, however. Thus, the area of relatively
unmanaged grasslands and shrublands has probably declined
more than the overall figures would indicate (The Heinz Center,
2002). One factor in the decline of grassland pasture and range
acreages since the 1960s is that forage productivity has
increased and the number of domestic animals has declined
(Vesterby, 2003).

What the Data Show

Based on remote sensing satellite data, it is estimated that grass-
lands and shrublands (including pasturelands and haylands) occu-
py about 861 million acres in the lower 48 states and 205 million
acres in Alaska, for a total of 1.066 billion acres or about 47 per-
cent of the U.S. (not including Hawaii) (The Heinz Center, 2002)
(Exhibit 3-9). This estimate distinguishes 178 million acres of pas-
turelands and haylands, which are also considered to be part of
the farmland landscape, leaving 683 million acres of grasslands
and shrublands in the lower 48 states (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

NLCD was used to estimate extent of grasslands and shrublands in
the lower 48 states. Other data were estimated for Alaska. This is
a complicated and changing ecosystem that is subject to conver-
sion to other uses. It would be useful to have better means to
characterize and track extent. ;

Data Sources

The National Land Cover Database with 21 land cover classes, was
used to estimate the area coverage for the U.S. The NLCD is
based on remotely sensed imagery from the Landsat 5 Thematic
Mapper. Data are available from .
Data for Alaska were estimated from a vegetation map of Alaska
by Flemming (1996), based on Advanced Very High Resolution
Radiometer remote sensing images with an approximate resolution
of 1 kilometer on a side (The Heinz Center, 2002). (See Appendix
B, page B-19, for more information.)
Exhibit 3-9: Extent of grassland's and snrublanjs, 1991 and 1992
Area of grasslands and sKrublands, lower U8 states
1992
1000
1000
800
600
S 400
200
,rea of grasslands and scrublands, Alaska
1991'"
Source: IPA, Office of Research and Development. Multi-Resolution
Und Characteristics Consortium, National Land Cover Data. 1992.
(February 19,2003; http://mw.epa.sov/mrlc/tilcd.html).
Souree. Flerajning, M D A Statewide Vegetation Map of Alaska Using a
al Classification ofAVHKR Data February 1996.
3-18
3.1 Land Use
Chapter 3 -; Better Trotected Land
-------
3.1.4 What is the extent of
forest lands?
Indicator
Extent of forest area, ownership, and management
Forests provide a range of important benefits to society. In addition
to providing wood products, such as paper and lumber, forest lands
help to purify air and water, mitigate floods and droughts, regulate
climate through storage of carbon dioxide, regenerate soils, provide
habitat for fish and wildlife, and support recreational opportunities.
Trends in the extent of forests are an important indicator of human
management of the landscape, since forest lands cover about one-
third of the total U.S. land area. This section provides information on
the status and trends relating to the amount and management of
forest land. Additional information on the condition of forest land is
found in Chapter 5, Ecological Condition.
Indicat
txtent of forest area, ownership, and management - Category
It is estimated that in 1630, 1.045 billion acres of forest land
existed in what would become the U.S. land area. (USDA, FS,
2001). Nearly 25 percent of these lands were cleared by the early
1900s, leaving 759 million acres in 1907. Since that time the total
amount of forest land nationwide, while changing regionally has
remained relatively stable, with an increase of 2 million acres
between 1997 and 2001.

What the Data Show

There were an estimated 749 million acres of forest land in the
U.S. in 2001 (USDA, FS, 2002). In the period between 1987 and
2001, forest land acreage increased by about 11 million acres
(USDA, FS, 2002).

There have been regional changes in the amount of forest land
due to changing patterns of agriculture, development, and rever-
sion to forests. Since the 1950s, forest lands in the northeast and
northcentral states have increased by almost 10 million acres,
while the South has lost about 11 million acres (USDA, FS, 2001).
Private forest lands are being converted to developed land uses
faster than any other land type (USDA, NRCS^ 2001).

Forest land management varies greatly depending on differences
in ownership, management intent, and desired outcomes, ranging
from lands managed intact to protect water supplies, to harvesting
for timber production. About 55 percent of the nation's forest
lands are in private ownership (USDA, FS, 2002). Most forest
lands are managed for a mix of uses, such as recreation, timber
harvest, grazing, and mining. In the southern and eastern U.S.,
most forest land is privately held in relatively small holdings,
while in the Rocky Mountains and western U.S., most forest Ian
d is in large blocks of public ownership in national forests
(Exhibit 3-10). As previously noted, ownership affects how lands
are managed and used.
~* exhibit 3-10: Forest land ownership by region, 2001
^--250
. _t>iorth __ r_Squth Rocky Pacific
fc ~ Mountains Coast
{^Source USDA, U. S, Forest Service. Draft Resource Planning Act Assessment Tables.
1 May 3; 2002 (updatedAugust 12, 2002).
^(September 2003; http://www.nm.^.fed.us/480T/FIADB/rpaJabler/
^ Draft_RPA_2002Jorest_Resource_Tables.pdf).

About 76 million acres, or 10 percent of the nation's forests are
"reserved" and managed as national parks or wilderness areas
(USDA, FS, 2002). These estimates of reserves include state
and federal parks and wilderness areas, but do not include
conservation easements, areas protected by non-governmental
organizations, or most urban and community parks and reserves.
There are significant regional differences in the amount of forest
reserves. In the West, reserves are common, comprising nearly 18
percent of the total forest area. Much of the protected forest in
the West is in stands over 100 years old. Only 3 percent of
eastern forests are in reserves such as parks and wilderness
(USDA, FS, 2001),
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
3.1 Land Use
3-19
-------

Indicator
Extent of forest area, ownership, and management - Ca
,, j
^continued;

About 66 million acres, or 9 percent of forest lands, are man-
aged by private forest industries to produce timber (USDA, FS,
2002). Much of the remaining forest land receives less intensive
management activity, such as periodic harvest of mature timber.
Approximately S03 million acres of public and private forest
land are currently classified as timberlands by the USDA Forest
Service, an increase of 17 million acres since 1987 (USDA, FS,
2002). Approximately 63 percent of all U.S. timber harvesting is
conducted in the South, predominately from private lands. Total
timber harvest increased substantially between 1976 and 2001
in the East. In the West, after increasing steadily from 1952 to
1986, timber harvesting on public lands has declined sharply.
Public lands harvested nationwide dropped nearly 47 percent
from 1976 to 2001, to less than 2 billion cubic feet per year. In
the same time frame, private lands harvested increased by about
29 percent, from 11 to 14 billion cubic feet annually. (USDA, FS,
2002) (Exhibit 3-11).

Exhibit 3-11: Timber removals in the United States •;
by owner group, 1Q52-2001
1986
1996 2001
19S2 1962 1976
Source: USD*. U, S. Forest Service. Draft Resource Planning Act Assessment Tables.
May 3, 2002 (tifxfcted August 12, 2002). (September 2003; http://www.nm.fs.fed.us/
Between 1980 and 1990, approximately 10 million acres were
harvested annually. Of the public and private forest lands
harvested for timber approximately 62 percent are selectively cut,
while 38 percent are clearcut. Most of the clearcutting occurs in
the South (USDA, FS, 2001).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations for this indicator include the following:
• The data for this indicator were collected by the USFS FIA
program; Forest Industry and Analysis (FlA) currently provides
updates of assessment data every five years. Field data are
collected on a probability sample of 125,000 forested sites and
extended to a remote sensing database on 450,000 sites by
the FIA program (Smith, et al., 2001). The resulting data on
extent have an uncertainty of 3 to 10 percent per million acres
for data reported since 1953. Regional estimates have errors of
less than two percent (The Heinz Center, 2002).
BThe FIA delta on reserved lands do not include information on
private lands that are legally reserved from harvest, such as
lands held by private groups for conservation purposes. In
addition, other forest lands are at times reserved from harvest
because of administrative or other restrictions.

Data Source

The data for this indicator are from tine Draft Resource
Planning and Assessment Tables, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-20, for
more information.)
USDA Forest Service Definitions
v • ' ....... . .
Forest lar. d. Land that is at least 10 percent stocked by forest
trees of af;y size, including land that formerly riad tree cover
and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated. The mini-
mum area,: for classification of forest land is 1 acre.
ill.1"n ' ' ' : ...
Timber l^nd. Forest land that is capable of producing crops
of industrial wood (at least 20 cubic feet per acre per year in
natural stands) and not withdrawn'from timber utilization by
statute orfadministrative regulation.

Reservec forest land. Forest land withdrawn from timber
utilizatior through statute, administrative regulation, or
designation. (USDA, FS, April 2001)
3-20
3.1 Land Use
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
3.1.5 What human health effects
are associated ^ith land use?
Land development patterns have direct and indirect effects on air
and water quality, which can then affect human health. For example,
the increased concentration of air pollutants in developed areas can
exacerbate human health problems like asthma. Increased storm
water runoff from impervious surfaces threatens the waterbodies that
urban and suburban residents rely on for drinking and recreation.
Development patterns can affect quality of life by limiting recreation-
al opportunities, decreasing open space, and increasing vehicle miles
traveled and the amount of time spent on roads. Also, as discussed
later, agricultural land uses may expose humans to dust and various
chemicals. No specific indicators have been identified at this time.

Land use also can have indirect effects on air quality. Low-density
patterns of development can often increase commutes—more
people drive more miles. "Heat islands," or domes of warmer air over
urban and suburban areas, are caused by the loss of trees and
shrubs and the absorption of more heat by pavement, buildings, and
other sources. Heat islands can affect local, regional, and global
climate, as well as air quality. Agricultural land uses also result in
increased wind erosion. Degraded air quality can contribute to '
human health issues such as asthma. Additional discussion of the
effects of land uses on air and water quality, human health, and the
environment is included in other chapters.
3.1.6 What ecological effects are
associated with land use?
Indicator
Sediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelands
Land use and land management practices change the landscape in
many ways that have both direct and indirect ecological effects. One
direct effect is the loss or conversion of acres of certain cover or
ecosystem types to other more human-oriented, land uses such as
developed and agricultural uses. Indirect effects may include changes
in runoff patterns or increased soil erosion.

The 25 million acre increase in developed land that occurred
between 1982 and 1997 came about through the conversion of
about 10 million acres of forest land, 7 million acres of agricultural
land, 4 million acres of pastureland, 4 million acres of rangeland, and
1 million acres of various other land cover types including wetlands .
(USDA, NRCS, 1997). The causes of wetland loss are detailed in
Chapter 2, Purer Water. Changing land use patterns have also affect-
ed the extent and location of agricultural land. Between 1982 and
1997, approximately 13.6 million acres were converted from cropland
to other uses, including 7.1 million acres converted to developed
land. At the same time, approximately 4 million acres of rangeland
were converted to more intensive crop uses (USDA, NRCS, 2000a):
The conversions of land from agricultural, forest land, and rangeland
cover types to developed land can affect different species in specific
locations that depend on those cover types for habitat and food.
Species effects in various ecosystems are discussed in more detail in
Chapter 5, Ecological Condition.

Land development also creates impervious surfaces through
construction of roads, parking lots, and other structures. Impervious
surfaces contribute to non-point source water pollution by limiting
the capacity of soils to filter runoff. Impervious surface areas also '
affect peak flow and water volume, which heighten erosion potential
and affect habitat.and water quality (e.g., temperature increases).
They also affect ground water aquifer recharge. With sufficient storm
water infrastructure, higher population density in concentrated areas
can reduce water quality impacts from impervious surfaces by
accommodating more people and more housing units on less land
and developing water runoff systems that address issues of
pollutants and sediment. Impervious surfaces developed as the result
of suburban or dispersed development patterns are more difficult to
mitigate; given that the effects are more dispersed and development
of runoff infrastructure is costly.

Storm runoff from urban and suburban areas contains dirt, oils
from road surfaces, nutrients from fertilizers, .and various toxic com-
pounds. Point source discharges from industrial and municipal
wastewater treatment facilities can contribute toxic compounds and
heated water. Directing water through channels alters hydrologic flow
patterns. Increases in siltation and temperature can make stream
habitats unsuitable for native microinvertebrate and fish species.
Changes in the nutrient and chemical composition of stream water
can encourage growth of toxic algae and harmful organisms. The
types of crops planted, tillage practices, and various irrigation
practices can limit the amount of water available for other uses, such
as municipal, industrial, and natural ecosystems. Livestock grazing in
riparian zones also can change landscape conditions by reducing
stream bank vegetation and increasing water temperatures,
sedimentation, and nutrient levels. Runoff from pesticides, fertilizers,
and nutrients from animal manure can also degrade water'quality.

An indirect ecological effect of land use is the introduction of
invasive species. Certain land use practices, such as overgrazing, land
conversion, fertilization, and the use of agricultural chemicals can
enhance the growth of invasive plants. Other human activities can
result in unstable or disturbed environments and encourage the
establishment of invasive plants. These activities include farming;
creating highway and utility rights-of-way; clearing land for homes
and recreation areas such as golf courses; and constructing ponds,
reservoirs, and lakes (Westbrooks, 1998). Failure to manage invasive
species can lead to a major threat to native ecosystems. Non-native
species can alter fish and wildlife habitat, contribute to decreases in
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
3.1 Land Use
3-21
-------

biodiversity, and create health risks to livestock and humans.
Introduction of invasive species on agricultural lands also can reduce
water quality and water availability for native fish and wildlife species;
clog lakes, waterways, and wetlands; weaken the ecosystem; and
adversely affect water treatment facilities and public water supplies.
Agricultural uses also can encourage the growth of invasive species
(USFWS, 2002).

Land practices related to development, timber harvest, and
agriculture can affect soil quality both positively and negatively.
Some agricultural practices encourage soil conservation, minimizing
effects on soil resources. These practices include organic farming;
creating buffer strips in riparian zones; tree planting for windbreaks
or to decrease water temperature to improve fish habitat; soil erosion
control; integrated pest management; and precision pesticide and
fertilizer application technology. In contrast, other agricultural
activities promote soil compaction or result in loss of topsoil
through soil erosion. The indicator identified for this question
addresses the potential for sediment to run off from croplands and
pasturelands,,
Indicator
Sediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelar
35 - Category 2
Soil erosion and transport can occur both by wind and by water
and have several major effects on ecosystems. Sediment is the
greatest pollutant in aquatic ecosystems—both by mass and
volume—and soil erosion and transport are the source (EPA, OW,
August 2002). Soil particles also can transport nutrients and
pesticides into aquatic systems where they may degrade water
quality. Although rates of erosion declined between 1982 and
1997 by about 1.4 tons/acre, more than one-quarter of all
croplands still suffer excessive wind and water erosion (USDA,
NRCS, 2000f). Excessive is defined as exceeding tolerable rates as
defined by USDA NRCS models (USDA, NRCS, 2000g).

Agricultural soil erosion decreases soil quality and can reduce
soil fertility, and soil movement can make normal cropping
practices difficult (The Heinz Center, 2002). The loss of
productive top soil and organic matter affects the productivity of
agricultural lands. Further discussion on the extent and effects of
soil erosion can be found in Chapter 2, Purer Water, and in
Chapter 5, Ecological Condition.

What the Data Show

The potential for soil erosion and sediment runoff varies depend-
ing on specific land use, rainfall amounts and intensity, soil
characteristics, landscape characteristics, cropping patterns, and
farm management practices. This indicator is the result of analyses
conducted by combining land cover, weather patterns, and soil
information in a process model that incorporates hydrologic
cycling, weather, sedimentation, crop growth, pesticide and nutri-
ent loading, and agricultural management to estimate the amount
of sediment that could potentially be delivered to rivers and
streams in each watershed. The simulation estimated sheet and rill
erosion using a process model known as the Soil and Water
Assessment Tool (SWAT).
SWAT is a model that is supported by the USDA Agricultural
Research Service. The sediment runoff data have been categorized
and are presented as low, medium, and high potential for runoff.

Exhibit 3-12 displays the distribution of watersheds (based on 8-
digit hydrologic unit codes [HUCs]) nationwide and the potential
for sediment runoff (or delivery to rivers and streams) from crop-
lands and pasturelands. The highest potential for sediment runoff
is concentrated in the central U.S., predominately associated with
the upper Mississippi River Valley and the Ohio River Valley. Most
of the western U.S. is characterized by low runoff potential (lower
percentage of cropland and pastureland).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

This indicator has several limitations for:
• Sediment loads from non-agricultural land uses are not included
in these estimates.
• Estimate:; represent potential loadings to rivers and streams,
and do not represent in-stream loads.
• Gully ercision and channel erosion are not included.

Data Source

The Soil and Water Assessment Tool is a public domain model
actively supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service at the Grassland, Soil and Water
Research Liaboratory in Temple, Texas
(see http://www.brc.tamus.edu/swat/).
(See also Appendix B, page B-22, for more information.)
3-22
3.1 Land Use
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
Indicator
jeqiment runoff potential from croplands ana pasturelands - Category 2 (continued)
txniDit 3-12: jediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelands, 1990-1995
Watershed Classification (number of watersheds)
JPTI Low Potential for Delivery (528)
| " j Moderate Potential for Delivery (1,048)
|—;: j High Potential for Delivery (530)
ggg] Insufficient data (156)
Hawaii
Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands
|:
•kSource: Walker, C. Sediment Runoff Potential, 1990-1995. August 24,1999.
|f '(September, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/iwi/l999sept/iv12c_usmap.htmr).
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
3.1 Land Use
3-23
-------
3.. I .ssiGiJaii s5BEHBiii$*?frR''^"V7?
3.2 Gi
Land
emicais in
scape
This section focuses on the extent, potential disposition, and effects
of chemicals used or managed on land. The production and use of
chemicals in the U.S. has increased over the last 50 years. The use
and release of chemicals can have various effects on human health
and ecological condition. Commercial and industrial processes such
as mining, manufacturing, and the generation of electricity all use
and release chemicals. Chemicals that control weeds, insects,
rodents, fungi, bacteria, and other organisms are called pesticides
and are commonly used on agricultural lands, as well as in urban,
industrial, and residential settings. Fertilizers—supplements to
improve plant growth—are also used extensively in a variety of
settings. Pesticides and fertilizers have contributed to high
agricultural productivity levels in the U.S.

EPA began monitoring the production and importation of industrial
chemicals in 1977 through the Toxics Substances Control Act
Chemical Inventory, which presently identifies more than 76,000
chemicals used in U.S. commerce. Nearly 10,000 of these chemicals
are produced or imported in quantities greater than 10,000 pounds
per year (excluding inorganics, polymers, microorganisms, naturally
occurring substances, and non-isolated intermediaries). About 3,100
of these chemicals are produced or imported in quantities exceeding
1 million pounds per year. Associated annual production/import
volumes increased by 570 billion pounds (9.3 percent) to 6.7
trillion pounds between 1990 and 1998 (EPA, OPPTS, 2002).

The questions posed in this section consider the amounts and types
of chemicals released to the landscape, addressing toxic substances,
pesticides, and fertilizers. The discussion also looks at the potential
for chemicals to move from their use on land to places where humans
and other organisms can be exposed to them. In this context,
questions also address what is currently known about health and
ecological effects from exposure to chemicals used on land.
The six questions considered in this section are:

H How much and what types of toxic substances are released into
the environment?
| What is th(5 volume, distribution, and extent of pesticide use?
| What is the volume, distribution, and extent of fertilizer use?
H What is the potential disposition of chemicals from land?
• What human health effects are associated with pesticides,
fertilizers, iind toxic substances? ;
• What ecological effects are associated with pesticides, fertilizers,
and toxic substances? |

The primary sources of data for this section are the EPA Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI), describing quantities of toxic chemical
releases; pesticide use estimates (based on sales) from both EPA and
the non-profit National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
(NCFAP); data from the USDA's Agricultural Resources and
Environmental Indicators report published in 2000 on the volume,
distribution, land extent of fertilizer use (see Appendix B); and data
from the USDA Pesticide Data Program on pesticide residues found
on food samples.
•» • *» • "•» ii >-'!' "l:' ' > i ••"• ••'•
-------
Indicator
Quantity ana type of toxic chemicals released and managed - Category 2
The data collected in TRI represent only part of a broader
universe of chemicals used and released into the environment.
TRI includes a large amount of information on a range of
categories of toxic chemicals, including many arsenic, cyanide,
dioxin, lead, mercury, and nitrate compounds and provides
information on the amount and trends in releases and
management of chemicals, including recycling, recovery, and
treatment. TRI data cover releases from reporting facilities in all
parts of the country and can be searched for releases within
individual zip codes. All data presented below can be found in
the EPA 2000 Toxics Release Inventory Public Data Release Report
(EPA, OEI, May 2002).

What the Data Show

Releases to the environment for all EPA-tracked TRI chemicals
from nearly 23,500 facilities totaled 7 billion pounds in 2000. Of
these releases, 58 percent were to land, 27 percent were to air, 4
percent each were to water and underground injection at the
generating facility, and 7 percent were chemicals disposed of
off-site to land or underground injection. Three industries
accounted for most of the releases: metal mining (27 facilities)
...'. txnibit 3-15: lotal toxic release inventory
(TIM) releases by industry, 200O
-'- - : (Total = 7 billion pounds)
Metal Mining: 47%
Chemical Wholesale
Distributors: <1 %
Petroleum Terminals/
Bulk Storage: <1 %
Coal Mining: <1 %
Manufacturing
Industries: 32%
Electric Utilities: 16%
Hazardous Waste/
Solvent Recovery: 4%
txnibit 3-W-: loxics release inventory (I T\l) total releases and change by industry, 1998-2000
learly Totals Across Industry
Source: EPA, Office of Environmental Information. 2000 Toxics Release Inventory (T)U) Public Data Release Report. May 2002.
feSSciuree: .EPA, Office of Environmental Information. 2000 Toxics Release Inventory
6 (TR/I Public Data Release Report. May 2002.

accounted for 47 percent, manufacturing industries (21,352
facilities) for 32 percent, and electric utilities (706 facilities) for
16 percent. The remaining 5 percent was split among hazardous
waste/solvent recovery, coal
, mining, petroleum terminals/bulk
storage, and chemical wholesale
distributors (Exhibit 3- 13).
Between 1998 and 2000, the
total amount of toxic releases as ,
estimated by the TRI decreased
by approximately 409 million •
pounds, or 5.5 percent. Of that
total, releases to land decreased
approximately 276 million ,
pounds. Decreases in the
releases by certain industries
(e.g., manufacturing and metal
mining) account for most of the
overall decrease between 1998
and 2000. A few industries
(e.g., hazardous waste/solvent
recovery, coal mining, and chemi-
cal wholesale distributors)
increased their releases during
this time period. Off-site releases
from production increased by 75
million pounds in the 1998 to
2000 time frame (Exhibit 3-14).
Change ty Industry, I998-2OOO
Chapter 3 - Better Trotected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape
3-25
-------
Indicator
Quantity and type of toxic chemicals released and managed - Category 2 (continued)
The seven billion pounds of chemicals actually released into the
environment (air, water, and land) are a subset of toxic chemicals
managed and tracked In TRI. Another 31 billion pounds of toxic
chemicals were managed as waste in 2000. Nearly all (>99 per-
cent) of these toxic chemicals were production related, Of the 31
billion pounds, SO percent was treated, 39 percent was recycled,
and 11 percent was burned for energy recovery.

The total amount of toxic chemicals managed as waste during the
three-year period of 1998 to 2000 increased by almost 29
percent, a net increase of 8.4 billion pounds (Exhibit 3-15). Two
industries in the southeastern U.S., printing/publishing and chemi-
cals and allied products, accounted for most of this increase.
Between 1998 and 2000, the chemicals recycled increased by
more than 12 percent (1.3 billion pounds). In contrast, the

Exhibit 3-15: Trends in toxic chemicals 1998-2000
• Energy Recovery • Quantify Released
B Quantify Treated • Recycled
1998
1999
2000
Note: The dJtJ shown ss "Quantify Released" vary from the data in Exhibit 3-14
tx£4Ulc some facilities include off-site transfers for disposal to other TRI facilities
Hut then report the arrount as on-site release.

Source: EPA, Office of Environmental Information. 2000 Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) Public Data Rekasn Report. May 2002.
quantities of chemicals combusted for energy recovery decreased
4.1 percent.

The TRI data are also used to support EPA's National Waste
Minimization Partnership Program, which focuses on reducing or
eliminating the generation of hazardous waste containing any of
30 Waste Minimization Priority Chemicals (WMPC). These chemi-
cals are found in hazardous waste and are documented contami-
nants of air, land, water, plants and animals. EPA has tracked 17 of
these chemicals since 1991 and reports that WMPC generation
quantities have been steadily declining since 1993 (Exhibit 3-16).
Overall, between 1991 and 1998, the generation of WMPC in
industrial hazardous and solid waste decreased by 44 percent.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The TRI data do not reflect a comprehensive total of toxic
releases nationwide. Although EPA has added to the number of
industries (SIC codes) that must report, the TRI program does
not cover all releases of chemicals from all industries. Second,
industries are: not required to report the release of several types
of toxic chemicals, because these chemicals are not included in
the TRI list, "Hiird, facilities that do not meet the TRI reporting
requirements (those with fewer than 10 full-time employees or the
Waste Minimization Priority Chemicals

Organic chemicals and chemical compounds:
*1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tejrachlorpbenzene
*2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
4-BromopqenyI phenyl ether
Acenaphtherie
Acenaphthjflene
*Anthracerie
Benzo (g,h,tt perylene
*Dibenzofiiran
Dioxins/FuBris (considered one chemical on this list)
Endosulfarfij alpha & Endosulfan, beta (considered one chemi-
cal on this list)
Fluorene "! " .-•...'. ',
*Heptachlor & Heptachlor epoxide (considered one chemical
on this list); 1"" 'v";' " " ' ' "'' " ' "' 'i'" '" "
"Hexachlorpbenzene
"Hexachlorpbutadiene
*Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma-
*Hexachlorpethane
*Methoxyc|jlor
*Naphthalene
PAH Group: (as defined in TRI)
Pendimetha'lin
Pentachlorcibenzene
*Pentachlorpnitrobenzene
*Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrepe
Pyrene
*Trifluralin

Metal and Metal Compounds:
*Cadmium j
*Lead
*Mercury

(*17 chemicals tracked since 1991)
3-26
3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Detter Trotected Land
-------
^^^
••• --. •• >•« •- •.,. • ..'- -•
-..,^..^..,^,,..,..:> .
Indicator
Quantity ana type of toxic chemicals released and managed - Category 2 (continued)
Exhibit 3-16: Trends in toxics release inventory (TRI) Waste
Minimization Priority Qemicals (WMPO, 1991-1998
200
ISO
100
SO
+1%
-44%
1991
1993
199S
1997 1998
Source: EPA, Office of Solfd Waste and Emergency Response.
Waste Minimization Trends Report (1991-1998). September 2002.
employee equivalent, or those not meeting TRI chemical-specific
reporting threshold amounts) are not required to report their
releases and therefore are not included as part of the total. Finally,
facilities report their release and other waste management data to
TRI using monitoring data, emission factors, mass balance
approaches and engineering calculations. EPA does not mandate
monitoring of releases, although many industries do conduct
monitoring. Various estimation techniques are used when monitor-
ing data are not available. EPA has published estimation guidance
for the regulated community, but not all industrial facilities use
consistent estimation methodologies, and variations in reporting
may result. With approximately 76,000 different types of chemi-
cals in existence, and new ones constantly being developed, the
challenge is to ensure that those that are likely to pose the
greatest hazards are tracked and managed.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator is EPA, Toxics Release Inventory,
2000. (See Appendix B, page B-20, for more information.)
3.2.2 What is the volume,
distribution, and extent of
pesticide use?
Indicator
Agricultural pesticide Use
Pesticides are substances or mixtures of substances intended for
preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating plant or animal pests.
Conventional pesticides include herbicides, plant growth regulators,
insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, fumigants, rodenticides, mollus-
cicides, aquatic pesticides, and fish/bird pesticides. Most pesticides
create some risk of harm to humans, animals, or the environment
because they are designed to kill or otherwise adversely affect living
organisms. At the same time, pesticides are useful to society because
of their ability to kill potential disease-causing organisms and control
insects, weeds, and other pests.

Currently, no reporting system provides information on the volume,
distribution, and extent of pesticide use nationwide across all
sectors. Estimates, however, of total pesticide use have been devel-
oped based on available information such as crop profiles, pesticide
sales, and expert surveys. Several of these data sets are collected by
the private or non-profit sectors rather than federal agencies.
EPA's recent Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage Report estimates show
that conventional annual pesticide use declined by about IS percent
between 1980 and 1999. This change has not been steady; in 1999,
pesticide use was higher than it was in the early 1990s. Of the three
sectors of pesticide use assessed in EPA estimates (agricultural,
industry-commercial-government, and home-garden), the industrial-
commercial-government use of pesticides has seen the most steady
decline over this 20-year period. EPA estimates show that in 1999,
agricultural pesticide use accounted for nearly 77 percent (956 million
pounds) of all pesticide use; home and garden use was 11 percent
(140 million pounds); and industrial, commercial, and government
use was nearly 12 percent (148 million pounds) of total conventional
pesticide use (1244 million pounds). These estimates do not
include wood preservatives, biocides, and chlorine/hypochlorites
(EPA, OPPTS, 2002).

An important class of pesticides—insecticides—has undergone
significant use reduction in the last 5 years. Insecticides, as a class,
tend to be the most acutely toxic pesticides to humans and wildlife.
The number of individual chemical treatments per acre, referred to
as "acre-treatments," for insecticides labeled "danger for humans"
has undergone a 43 percent reduction in use from 1997 to 2001.
Over the same period, acre-treatments for insecticides labeled
"extremely or highly toxic to birds" have been reduced by
SO percent, and insecticides labeled "extremely or highly toxic to
aquatic organisms" have been reduced by 23 percent (EPA, OPP,
2001). The indicator identified for this question specifically
addresses agricultural pesticide use.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape
3-27
-------
Indicator
Agricultural pesticide use - Category 2
Building on EPA and USDA estimates, as well as on pesticide use
surveys, the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
(NCFAP), a private, non-profit, research organization, has
established a pesticide use database that provides estimates of
agricultural pesticide use by chemical, crop, and state.

What the Data Show

According to NCFAP, and as shown in Exhibit 3-17, total
agricultural pesticide use increased from 892 to 985 million
pounds between 1992 and 1997. (EPA reports a similar increase in
use of all pesticides in this same time frame, and a leveling of use
between 1997 and 1999.) (EPA, OPPTS, 2002). Approximately
half of these agricultural pesticides are herbicides used to control
weeds that limit or inhibit the growth of the desired crop. While
many pesticides are synthetic chemicals, some biopesticides, such
as Bacillus thuringiensis, are also broadly used and are key
components of organic farming programs.

The 1997 NCFAP summary report shows that more pesticides are
used on corn than on any other crop. At the same time, corn is
planted on more acres than any other single crop. It is also most
effectively treated with a combination of chemicals that are
applied in high quantities per acre.

Oil, most often applied as a spray, is used in greater quantities
than any other pesticide across all crops. In the context of the
NCFAP report, "oil" includes plant oil extracts with insecticidal
properties, vegetable oils that work by smothering pests, and
petroleum derivatives used as solvents and insecticides. Sulfur—
through its broad applicability as an insecticide, fungicide, and
rodenticide—and atrazine, largely due to its use with corn, are
the next two most commonly used chemicals.
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations for this indicator include the following:
• The data quality of the NCFAP national pesticide use database
is unknown. The database is not a direct record based on
reports of actual usage and application. Some of the database
estimates are derived from surveys of farmers, and others are
expert opinions from knowledgeable extension service special-
ists. Also, because of the absence of data for many states and
crops, many records have been assigned based on the data
from a nearby state. It is unclear how accurate these sources
and procedures are. The 1997 summary report for the database
carefully makes no claims to statistical accuracy because of the
variety of «,ources and techniques for estimation of chemical
usage. Several federal agencies, however, use the information,
and NCFAP has received funding from USDA to update the
pesticide use database for 2002 (Gianessi and Marcelli, 2000).
• NCFAP data only report on the agricultural use of pesticides,
which leaves out other commercial non-agricultural and residen-
tial applications. Additional data would be advantageous for
tracking these uses of pesticides.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator is the National Center for Food
and Agricultural Policy's Pesticide Use Database, 2000. (See
Appendix B, page B-21, for more information.)
1200
'rtxjiibit 3-17: fesjiicide use in crop
||» production, 1992 and 1997
lurce: Gianessi. jSj'anHlvlB Marcelli Pesticide Use in U S Qog "Production:"19J7,
itiofial S.umma'iy Re/sort. November 2CJOC)
3-28
3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape C-napter 3 - Detter Trotected Land
-------
3.2.3 What is the volume,
distribution, and extent of
fertilizer use?
Indicator
Fertilizer use
Fertilizers have contributed to an increase in commercial agricultural
productivity in the U.S. throughout the latter half of the 20th
century. Using fertilizers and soil amendments, farmers have success-
fully enhanced the productivity of marginal soils and shortened
recovery times for damaged areas. Similar to pesticide use, however,
the increasing use of commercial fertilizers in agriculture has
consequences for human health and ecological condition. Between
World War II and the early 1980s, commercial fertilizer use increased
consistently and significantly (Battaglin and Goolsby, 1994).
Fertilizer use patterns today are greatly influenced by crop patterns,
economic and climatic factors, and crop reduction programs imple-
mented by local and federal government agencies (Council on
Environmental Quality, 1993). The indicator identified for this
question specifically addresses the volume, distribution, and extent
of fertilizer use.
^ffi^^™ fertilizer use - Category 2
Most data on the volume and distribution of fertilizer use are
based on sales data collected by USDA. Usage is concentrated
heavily in the midwestern states where agricultural production —
particularly that of corn — is greatest.
What the Data Show
According to the 2000 USDA Agricultural Resources and Environmental
Indicators Report, the use of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash — the
most prevalent supplements used in fertilizers for commercial farm-
ing — rose from 7.5 million nutrient tons in 1961 to 23.7 million tons
in 1981 . Although aggregate use dipped in 1983, it increased most
recently between 1996 and 1998 to more than 22 million nutrient
tons (Daberkow, et al, 2003) (Exhibit 3-18).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations
Several limitations are associated with this indicator:
• The data that do exist are based primarily on sales information
and use estimates. Gross sales data are not necessarily a reflec-
tion of fertilizer usage, nor do they convey any information
about the efficiency of application of various nutrients.
• A variety of factors such as weather and crop type influence the
amount of fertilizer used by farmers from year to year. A
decrease in usage over time may be due to a reduced reliance
on these chemicals or a change in crop rotation, weather, or
other factors, and may not be permanent.
• These data do not necessarily reflect residential fertilizer use.
f: Exhibit 3-18: Use of fertilizer, 1960-1998
i-.- . . . . . .
1 — Total
f - — Nitrogen - ^S\
" — Phosphorus . . f^ \
-Potash /\/ \ 1-
'" I \ /
yv V
i. / -/^
\ _- /^~

/^_^
X^_^- — -'' "
"-""" ^^=^\ ^
0 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — l — i i i < i i i i r i i i
* \ f r i i i i i i i i t
j|._ 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970.1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
1 Source: Daberkow, et al. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators: Nutrient Use and Management. February 2003.

Data Source
, The data source for this
indicator is the Agricultural
Resources and Environmental
- Indicators Report, U.S.
Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service,
. 2000. (See Appendix B,
page B-21 , for more
information.)
• S
' g

Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemjcals in the Landscape
3-29
-------
3.2.4 What is the potential
disposition of chemicals from
land?
indicators
Pesticide residues in food
Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields
Risk of nitrogen export
Risk of phosphorus export
Disposition describes the potential for chemicals and nutrients to
move from their location of use or origin to a place in the environ-
ment where humans and other organisms can be exposed to them.
People can be affected by these chemicals and nutrients when
exposed to them through foods, drinking water supplies, or in the
air they breathe. The environment can be affected when these chem-
kals accumulate on land or enter the water. A significant challenge
lies in tracking the movement of pesticides and fertilizers in the
environment and then correlating their existence in water or air to
health or environmental effects. These chemicals often move
through the environment and react in ways that are difficult to track
and understand.

Pesticide contamination of ground water is a potential problem when
teachable pesticides are applied to soils. Soil leaching potential can
be determined by assigning rankings to organic matter, clay content,
and acidify, which are the three main factors controlling pesticide
leaching through soils (Hellkamp, et al., 1998). Pesticide-leaching
potential is a measure of how tightly and quickly a pesticide binds to
organic particles and is determined by the leaching potential of the
pesticide itself, the pesticide's persistence, and the rate and method
of application. Some analysis of the pesticide leaching risk based on
these variables has been conducted in .the mid-Atlantic region,
showing that relatively little acreage has a high potential for leach-
ing. Other variables should also be considered in assessing the risk
of pesticide leaching including precipitation, antecedent soil
moisture conditions, soil hydraulic conductivities and pe'rmeability,
and water table depths.

Under ideal circumstances, crops would iake up the vast majority of
nutrients that are applied as fertilizers to soil, but many factors,
including weather, overall plant health, and pests, affect the uptake
ability of crops. When crops do not use all applied nutrients, resid-
ual concentrations of nutrients and other components of chemical
fertilizers remain in the soil and can become concentrated in ground
water and surface water. The USGS National Water Quality
Assessment provides one measure of these chemical concentrations
in waterbodies based on samples from 36 major river basins and
aquifers (see Chapter 2, Purer Water). Calculating residual concen-
trations (known as the "residual balance") for agricultural areas
provides an understanding of the potential risks fertilizer use poses
to local environmental conditions. If the residual balance is positive,
then excessive nutrients may exist and present an ecological risk.
If it is negative, then plants are taking up not only the amount of
nutrient added by the fertilizer but others already present in the
soil and atmosphere. In this case, the soil might be depleted over
time (Vesterby, 2003).

Four indicators are considered on the following pages, one that
measures the actual presence of chemicals in food, and three that
assess the potential for pesticides and nutrients to runoff the land.
Indicator
Pesticide residues in food - Category I
An indication of the amount of pesticides that are detectable in
the U.S. food supply provides information about the disposition
of some chemicals. Food is one of the pathways through which
people can be exposed to the effects of pesticides. USDA has
maintained a Pesticide Data Program (POP) since 1992 that
collects data on pesticide residues on fruits, vegetables, grains,
and in dairy products at terminal markets and warehouses.
Thousands of samples have been analyzed for more than 100
pesticides and their metabolites on dozens of commodities.
Samples are collected by USDA immediately prior to these
commodities being shipped to grocery stores and supermarkets.
They are then prepared in the laboratory as if for consumption
(e.g., washed, peeled, cored, but not cooked) so that samples are
more likely to reflect actual exposures. Pesticide residue levels
are then measured.

What the Data Show
I

The Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program (POP)
measures pesticide residue levels in fruits, vegetables, grains, and
dairy products from across the country, sampling different
commodities each year. In 2000, POP collected and analyzed a
total of 10,907 samples: 8,912 fruits and vegetables, 178 rice,
716 peanut butter, and 1,101 poultry tissue samples which origi-
nated from 38 States and 21 foreign countries. Approximately 80
percent of all samples were domestic, 19 percent were imported,
3-30
3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
Indicator
Pesticide residues in food - C-ategory 1 (continued)
and less than 1 percent were of unknown origin. Overall,
approximately 42 percent of all samples contained no detectable
residues, 22 percent contained 1 residue, and 35 percent con-
tained more than 1 residue. Detectable residues are not inherently
violations of regulatory tolerances. Residues exceeding the
pesticide tolerance were detected in 0.2 percent of all composite
samples. Residues with no tolerance level were found in 1.2
percent of all samples. These residues were detected at low
concentrations and may be due to spray drift, crop rotations, or
cross contamination at packing facilities. PDF reports these
findings to the Food and Drug Administration.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations for this indicator include the following:
• The POP does not sample all commodities over all years, so
some gaps in coverage exist. For example, a specific commodity
might be sampled each year for a two or three year period and
then not be sampled for two or more years before being
re-sampled during a subsequent period. Differences in the per-
cent of detections for any given class of pesticides might not
be due to an increase (or decrease) in the predominance of
detectable residues, but might simply reflect the changing
nature and identity of the commodities selected for inclusion in
any given time frame (given that each POP "market basket" of
goods differs to some extent over time).
• The PDF has the ability to detect pesticide residues at
concentrations that are orders of magnitude lower than those
determined to have human health effects. The simple presence
of detectable pesticide residues in foods should not be
considered indicative of a potential health concern (USDA,
AMS, 2002).
Data Source

The data source for this indicator is the Pesticide Data Program:
Annual Summary Calendar Year 2000, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. (See Appendix B,
page B-21, for more information.)
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape
3-31
-------
MESS?
Indicator
Toteritial pesticide runoff from Farm fields - Category 2
This indicator identifies the potential for movement of agricultural
pesticides by surface water runoff in watersheds nationwide. The
indicator represents potential loss at the edge of a field based on
factors that are known to be important determinants of pesticide
loss, including: 1) soil characteristics, 2) historical pesticide use,
3) chemical properties of the pesticides used, 4) annual rainfall
and its relationship to runoff, and 5) major field crops grown
using 1992 as a baseline. Watersheds with high scores (i.e., the
"high potential for delivery" class) have a greater risk of pesticide
contamination of surface water than do those with low scores
(i.e., the "low potential for delivery" class). (See Section 3.1.6 for
more on runoff categories.)
Calculations for watershed pesticide runoff potential are based on
a National Pesticide Loss Database, that uses the chemical fate
and transport: model GLEAMS (Croundwater Loading Effects of
Agricultural Management). GLEAMS is a model that estimates
pesticide leaching and runoff losses using the following as inputs:
soil properties, field characteristics (e.g., slope and slope length),
management practices, pesticide properties, and climate. GLEAMS
estimates were generated for 243 pesticides applied to 120
specific soils; the estimates are for 20 years of daily weather for
each of 55 climate stations distributed throughout the U.S.
(Knisel, 1993).
if . . , .
Exhibit 3-19: Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields, 1990-1995
Watershed Classification (number of watersheds)
Blow Potential for Delivery (394)
Moderate Potential for Delivery (788)
High Potential for Delivery (395)
Insufficient data (685)
Hawaii
Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands
Note: Alaska is not covered by the National Resources Inventory.
Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory. 1992; Granessi, L.P., and J E. Anderson. Pesticide Use in US Crop
Pmdudhn: National Data Report. February 1995; Goss, Don W. Pesticide Runoff Potential, 199(
-1995 August 24, 1999. (September 2002;
3-32
3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
^
idicator
Totential pesticide runoff from farm fields - Category 2 (continued)
Chemical use for 13 different crops taken from the National
Pesticide Use Database was estimated for 1990-1993 (Gianessi
and Anderson, 199S). A total of 145 pesticides were included in
the derivation of the pesticide runoff indicator (using the joint set
of pesticides from the National Pesticide Use Database and the
National Pesticide Loss Database for the 13 crops). Estimates of
percent of acres treated and average application rates were imput-
ed to the NRI sample points by crop and state. Each NRI sample
point where corn was grown in Iowa, for example, included chemi-
cal use for 22 of the pesticides Gianessi and Anderson reported
were used on corn in Iowa. The simulation assumed that each
pesticide was applied at the average rate for the state. In reality,
pesticide use varies widely from field to field. The simulation thus
reflects general pesticide use patterns to provide an indication of
where the potential for loss from farm fields is the greatest.

The total loss of pesticides from each representative field was
estimated by 1) multiplying the estimate of percent loss per
acre by the application rate to obtain the mass loss per acre
for each pesticide, 2) calculating the number of acres treated
for each pesticide by multiplying the estimate of percent acres
treated by the number of acres associated with the sample
point, 3) multiplying the number of acres treated by the mass
loss per acre to obtain the mass loss for the representative
field for each pesticide, and 4) summing the mass loss esti-
mates for all the pesticides.

Watershed scores were determined by averaging the scores
for the NRI sample points within each watershed. The average
watershed score was determined by dividing the aggregate
pesticide loss for the watershed by the number of acres of
non-federal rural land in the watershed. Dividing by the acres
of non-federal rural land provides a watershed level perspective
of the significance of pesticide loss.
What the Data Show

Exhibit 3-19 shows the distribution of watersheds and the
potential for pesticide runoff nationwide. The highest potential for
agricultural pesticide runoff is concentrated in the central U.S.,
predominately associated with the upper and lower Mississippi
River Valley and the Ohio River Valley.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The following limitations are associated with this indicator:
• The indicator estimates only the potential for pesticides to run
off farm fields. It does not estimate actual pesticide loss.
Research has shown that pesticide loss from farmlands can be
substantially reduced by management practices that enhance
the water-holding capacity and organic content of the soil,
reducing water runoff. Where these practices are being used,
the potential loss measured by this indicator will be over-
estimated because the practices are not considered in the
analysis.
• The indicator does not include croplands used for growing
fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Thus, watersheds with large
acreage of these crops will have a greater risk of water
quality contamination than shown by this indicator.
• For each field, pesticide usage was assumed as an average
for the state, when actual use varies widely.
• This indicator does not address pesticide usage in
non-agricultural areas.

Data Sources

The data sources for this indicator are the Summary Report:
1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000),
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, and the National Pesticide Use Database, National Center1
for Food and Agricultural Policy, 1995. (See Appendix B, page
B-21, for more information.)
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape
3-33
-------

Indicator
Risk of nitrogen export - C-ategory 2
1

F"
Predictive risk models show higher nutrient concentrations in
watersheds dominated by agricultural and urban and suburban
land uses. Watersheds with mixed uses tend to have forested lands
that reduce concentrations of nutrients. Various field-based
studies show a strong relationship between land cover and the
amount of nutrients exported from a watershed (e.g., measured in
the stream at the watershed outlet) (Beaulac and Reckhow, 1982).
Exports are typically measured as mass per unit area per unit time
(e.g., Ibs/acre/year). Nitrogen exports tend to increase as agricul-
ture and urban and suburban uses replace forest land. Several
additional factors affect the actual amount exported, however,
such as cropping management practices, the timing of rainfall ver-
sus cropping stage, density of impervious surfaces, and soil types.

The risk classes described by this indicator are based solely on
proportions of agriculture, forest, and urban and suburban land
within a watershed derived from the NLCD. Nutrient export data
compiled from watersheds with homogenous land cover were used
in a Monte Carlo approach to simulate loads of nitrogen for
watersheds with mixed land cover. The model can be used to
estimate annual load for any point in the distribution or for risk
of exceeding user-defined thresholds. When used to estimate risk,
the model conceptually incorporates factors other than land cover
as mentioned above.

What the Data Show

Exhibit 3-20 shows the risk of nitrogen export. Risk is expressed
as the number of times per 10,000 trials the nitrogen export
exceeded a threshold of 6.5 Ibs/acre/year. The 6.5 threshold was
chosen because it represents the maximum value observed for
watersheds that were entirely forest. A risk value of 0.5 indicates a
1 out of 2 chance that a particular watershed would exceed the
risk threshold because of its mix of land cover (e.g., forest, agricul-
ture, urban/suburban). The watersheds in Exhibit 3-20 are
categorized into five classes based on risk. About 46 percent of
the watersheds are in the lowest risk class and 15 percent in the
highest. The lowest risk watersheds make up most of the western
U.S., northern New England, northern Great Lakes, and southern
Appalachians. The highest risk classes are concentrated in the -
midwestern grain belt. The eastern U.S. shpws a mottling of high
and low risk classes among adjacent watersheds.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The potential risk of nitrogen runoff calculated from the NLCD
data relies on various classifications and models that have inaccu-
racies that might affect results. To nationally monitor all watershed
variables that affect nutrient export is impossible. Therefore, the
data for this indicator are based on statistical simulation and the
well-documented relationship between land cover and nutrient
export to estimate the risk (or likelihood) of export exceeding a
certain threshold. The accuracy of the model is affected by the
accuracy of the classification of the cover types—forest, agricul-
ture, and urban/suburban—which range from 80 percent to 90
percent in most cases. The accuracy also is affected by lack of
model input for other land cover classes that can occur within
watersheds, particularly in the western U.S. Model performance
has been evaluated in the mid-Atlantic region, and modeled
results generally agree with observed values. In the western U.S.,
shrubland and grassland cover share dominance with forest and
agriculture. For national application of the model, shrubland and
grassland classes were treated as forest because these land-cover
classes, like forest, lack strong anthropogenic inputs of nitrogen.
Further research to refine the empirical models for shrubland and
grassland cover classes would be useful.

Data Sources

The data source for this indicator is the National Land Cover
Data, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 1992.
(See Appendix B, page B-22, for more information.)
3-34
3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
Indicator'
Risk of nitrogen export - Category 2 (continued)
1
txhibit 3-20: Estimates of risk of nitrogen export by watershed, 1992
Risk Classes
• 0.000 - 0.149
13 0.150- 0.299
El 0.300-0.449
• 0.450 - 0.599
B 0.600-0.749
(max. = 0.696)
Source: Wickham, j.D. et al., Land Cover as a Framework for Assessing Risk of Water Pollution, 2000.
idicator
of phosphorus export - Category 2

Like nitrogen export, the same strong relationship exists
between land cover and phosphorus export. Risk is expressed
as the number of times out of 10,000 trials that the phospho-
rus export threshold of 0.74 Ibs/acre/year was exceeded. The
0.74 threshold was chosen because it represents the maximum
value observed for watersheds that were entirely forest. The
model uses an identical approach to that just described in the
"risk of nitrogen export" indicator.
What the Data Show

Exhibit 3-21 shows potential for phosphorus export at greater
than 0.74 pounds per acre per year. About 74 percent of the
watersheds are in the two lowest risk classes. These make up most
of the western U.S., as well as the eastern seaboard and the
Appalachians. Only 1 percent of the watersheds are in the highest
risk classes, and these are scattered throughout the midwestern
grain belt, but also in many of the nation's major urban/suburban
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape
3-35
-------

Indicator
Risk of phosphorus export - Category 2 (continued)
areas. Many major urban/suburban areas exist at the intersection
of two watersheds, and the "urban" influence, which would make
the phosphorus risk higher, is spread over multiple watersheds.
This partially explains why some urban/suburban areas show lower
risk than others. Identification of higher phosphorus export risk in
urban/suburban areas differs somewhat from the spatial pattern
for nitrogen export risk, because the empirical data suggest that
urban/suburban areas present higher risk of phosphorus export
than nitrogen export.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The potential risk of phosphorus export is based on the aggregate
classes of forest, urban/suburban, and agriculture from the NLCD.
Accuracy of these classes ranges from 80 to 90 percent in most
cases. Model performance has been evaluated in the mid-Atlantic
region, and modeled results generally agree with observed values.
In the western U.S., shrubland and grassland cover share domi-
nance with forest and agriculture. For national application of the
model, shrubland and grassland classes were treated as forest,
because these land-cover classes, like forest, lack strong anthro-
pogenic inputs of phosphorus. Further research to refine the
empirical models for shrubland and grassland land-cover classes
would be useful.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator is the National Land Cover
Data, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 1992.
(See Appendix B, page B-22, for more information.)
r
Exhibit 3-21: Estimates of risk of phosphorus Export hy watershed, 1992
Risk Classes
• 0.000-0.123
B 0.124-0.247
H 0,248-0.371
• 0.372-0.495
• 0.496-0.619
(max. - 0.619)
Source: Wickham, ).D. et al.. Land Comas a Framework for Assessing Risk of Water Pollution. 20pO
3-36
3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------

3.2.5 What human health effects
are associated with pesticides,
fertilizer?, and toxic substances?
Many pesticides pose some risk to humans and the environment
because they are designed to kill or otherwise adversely affect living
organisms. The degree to which individuals and populations are
exposed to pesticides varies greatly by geographic location and
demographics. Children may be more susceptible than adults to the
effects of chemicals, including pesticides. Certain populations may
be more at risk than others, depending, for example, on sources of
drinking water or direct exposure to pesticide application.

Various pesticide,surveillance systems exist that collect information
on pesticide-related injury and illness, but data are limited. One
example, the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS), contains
information from poison control centers around the country that
report occurrences of pesticide-related injury and illness.

Other data collected from poison control centers showed that in
2000, more than 100,000 people were sufficiently concerned about
exposure to various types of pesticides to call their local Poison
Control Center.

The TRI database tracks toxic chemicals because of the risks that these
chemicals pose to human health and ecological condition. Studies have
made accurate associations between isolated chemicals and their specific
health effects. For example, the pesticide atrazine has been shown to have
developmental and reproductive effects in animals and fish, depending on
the level of exposure (EPA, OPP, 2002). PBT chemicals such as mercury
and lead can cause acute or chronic health problems, even when people
are exposed to small quantities of the chemicals (See box "Persistant
Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals") (EPA, October 1999). Though these
single chemical assessments are useful, a greater challenge lies in correlat-
ing the existence of chemicals that interact in the environment to the
health effects observed in a given population.

Fertilizers are often applied in greater quantities than crops can
absorb and end up in surface or ground water. Although fertilizers
may not be inherently harmful, they can be linked to human health
problems when excess nutrients cause algal blooms and
eutrophication in waterbodies. Drinking ground water contaminated
with runoff from some fertilizers can have severe or even fatal health
effects, especially in infants and children (e.g., blue baby syndrome)
(Amdur, etal, 1996).

Another emerging issue is the use of recycled industrial waste in
fertilizer. Depending on the material and how it is processed, the
presence of heavy metals such as lead or cadmium in fertilizers
produced with recycled waste can introduce contaminants to the
soil and increase the health risks associated with fertilizer use.
Many states have begun to test and require labeling for fertilizers
containing metals and hazardous waste.

No specific indicators have been identified at this time. There is
additional discussion of human health effects of chemical use in
Chapter 4, Human Health.
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals
Human exposure to PBT chemicals increases over time because
these chemicals persist and bioaccumulate in the environment.
Therefore, even small quantities of these chemicals are of
concern. In 1999, EPA lowered the TRI reporting threshold for 13
chemicals called persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals
(PBTs), including dioxins, mercury, lead, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). Of the total 38 billion pounds of managed
toxic chemicals in 2000, PBTs comprised approximately 72
million pounds. Of the total 7.10 billion pounds of toxic
chemicals released to the environment, PBTs accounted for 12.1
million (less than 1 percent). The specific types of PBTs that
comprised the 12.1 million pounds were polycyclic aromatic
compounds (45 percent), mercury and mercury compounds
(36 percent), PCBs (12 percent), pesticides (0.7 percent), and
other PBTs (7 percent) (EPA, OEI, 2002).
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape
3-37
-------

3.2.6 Whajt ecological effect? are
associated I With pesticides, !
fertilizers* aftd toxic substances?
Nitrogen runoff from farmlands and animal feeding operations can
contribute to eutrophication of downstream waterbodies and some-
times impair the use of water for drinking water purposes. Nutrient
enrichment (nitrogen and phosphorus) is one of the leading causes
of water quality impairment in the nation's rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
EPA reported to Congress in 1996 that 40 percent of rivers in the
U.S. were impaired due to nutrient enrichment; 51 percent of the
surveyed lakes and 57 percent of the surveyed estuaries were simi-
larly adversely affected (EPA, OW, December 1997). Nutrients have
also been implicated in identification of the large hypoxic zone in the
Gulf of Mexico, hypoxia observed in several East Coast states, and
harmful algal bloom-induced fish kills and human health problems in
the coastal waters of several East Coast and Gulf states .

Just as the sources of nitrogen in watersheds vary, so do the effects
of exported nitrogen. While high levels of nitrogen might not affect
the watersheds from which the nutrient is exported, exports can
influence the condition of coastal estuaries arid lakes. The effects
vary with such factors as water-column mixing, sunlight, temperature,
and the availability of other nutrients.

No specific indicators have been identified at this time. Effects
of chemical use on ecological condition are discussed more
extensively in Chapter 2, Purer Water; and Chapter 5,
Ecological Condition.
3-38
3.2 Chemicals in the Landscape Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
3.3 Waste and
(Contaminated Land:
Waste and contaminated lands are discussed in this section. Waste is
broadly defined as unwanted materials left over from manufacturing
processes or refuse from places of human or animal habitation.
Several waste categories and types are included within this broad
definition. In general, waste can be categorized as either hazardous
or non-hazardous. Hazardous wastes are the by-products of society
that can pose substantial or potential hazards to human health or
the environment when improperly managed. These wastes may
appear on special EPA lists and they possess at least one of the four
following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.
Hazardous waste includes specific types of waste, such as toxic
waste and radioactive waste. All other waste is considered to be
non-hazardous (EPA, OEI, May 2002).

Several specific kinds of waste consist of mixed hazardous and
non-hazardous content. For instance, municipal solid waste (e.g.,
garbage) is largely non-hazardous but does typically contain some
household hazardous waste items such as solvents or batteries.
Other materials and waste types that can have mixed
hazardous/non-hazardous content include animal waste, by-products
of oil and gas production, materials from leaking underground
storage tanks, and waste from coal combustion.

Contaminated lands are lands that have been contaminated with
hazardous materials and require remediation. Contaminated lands
are not the same as lands used for waste management. In many
instances, lands used for waste management are not contaminated.
Similarly, often no waste is present on contaminated lands.
Contaminated lands can pose a direct risk if they expose people,
animals, or plants to harmful materials or cause the contamination
of air, soil, sediment, surface water, or ground water.

Despite numerous waste-related data collection efforts at the state
and national levels, nationally consistent and comprehensive data on
the status, pressures, and effects of waste and contaminated lands
are limited. Various parties are responsible for tracking types and
amounts of waste and contaminated sites. National-level data on
waste and contaminated land tend to be collected to satisfy the
requirements of specific federal regulations. For example, EPA's
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) contains data on RCRA hazardous waste and EPA's
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) contains some data on contaminated
sites, including Superfund sites.
Few national data sets exist for the waste types that are not federally
regulated, such as non-hazardous industrial waste. Although a signifi-
cant amount of waste information and some site contamination
information is collected and tracked at the local or state government
levels, these data are seldom aggregated nationally. Also, most of the
available data describe waste in terms of weight, rather than volume.
The weight data alone do not address the extent of the waste situa-
tion in the U.S. Similarly, national information about contaminated
lands tends to fociis on number of sites and types of contamination,
rather than the extent of land contaminated. Finally, there is a lack of
national data that track the effects of waste and contaminated land
on human health and. ecological condition.

While major improvements have been made in managing the nation's
waste and cleaning up contaminated sites, more work remains.
National, state, tribal, and local waste programs and policies aim to
prevent pollution by reducing the generation of wastes at their
source and by emphasizing prevention over management and dispos-
al. Preventing pollution before it is generated and poses harm is
often less costly than cleanup and remediation. Source reduction
and recycling programs often can increase resource and energy effi-
ciencies, reduce pressures on the environment, and extend the life
span of disposal facilities.

The following questions and discussion of indicators provide an
overview of what is known about waste generation and management
and about contaminated lands in the U.S. Trends and conditions on
a national basis are described to the extent that data are available.
The five questions considered in this section are:
• How much and what types of waste are generated and managed?
• What is the extent of land used for waste management?
• What is the extent of contaminated land?
• What human health effects are associated with waste management
and contaminated lands?
• What ecological effects are associated with waste management
and contaminated lands?

EPA is the primary source of data for this section, providing
municipal solid waste data on generation, management, recovery,
and disposal; data on RCRA hazardous waste and corrective
action sites from the RCRAInfo database; and data on the number
and location of contaminated sites that are on the Superfund
National Priorities List (NPL) from CERCLIS. The U.S. Department
of Energy's (DOE) Central Internet Database provides information
on the types and quantities of radioactive waste generated and
in storage.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands
3-39
-------

3.3.1 How much and what types of
waste are generated and managed?
Indicators
Quantify of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated and managed
Quantity of RCRA hazardous waste generated and managed
Quantity of radioactive waste generated and in inventory
There are numerous types of waste, but only three types are tracked
with any consistency on a national basis. The three that are
described as indicators on the following pages include municipal
solid waste (MSW), hazardous waste (as defined by RCRA), and
radioactive waste. The other types of waste range from materials
generated during mining and agricultural activities to wastes from
manufacturing and construction. Current national data are not
available on these other types of waste. Exhibit 3-22 summarizes
the types of waste.

•ii'i'iT^iBijiagr
iB^u-*SP|"T*.
Municipal
Solid Waste
(Indicator)
RCRA Hazardous
Waste
(Indicator)
Radioactive
Waste
(Indicator)
Extraction
Wastes
Industrial
Non-Hazardous
Waste
Household
Hazardous
Waste
Agricultural
Waste
Construction
and Demolition
Debris
Medical Waste
Oil and Gas
Waste
Sludge
Exkirjit 3-22: Types of Waste

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the waste discarded by households, hotels/motels, and commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. MSW
typically consists of everyday items such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances,
paint, and batteries. It does not include wastewater. In 2000, 232 million tons of MSW were generated. (EPA, OSWER, June 2002)
The term "RCRA hazardous waste" applies to certain types of hazardous wastes that appear on EPA's regulatory listing (RCRA) or that exhibit
the specific characteristics of ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity, or toxicity. More than 40 million tons of RCRA hazardous waste were
generated in 1 999. (EPA, OSWER, June 2001 )
Radioactive waste is the garbage, refuse, sludge, and other discarded material, iricluding solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material
that must be managed for its radioactive content (DOE Order 43 5.1 Issued July 1999). The technical names for the types of waste that are
considered "radioactive waste" for this report are high-level waste, spent nuclea r fuel, transuranic waste, low-level waste, mixed low-level waste,
and contaminated media. Data on the amounts of these waste types are provided in the radioactive waste discussion. (See Appendix D for
definitions of these terms).
Extraction activities such as mining and mineral processing are large contributors to the total amount of waste generated and land contaminated
in the U.S. EPA estimates that S billion tons of mining wastes were generated in 1988 (EPA, OSWER, October 1 988).
Industrial non-hazardous waste is process waste associated with electric power generation and manufacturing of materials such as pulp and paper,
iron and steel, glass, and concrete. This waste usually is not classified as either municipal solid waste or RCRA hazardous waste by federal or state
laws. State, tribal, and some local governments have regulatory programs to manage industrial waste. EPA estimated that 7.6 billion tons of
industrial non-hazardous wastes were generated in 1 988. (EPA, OSWER, October 1988)
Most household products that contain corrosive, toxic, ighitable, or reactive ingredients are considered household hazardous waste. Examples
include most paints, stains, varnishes, solvents, and household pesticides. Special disposal of these materials is necessary to protect human health
and the environment, but some amount of this type of waste is improperly disposed of by pouring the waste down the drain, on the ground, in
storm sewers, or by discarding the waste with other household waste as part of municipal solid waste. EPA estimates that Americans generate 1 .6
million tons of household hazardous waste per year, with the average home accumulating up to 1 00 pounds annually. (EPA, OSWER, October
2002)
Agricultural solid waste is waste generated by rearing animals and producing and harvesting crops or trees. Animal waste, a large component of
agricultural waste, includes waste from livestock, dairy, milk, and other animal-related agricultural and farming practices. Some of this waste is
generated at sites called Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The waste associated with CAFOs results from congregating animals,
feed, manure, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area. Animal waste and wastewater can enter water bodies from spills or
breaks of waste storage structures (due to accidents or excessive rain) and non-agricultural application of manure to crop land (EPA, OW,
November 2001 ; EPA, OW, June 2002). National estimates are not available.
Construction and demolition debris is waste generated during construction, renovation, and demolition projects. This type of waste generally
consists of materials such as wood, concrete, steel, brick, and gypsum. (The MSW data in this report do not include construction and demolition
debris, even though sometimes construction and demolition debris are considered MSW.) National estimates are not available.
Medical waste is any solid waste generated during the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings or animals, in research, production,
or testing. National estimates are not available.
Oil and gas production wastes are the drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, and
production of crude oil or natural gas that are conditionally exempted from regulation as hazardous wastes. National estimates are not available.
Sludge is the solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated from municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater. National estimates are not available.
-------
Indicator
Ouantity of rpunicipai solid waste \/V\jVV} generated and managed - \_ategory 2
As noted in Exhibit 3-22, municipal solid waste (MSW) is the
waste discarded by households and by commercial, institution-
al, and industrial operations. This type of waste is familiar to
most Americans because they are specifically responsible for
its generation. MSW typically consists of everyday items such
as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing,
bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, paint, and
batteries. It does not include wastewater.

What the Data Show

In 2000, Americans generated 232 million tons of MSW (Exhibit
3-23). This total amount, which does not take into account MSW
that was ultimately recycled or composted, equated to approxi-
mately 4.5 pounds of waste per person per day. Paper and
paperboard products accounted for the largest component of
MSW generated (37 percent), and yard trimmings constituted the
second-largest material component (12 percent). Glass, metals,
plastics, wood, and food scraps each constituted 5 to 11 percent
of the total. Rubber, leather, and textiles combined made up about
seven percent of MSW, while other miscellaneous wastes made up
approximately 3 percent (EPA, OSWER, June 2002).
txnibit 3-23: lota! municipal solid waste generated, 2000
Total (before recycling and composting) - 232 million tons
Wood: 5.5% —y \~
Glass: 5.5% ^""
Other: 3.2%
Rubber, Leather &
Textiles: 6.7%

Metals: 7.8%
Plastics: 10.7%
Paper: 37.4%
Food Waste: 11.2%
Yard Waste: 12%
Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States: 2000 facts and figures. June 2002.
The total amount of MSW generated increased nearly 160 percent
between 1960 and 2000 (Exhibit 3-24). For comparison purpos-
es, during that same time frame, the U.S. population increased by
56 percent, gross national product increased nearly 300 percent,
and per capita generation of waste rose more than 70 percent
(DOC, BEA, 2002; EPA, OSWER, June 2002). The amount of
MSW generated per capita generally stabilized between 1990 and
2000, increasing less than one percent.

The data on the total amount of MSW generated do not factor in
source reduction and waste prevention or materials recovery
(recycling and composting), which are also important contributors
to the overall municipal waste picture. Source reduction and waste
prevention include the design, manufacture, purchase, or reuse of
materials to reduce their amount or toxicity or lengthen their life
before they enter the MSW system. Between 1992 and 2000,
source reduction in the U.S. prevented more than 55 million tons
of MSW from entering the waste stream (EPA, OSWER, June
2002) (Exhibit 3-25).
txnibit 3-24: AAunicipal solid waste generation rates,
1960-2000
(before recycling and composting)
H Tons of Waste Generated (millions)
m Population (millions)
-0-Per-capita Generation (pounds/day)
. .-.
jurce: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Municipal Solid Waste
thf United States: 2000 Facts and[Figures. June 2002. _
C-napter 3 - Better Trotected Land 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands
3-41
-------

Indicator
Quantity of municipal solid waste (AAWV) generated j
jnd managed - Category 2 (continued)
Exhibit 3-25: Source reduction of municipal
solid waste, 1992-2000
Materials Categories:
• Other MSW
3 Containers & Packaging
• Nondurable Goods
• Durable Goods
• Total Amount
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Source: ERA. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Municipal Solid Waste
m trw United State; 2000 Facts and figures. June 2002.
Materials recovery (recycling and composting) has also reduced
the total amount of MSW being discarded. In 2000, approximate-
ly 30 percent (70 million tons) of the MSW generated was recov-
ered and thereby diverted from landfills and incinerators. Between
1960 and 2000, the total amount of MSW recovered has signifi-
cantly increased from 5.6 million tons to 69.9 million tons, more
than a 1,100 percent increase. During this time period, the
amount recovered on a per capita basis increased from 0.17
pounds per person per day to 1.35 pounds per person per day—
an 8-fold increase (EPA, OSWER, June 2002). The percentage of
MSW disposed of in landfills has dropped from 83.2 percent of
the amount generated in 1986 to 55.3 percent of the amount
generated in 2000 (Exhibit 3-26). Combustion (incineration) is
also used to reduce waste volume prior to disposal in a land-
based waste management facility. Approximately 33.7 million tons
(14.5 percent) of MSW were combusted in 2000. Of this amount,
approximately 2.3 million tons were combusted with energy
recovery—also known as waste-to-energy combustion
(EPA, OSWER, June 2002).
Exhibi
^0-26: /
250 I
200
AAunicipal solid waste management,
" r, 19^6-2600' '•"" *
(2000 totaf = 232 million, tons)
I Recovery for Composting*
I Recovery for Recycling
I Combustion
I Landfill
1960
65 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
_
* Composting of yard trimmings and food wastes Does not include mixed MSW
composting oTthackyard composting

Source EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Municipal Solid Waste
in the United Slates 2000 Facts and figures June 2002
v- ___ »f _ _ __ ____ J "

Indicator Caps and Limitations

Limitations for this indicator include the following:
• The MSW data do not include construction and demolition
debris, municipal waste water treatment sludge, automobile
bodies, combustion ash, and non-hazardous industrial wastes
that may g;o to a municipal waste landfill. The data (including
the generation, recycling, and recovery data) are generated
using the materials flow method, which does not include
these materials, even though some of these materials
(namely construction and demolition debris) are typically
counted a<; MSW.
• Residues associated with other items in MSW (usually
containers) are not accounted for in the data.
• The percentage of total waste that MSW represents is unknown.
• The indicator does not necessarily measure the effects of
changes in consumer or disposal trends.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator is Municipal Solid Waste Data,
EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1990-2000.
(See Appendix B, page B-22, for more information.)
3-42
3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands Chapter 3 - "Better Trotected Land
-------
Indicator
Quantity of RGlxA hazardous waste generated and managed - Category 2
Businesses that generate a substantial amount of RCRA hazardous
waste as part of their regular activities are called "large quantity
generators" or LQGs. ("Substantial" is defined as more than
2,200 pounds per month.) National data on "small quantity
generators" (SQGs) and "conditionally-exempt small quantity
generators" (CESQGs) are not available. Estimates indicate, how-
ever, that the amount of RCRA hazardous waste that SQGs and
CESQGs generate is relatively small (EPA, OSWER, June 2000).

What the Data Show

In 1999, EPA estimated that more than 20,000 LQGs collectively
generated 40 million tons of RCRA hazardous waste (EPA,
OSWER, June 2001). The number reflects between 95 and 99
percent of the total amount of RCRA hazardous waste generated.
The exact total amount of RCRA hazardous waste generated by
LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs combined is not known, but the con-
tributions of SQGs and CESQGs are estimated to be between 0.4
million tons and 2.1 million tons (or 1 to 5 percent) of the total
amount of RCRA hazardous waste (EPA, OSWER, June 2000).

LQGs within EPA Region 6 (see Exhibit 1 -12 for Regional delin-
eation) generated more than half of all RCRA hazardous waste in
1999 (Exhibit 3-27). Less than 9 percent of the LQCs nation-
wide are located in Region 6, but 15 of the 22 largest national
generators (by quantity generated) are there. Of the large
Region 6 generators, 13 manufacture chemicals, petrochemicals,
Exhibit 3-27: Amount of Resource
Conservation ana Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste generated in EPA regions, 1999
(Tons)
Region 10: 3% (1,025,614) -,
Region 9:1 % (480,858)
Region 8: <1% (162,099)
Region 7: 5%
(1,842,853)
Region 6: 52%
(20,901,778)
CBI*Data:
-------
••iMiiiiiBiiiiiiiiyriiiiinnliiii iilii iiii iliiiiii
ilflil IWr 111 1 II I I
Indicator
Quantity of RCRA hazardous waste generated and m||iaged - Category 2 (continued)
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

While RCRAInfo is a reliable source of data about much of the
hazardous waste generated throughout the U.S., it does not pro-
vide information about all hazardous waste generated nationally.
RCRAInfo includes data on amounts and types of hazardous waste
generated nationally by large quantity generators only. Data about
amounts and types of hazardous waste generated by RCRA SQGs
and CESQGs are not collected. Similarly, data on waste that does
not fit the RCRA definition of "hazardous" are not available. Some
states regulate and collect data on wastes they designate as
"hazardous" that are not tracked by EPA, but these data are not
aggregated nationally.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator is 1999 RCRAInfo data,
from EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
(See Appendix B, page B-22, for more information.)
Indicate
Quantity of radioactive waste generated and in inventc-
*
ategory 2
The manufacture and production of nuclear materials and
weapons requires activities that can generate large amounts of
radioactive waste. Over the past few decades, the production of
nuclear weapons has largely been suspended. The largest quanti-
ties of radioactive waste generated today (when measured by
volume) result from the cleanup of contaminated sites.

What the Data Show

A significant amount of the radioactive waste in existence
today will remain radioactive for many years—in some cases
thousands of years. When measured by volume, the radioactive
waste that is still being generated reflects only a small percent-
age (<10 percent) of the total amount of waste that is either in
storage (inventory) or disposed of already. When measured by
radioactivity, the amount of radioactive waste in inventory far
exceeds the radioactivity of newly-generated radioactive waste
(U.S. DOE, April 2001). Exhibit 3-28 provides summary data
on the total amount of radioactive waste generated and in
inventory (storage) at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2000.

Over time, the amount of radioactive waste generated has fluc-
tuated primarily due to the progress of site cleanup operations.
Trend data on generation rates over the past several years are
not available. According to the DOE, however, the amount of
waste generated between late 1997 and late 2000 remained
fairly constant, while the amount in inventory increased in pro-
portion to the amount generated (DOE, 2002). Although some
radioactive waste Is still being disposed of (e.g., small amounts
of transuranic waste are being disposed of at the Waste
Isolation Pilqt Plant in New Mexico), most of the highly radioac-
tive waste types remain in storage until they can be placed in safe
long-term disiposal facilities.

The amount of radioactive waste being generated and stored is
expected to drop over the next few decades as cleanup operations
are completed and waste currently in storage is disposed of.
Depending on the radioactive decay rate, the disposed-of waste
will remain raidioactive for time periods ranging from days to
thousands of years.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The radioactive waste data in this report do not account for all
radioactive materials in the U.S. The term "radioactive waste"
applies to any garbage, refuse, sludge, and other discarded
material that must be managed for its radioactive content (DOE
Order 435.1, issued July 1999). Other radioactive materials are
used for defense, energy production, and other purposes, but
these materials are not considered "waste." Further, DOE is not
responsible for some additional radioactive waste (quantity
unknown). Data on these wastes are not included in this report.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator is radioactive waste data, from
U.S. Department of Energy's Central Internet Database, 2000.
(See Appendix B, page B-23, for more information.)
3-44
3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
idicator:
Quantity of radioactive waste generated! aniin Inventory - Category 2 (continued1)
F~
. 1,
f
I-'
i
i
1
It"
1
tS-O—
Exhibit 3-28: Total amount of radioacti
HBHRSSHSilBBBMflBHflSHnNlfflBfifiilMi^H^HnnwiRMim^ra^ramflBHBF1:
^
Vitrified High-Level Waste .
High-level Waste
Low-Level Waste
Mixed Low-Level Waste
Ex-Situ Contaminated Media
Transuranic Waste
Spent Nuclear Fuel
*/e waste generated in fisca
Generated
n/a
14,166
38,911
10,834
559,249
1,621
0.85
year 20OO as reported by Department of Energy
Inventory (Storage)
1,201
353,501
101,256
44,588
63,570
111 ,226
2,467
Units ;
Canisters
Volume
(cubic meters)
Mass (metric tons
of heavy metal)
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Central Internet Database. 2002.
(January 2003; http://cid.em.doe.gov).
* For the purposes of this report, all of the materials in this table are considered radioactive waste.

1
A
3.3.2 What is the extent of land
used for waste management?
Indicators
Number and location of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills
Number and location of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities
Most types of waste are disposed of in land-based waste manage-
ment units such as MSW landfills and surface impoundments. Prior
to the 1970s, waste disposed of on the land was typically dumped
in open pits, and waste was seldom treated to reduce its toxicity
prior to disposal (EPA, OSWER, June 2002). Early land disposal units
that still pose threats to human health and the environment are
considered to be contaminated lands subject to federal or state
cleanup efforts and are discussed in the next section. Today, most of
the hazardous and MSW land disposal units are subject to federal or
state requirements for landfill, surface impoundment, or pile design
and management. National data.for these disposal units is described
in the indicators following.
Many other sites are used for waste management in addition to the
MSW landfills and RCRA hazardous waste facilities just mentioned.
Although comprehensive data sets are not available to assess the
number of additional sites used for waste management, various
EPA estimates show that there were approximately 18,000
non-hazardous industrial waste surface impoundments in 2000,
more than 2,700 non-hazardous industrial waste landfills in 1985,
and more than 5,300 non-hazardous industrial waste piles in 1985
(EPA, OSWER, March 2001). These numbers do not include other
v/aste management sites, such as those used to collect and manage
(but not dispose of) waste (e.g., recycling centers, household
hazardous waste collection centers), waste transfer stations, sites
that store discarded automobile and industrial equipment, and
non-regulated landfills.

The two indicators identified for this question address the number
and location of MSW landfills and RCRA facilities.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands
3-45
-------

Indicator
NunLer and location of municipal solid w4ste (MSWlJapdfills - Category 2
Municipal solid waste landfills are the most commonly known places
of waste disposal. Yet this does not mean that there are good data
to track them. The data presented in support of this indicator are
estimates compiled by a national journal. No federal agency specifi-
cally compiles information nationally on these landfills.

What the Data Show

In 2000, approximately 128 million tons (55 percent) of the
nation's 232 million tons of MSW were disposed of in the nation's
2,216 municipal waste landfills (EPA, OSWER, June 2002).
Between 1989 and 2000, the number of municipal landfills in the
U.S. decreased substantially (down from 8,000). Over the same
period, the capacity of all landfills remained fairly constant
because newer landfills typically have larger capacities. In 2000,
these landfills were geographically distributed as follows: 154 (8
percent) in the Northeast, 699 (35 percent) in the Southeast,
459 (23 percent) in the Midwest, and 655 (33 percent) in the
West (Goldstein, 2000).
indicator Caps and Limitations
i i ],
MSW data are voluntarily submitted to BioCycle Journal and are
not reviewed for quality or consistency. The data exclude land-
fills in Alaska and Hawaii and-do not indicate the capacity or
volume of landfills, or in general, a means to estimate extent of
lands used for MSW management. For example, the fact that
there are fewer landfills does not mean that less land is used for
managing wastes because newer landfills are typically larger than
their predecessors. The information is also limited by the fact
that other lands are also used for waste management, such as
for recycling facilities and waste transfer stations, but are not
included in the indicator data. The data also do not reflect upon
the status or effectiveness of landfill management or the extent
to which contamination of nearby lands does or does not occur.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator is BioCycle journal municipal
landfill data 1990-2000. (See Appendix B, page B-23, for more
information.)
Indicator
Number and location of RGRA hazardous waste marflgernent facilities - Category 2
The RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities used to
manage the more than 26 million tons of annually generated haz-
ardous waste are tracked closely by EPA. The data, however, are
tracked and reported in terms of number of facilities and volumes of
waste managed, not the acres of land used for management.

What the Data Show

Nearly 70 percent of the RCRA hazardous waste (not including
wastewater) generated in 1999 was disposed of at one of the
nation's 1,575 RCRATSDs. Of the 1,575 facilities, 1,049 were
storage-only facilities. The remaining facilities perform one or
more of the following management methods, which include recov-
ery operations (the percentages reflect the percentage of total
facilities that conduct each management method): metals recovery
(16.8 percent), solvents recovery (21.1 percent), other recovery
(8.8 percent), incineration (28.4 percent), energy recovery
(18.9 percent), fuel blending (19.8 percent), sludge treatment
(3.0 percent), stabilization (16.0 percent), land treatment/appli-
cation/farming (1.3 percent), landfill (11.4 percent), surface
impoundment (0.4 percent), deepwell/underground injection
(8.8 percent), or other disposal methods (7.4 percent).
TSD facilities in five states accounted for approximately 65 per-
cent of the national management total, From another perspective,
over 80 percent of the TSD facilities are located in EPA Regions
4 (19.6. percent), Region 5 (16.9 percent), and Region 6
(43.7 percent) (EPA, OSWER, June 2001).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Some hazardous waste management information that is collected
by states is not included in the provided totals because it is not
compiled nationally. Further, data on actual extent of land used for
waste management are not collected, reported, or aggregated.
Basic data on the number of sites or facilities used for waste
management do not answer the extent question.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator is 1999 RCRAInfo data from EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (See Appendix B,
page B-23, for more information.)
3-46
3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
3.3.3 Wfiat is the extent of
contaminated lands?
Indicators
Number and location of superfund national priorities list (NPL) sites
Number and location of RCRA corrective action sites
Contaminated lands range from sites where underground storage
tanks have failed to areas where accidental spills have occurred to
legacy sites where poor site management resulted in the contami-
nation of soil, sediment, and ground water. Sites are still being
discovered and national data do not currently exist to describe the
full extent of contaminated lands. Additionally, sites are continually
being cleaned up by a variety of programs, although these sites are
not always immediately removed from the tracking lists maintained
by the cleanup programs (e.g., Superfund NPL).
Two indicators are described. One addresses Superfund (NPL) sites
and the other RCRA Corrective Action sites. They represent the
limited data available for a national view of contaminated lands.
Both indicators are based on data collected to track cleanup
efforts and list numbers of sites, but neither specifically delineate
the extent or total area of land contamination. Besides these two
indicators that track specific programs, there are several other
types of contaminated lands for which national data are limited
or are not available. In some cases, states collect and maintain
accurate data inventories, but these state-specific data sets are
not compiled nationally. Exhibit 3-29 summarizes the types of
lands that are or might be considered contaminated.
ifc-
txhibit 3-29: Types of contaminated lands
|| Superfund
National Priorities
List Sites
(Indicator)

Congress established the Superfund Program in 1980 to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites throughout the U.S. The
most seriously contaminated sites are on the NPL. As of October 2002, there were 1,498 sites on the NPL ^EPA SERP
October 2002). '
RCRA
Corrective
Action Sites
(Indicator)
EPA and authorized states have identified 1,714 hazardous waste management facilities that are the most seriously
contaminated and may pose significant threats to humans or the environment (EPA, OSWER, October, 2002). Some RCRA
Corrective Action sites are also identified by the Superfund Program as NPL sites.
Leaking
Underground
Storage
Tanks
EPA regulates many categories of underground storage tanks (USTs), often containing petroleum or hazardous substances.
These exist at many sites, such as gas stations, convenience stores, and bus depots. USTs that have failed due to faulty
materials, installation, operating procedures, or maintenance systems are categorized as leaking underground storage tanks
(LUSTs). LUSTs can contaminate soil, ground water, and sometimes drinking water. Vapors from UST releases can lead to ;
explosions and other hazardous situations if those vapors migrate to a confined area such as a basement. LUSTs are the most
common source of ground water contamination (EPA, OW, 2000), and petroleum is the most common ground water
contaminant (EPA, OW, 1996). According to EPA's corrective action reports, in 1996 there were 1,064,478 active tanks
located at approximately 400,000 facilities. In 2002, there were 697,966 active tanks (a 34 percent decrease) and
1,525,402 closed tanks (a 42 percent increase). As of the fall of 2002, 427, 307 UST releases (LUSTs) were confirmed
(EPA, OSWER, December 2002).
Accidental
Spill Sites
Each year, thousands of oil and chemical spills occur on land and in water. Oil and gas materials that have spilled include
drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, and production of crude oil
or natural gas. Accurate national spill data are not available.
• Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands
3-47
-------
Exhibit 3-2Q: Types of contaminated lands (continued)
^

Land
Contaminated
with Radioactive
and Other
Hazardous
Materials

Brownfields
Some
Military
Bases
Poorly Designed
or Poorly
Managed Waste
Management
Sites
Illegal
Dumping
Sites
Abandoned
Mine Lands
Approximately 0.54 million acres of land spanning 129 sites in over 30 states are contaminated with radioactive and other
hazardous materials as a result of activities associated with nuclear weapons production and research. Although DOE is the
landlord at most of these sites, other parties, including other federal agencies, private parties, and one public university, also
have legal responsibilities over these lands (DOE, January 2001).
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or
potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant (Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act, 2002). Brownfields are often found in and around economically depressed neighborhoods. As brownfields
are cleaned and redeveloped, surrounding communities benefit from a reduction of health and environmental risks, more
functional space, and improved economic conditions. A complete inventory of brownfields does not exist. According to the
General Accounting Office (1987), there are approximately 450,000 brownfields nationwide (General Accounting Office,
1987). The EPA's national brownfield tracking system includes a large volume of data on brownfields across the nation, but
does not track all of them. EPA's Brownfield Assessment Pilot Program includes data collected from over 400 pilot
communities (EPA, OSWER, May 2002).
Some (exact number or percentage unknown) military bases are contaminated as a result of military activities. A national
assessment of land contaminated at military bases has not been conducted; however, under the Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAQ laws, closed military bases undergo site investigation processes to determine extent of possible
contamination and the need for site cleanup. Currently, 204 military installations that have been closed or realigned are
undergoing environmental cleanup. These installations collectively occupy over 400,000 acres, though not all of this land is
contaminated. Thirty-six of these installations are on the Superfund NPL list, and, of these, 32 are being cleaned up under
the Fast Track program to make them available for other uses as quickly as possible (DOD, 2001).
Prior to the 1970s, untreated waste was typically placed in open pits or directly onto the land. Some of these early waste
management sites are still contaminated. In other cases, improper management of facilities (that were typically used for
other purposes such as manufacturing) resulted in site contamination. Federal and state cleanup efforts are now addressing
those early land disposal units and poorly-managed sites that are still contaminated.
Also known as "open dumping" or "midnight dumping," illegal dumping of such materials as construction Waste, abandoned
automobiles, appliances, household waste, and medical waste raises concerns for safety, property values, and quality of life.
While a majority of illegally dumped waste is not hazardous, some of it is, creating contaminated lands.
Abandoned mine lands are sites that have historically been mined! and have not been properly cleaned up. These abandoned
or inactive mine sites may include disturbances or features ranging from exploration holes and trenches to full-blown, large-
scale mine openings, pits, waste dumps, and processing facilities. The Department of the Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is presently aware of approximately 10,200 abandoned hardrock mines located within the roughly 264
million acres under its jurisdiction. Various government and private organizations have made estimates over the years about
the total number of abandoned and inactive mines in the U.S., including estimates for the percent land management
agencies, and state and privately-owned lands. Those estimates range from about 80,000 to hundreds of thousands of small
to medium-sized sites. The BLM is attempting to identify, prioritize, and take appropriate actions on those historic mine sites
that pose safety risks to the public or present serious threats to the environment (DOI, BLM, 2003).
IE:
3-48
3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
Number and location of Superfund National Priorities List (NFL) sites - Category 2

Congress established the Superfund Program in 1980 to clean up
abandoned hazardous waste sites throughout the U.S. The
Superfund Program tracks and investigates thousands of poten-
tially contaminated sites to determine whether they are indeed
contaminated and require cleanup. Some sites are not contaminat-
ed, whereas others are seriously contaminated and require either
extensive, long-term cleanup action and/or immediate action to
protect human health and the environment. The most seriously
contaminated sites are proposed for placement on the NPL.
"Proposed" NPL sites that meet the qualifications for cleanup
under the Superfund Program become "final" NPL sites. Sites are
considered for deletion from the NPL when all cleanup goals are
met and there is no longer reason for federal action.

What the Data Show

As of October 1, 2002, there were 1,498 sites that were either
final (1,233) or deleted (265). Of the 1,498 sites, 846 have
completed all necessary cleanup construction. A construction
complete site is a former toxic waste site where physical construc-
tion of all cleanup actions are complete, all immediate threats have
been addressed, and all long-term threats are under control. An
additional 62 sites were proposed in 2002 (Exhibit 3-30). The
total number of NPL sites (including proposed) grew from 1,236
in 1990 to 1,560 in 2002. During this time period, the number
of sites that have been cleaned up and have been transferred from
"final" to "deleted" status have increased nearly 10-fold, from 29
in 1990 to 265 in 2002. In 2002, over 56 percent of the final
and deleted sites were construction complete, compared to only
four percent of the sites in 1990 (EPA, SERP, February 2003).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The NPL sites are tracked in CERCLIS. This database contains
information on hazardous waste sites across the nation and U.S.
territories including location, status, contaminants, and actions
. taken from 1983 to the present. The number of NPL sites provides
a general indicator of contaminated lands, but these numbers do
not translate directly to the extent of contaminated land. The NPL
data cannot easily be used to clarify how many lands are contami-
nated because the NPL sites are divided into administrative
groups (i.e., proposed, final, and deleted) that do not clearly
describe whether the sites are currently contaminated.
Additionally, there are many contaminated sites in CERCLIS that
are not listed on the NPL, some contaminated sites are not in
CERCLIS (e.g., are known only by local and state programs); and
not all of the sites in CERCLIS are contaminated.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator is Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) data, EPA Superfund Emergency Response Program,
1983-2002. (See Appendix B, page B-24, for more information.)
•v
Exnirjit 3-3O. Superfund National Priorities List (NFL) site totals by status and
m Deleted Sites 31 Proposed Sites
Final Sites B Construction Complete
2000
2001
2002
!„-,. Mote: "Construction Complete" sites include most "Deleted" sites and some "Final" sites.

F Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. National Priorities List Site Totals by Status and Milestone. March 26, 2003. (April 3, 2003;
http://amf.epa.gov/saperfund/snes/ciueiy/tiueryMm/npltotalMm) and Number of NPL Site Actions and Milestones by Fiscal Year. March 26, 2003. (April 3, 2003;
•^r-http://wwvf.epa.gov/supetfund/sites/query/queryhtm/npljy/htm).
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land. 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands
3-49
-------

Number and location of RCRA corrective action sites
I Category!
It— _ „ -
Congress established the RCRA Corrective Action Program in
1984 because many hazardous waste management facilities were
contaminated from current or past solid and hazardous waste
management activities and required cleanup to protect humans
and the environment. As with the Superfund Program, some sites
subject to RCRA corrective action may be investigated and found
to require little or no cleanup, while others may be found to have
extensive soil, ground water, and/or sediment contamination.

What the Data Show

EPA estimates that approximately 3,700 hazardous waste
management facilities may be subject to cleanup under the
RCRA corrective action program (EPA, OSWER, October 2002).
To date, EPA and authorized states have identified approximately
1,700 hazardous waste management facilities that are the most
seriously contaminated and may pose significant threats to
human health or the environment (EPA, OSWER, October
2002). These sites typically have both soil and ground water
contamination and many also have contaminated sediments.
Some RCRA corrective action sites are also identified by the
Superfund Program as NPL sites.
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

RCRAInfo contains information about hazardous waste genera-
tors and management facilities in the U.S. and its territories.
RCRAInfo includes data on site location, status, contaminants
and contaminant sources, and actions taken. RCRAInfo provides
reliable data about the number and location of RCRA corrective
action sites and about cleanup priorities; however, information
on cleanup status at sites is less reliable, particularly for lower
priority sites. Cleanup status data for the 1,700 high priority
sites is current—particularly with respect to ongoing exposures
of humans to contamination and migration of contaminated
ground water, the two site conditions that the RCRA corrective
action program has chosen to track most closely. Also, there
are overlaps between the list of high priority RCRA corrective
action sites and NPL sites. Due to these overlaps, number-of-
site comparisons between programs and simple counts of
contaminated sites can be misleading.

Data Source
!
The data source for this indicator is EPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, RCRA Info Data, 1997-1999. (See Appendix
B, page B-24, for more information.)

. ......
...... co n t a m i n a te d I a n d s ?
I 99 E
While some types of waste (e.g., most food scraps) are not typically
toxic to humans, other types (e.g., mercury) pose dangers to human
health and must be managed accordingly. The number of substances
that exist that can or do affect human health is unknown; however,
the TRI program requires reporting of more than 650 chemicals and
chemical categories that are known to be toxic to humans.

The EPA Superfund Emergency Response Program and the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) have created
useful lists of common contaminant sources and their potential
health effects. Every 2 years, the ATSDR and EPA prepare a list, in
order of priority, of hazardous substances that are most commonly
found at the NPL sites and pose the most significant threat to
human health due to their known or suspected toxicity and potential
for human exposure (EPA, SERF, September 2002; ATSDR, 2001).
Arsenic, lead, and mercury are the highest ranking substances on the
list. All three of these substances are toxic to the kidneys, and lead
and arsenic can cause decreased mental ability, weakness, abdominal
cramps, and Jinemia (EPA, SERP, September 2002). Additional dis-
cussion of these substances is available in Chapter 4, Human Health.

EPA also maintains a separate list of common contaminants and their
potential health effects. The list includes commercial solvents,
household items, dry cleaning agents, and chemicals. With chronic
exposure, commercial solvents such as benzene, can suppress bone
marrow function and cause blood changes. Dry cleaning agents and
degreasers contain trichloroethane and trichloroethylene, which can
cause fatigue, depression of the central nervous system, kidney
changes (e.g., swelling, anemia), and liver changes (e.g., enlarge-
ment). Chemicals used in commercial and industrial manufacturing
processes such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and
mercury, are toxic to kidneys. Long-term exposure to lead can cause
permanent kidney and brain damage. Cadmium can cause kidney and
3-50
3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
lung disease. Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and chromium have been
implicated as human carcinogens (EPA, SERF, September 2002).

Contaminants can come into contact with humans through three
exposure pathways: inhalation, ingestion, and direct contact.
Exposure routes can vary for each substance. Chemicals can contam-
inate ground water due to leaking tanks, runoff, and leaching through
soil or sediment. In addition, the cleanup of sites contaminated with
radioactive materials has^ involved the remediation of approximately
1.7 trillion gallons of ground water—an amount equal to four times
the U.S. daily water consumption (DOE, 2000).
Information on waste generation amounts alone does not lead to a
complete understanding of the effects of waste on people and the
environment. The specific risks and burdens differ substantially from
waste type to waste type. For example, one pound of grass clippings
is not "equal" in terms of potential risk in exposure to one pound of
dioxin. Exposure to waste is likely to vary as a function of manage-
ment practices: treatment, storage, transfer, and disposal actions.
Waste that is efficiently and safely treated and disposed of is likely
to have relatively little effect on human health. No specific indicators
have been identified at this time. Additional discussion of the human
health effects associated with waste management and contaminated
lands is found in Chapter 4, Human Health.
3.3.5 What ecological effects are
associated with Waste management
and contaminated lands?
Hazardous substances can have negative effects on the environ-
ment by degrading or destroying wildlife and vegetation in
contaminated areas, causing major reproductive complications in
wildlife, or otherwise limiting the ability of an ecosystem to survive.
Certain hazardous substances also have the potential to explode
or cause a fire, threatening both wildlife and human populations
(EPA, SERF, September 2002).

Waste from extraction activities can contaminate water, soil, and air;
affect human health; and damage vegetation, wildlife, and other
biota. Toxic residues left from mining operations can be transported
into nearby areas, affecting resident wildlife populations. This type of
damage is often the result of unlined land-based units that have min-
imal release controls. These units include surface impoundments
containing mill tailings and/or process wastewater, heap-leaching
solution ponds, dusts, piles of slags, refractory bricks, sludge, waste
rock/overburden, and spent ore. Spills and leaks from lined manage-
ment units, valves, and pipes also are known to occur.

Contaminated lands can pose a threat depending on several factors
such as site characteristics and potential exposure of sensitive
populations. The negative effects of land contamination on
ecosystems and wildlife occur after contaminants have been released
on land (soil/sediment) or into the air or water. Often, land contami-
nation leads to water or air contamination by means of gravity, wind,
or rainfall. No specific indicator was identified at this time.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land 3.3 Waste and Contaminated Lands
3-51
-------
3.4 Challenges and
Data Gaps
Many of the specific data gaps related to development of the
described indicators and their ability to answer the questions posed
have already been identified. The discussion below augments the
previously identified gaps.

3.4.1 Land Use

The ability to accurately characterize and track land use over time is
limited. Various federal efforts, such as the USDA NRCS, NRI, the
USDA Forest Service FIA, the U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Status and Trends Program, and the NLCD, contribute in part to
tracking some land uses and a variety of cover types. None of
these are comprehensive for all lands or land uses, and some have
limitations in their frequency of data collection or analysis. Some
cover types and land uses are not sampled in any detail, including
private and federal desert lands, federal shrublands and grasslands,
and rangeland. In addition, Alaska is seldom included in national
inventories, although Alaska represents approximately 16 percent
of the land area of the U.S. and includes extensive shrublands,
grasslands, and tundra.
Each of the national systems has developed different methods,
definitions, and classification criteria. While some effort has been
made to share definitions across some of these systems (e.g., the
NRI and FIA systems use essentially the same definition of forest
land, and NRI and FWS define wetlands similarly), not all are
consistent, especially in descriptions of developed or urban land,
cropland, and rangeland. Examples of differences in classifications
and acreage from several current national efforts are shown in
Exhibit 3-31 for developed and agricultural land uses. The NLCD
uses different classification and land use definitions because it is
based on remote sensing data (an aerial perspective) rather than
on ground sampling. FWS information is also based on aerial photo
interpretatioiri. Given the increasing availability of high resolution
aerial imagery, remotely sensed techniques for land cover delin-
eations are likely to increase and classifications based on this
inventory approach should be coordinated and defined.

Another challenge is developing data on uses and cover types that
at present are not adequately sampled. Further challenges include
effectively integrating and harmonizing the various results of
multi-agency, as well as state and local, efforts and coordinating the
limited resources dedicated to national tracking of land cover/land
use changes among agencies, so that inventories can be performed
as frequently and as comprehensively as possible. The overarching
goal is to assess national patterns in such a way that changes in land
cover and land use that might have implications for human health or
ecological condition can be detected and addressed.
Exhibit 3-31: Land cover/land i se estimates
TTI
rJ Land:;:-!

National Resources Inventory
(NRI)A
The Heinz Center8
U.S. Census Bureauc
National Land Cover Data
(NtCD)°
98 million acres developed land
32 million acres urban and suburban land
47 million acres urbanized areas
13 million acres urban clusters
36.7 million acres low and high density
residential and commercial/industrial/
transportation
377 million acres cropland
32 million acres Conservation Reserve Program land
120 million acres pastureland
43.0-500 million acres cropland, hayland, and pastureland
No data
331 million acres cropland
179 million acres pastureland and hayland
.••
Note; The NRI, Helm Center, and NLCD sources do not include Alaska as part of the estimates.

* USOA, Natural Resouites Conservation Service. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revise^December 2000). 2000
8 The Heinz Center, Tht State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. IJ
c US. CenfW Bureau. Corrected Lists of Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters. November 25, 2002. (Marc|2003; http://www.cemus..
_ ..
0 U5GS,NaikK«1 Und Cover Dataset NLCD Und Cover Statistics. 2001. (March 2003; MtP://landcoveru\j>sgov/nlcdhtml).
3-52
3.4 Challenges and Data Gaps Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land [
-------
The data available that actually summarize a national picture of land
use are extremely limited. Relatively little comprehensive information
exists about federal land management practices and extent For
example, while the USDA Forest Service tracks acres managed for
timber production, data are not easily accessible on acres used for
grazing; oil, gas, and mineral development; or recreation Data
needed to. summarize all lands under some form of "protection "
such as parks, wilderness areas, reserves, or conservation easements
at all levels of government, do not exist.

In many cases, where land is used to produce food or fiber, indica-
tors that report the amounts and values of these commodities might
be used to' identify the condition/stress/pressure on the land.
Examples of commodities include agricultural products forest
products, and cattle produced from grazing land. The amount of
fresh water used by humans might also be a good indicator of the
pressure being applied to land and water resources. Commodity
production is commonly correlated closely to population growth
Reporting of commodity production trends in agriculture and
forestry might also provide another view of the effects of these
activities on the land and help evaluate policy options for ensuring
long term, sustainable commodity production while reducing
environmental effects.

Land provides many other benefits in addition to commodity produc-
tion. Research is being conducted on the subject of quantifying
these "ecosystem services." Indicators are needed that will enable
measuring and tracking some of these, services.

3.4.2 Qemicals

Most of the national efforts to track chemical usage focus on how
much is produced, used, or released, with less emphasis on tracking
the extent or area of use. The TRI database requires reporting of
releases of certain volumes of specific chemicals, but aside from
knowing the location of initial releases, it does not track the extent
of the area that might in some way be affected by the chemicals
In addition, pesticide and fertilizer use are primarily tracked by
understanding where these chemicals are sold, rather than where
they are actually used.

Further, not all toxic chemicals are on the list of TRI chemicals and
therefore, some toxics are not reported. The TRI program faces the
challenge of maintaining a current list that reflects the constant
development, use, and release of new chemicals that might have
effects on human and ecological health.
lnd,cators for pesticide residue in food, potential pesticide runoff
from farmlands, risk of nitrogen runoff, and risk of phosphorus runoff
all address some part of the question of potential chemical
d,spos,tion. Only the indicator for pesticide residues in food
however, goes beyond stating the potential for chemicals to leave
their point of use and actually shows the potential for consumers to
be exposed to these chemicals. Indicators to better understand the
actual deposition of chemicals, rather than potential disposition
would be useful to correlate with actual human health and ecological
condition indicators.
State Pesticide Use Reporting Systems

While there is no national pesticide use reporting system, several
state systems exist. For example, California, with the most
advanced system in the country, has had full pesticide use
reporting since 1990. Reports about the specifics of application
are filed by large- and small-scale farmers, commercial agricultural
pesticide applicators, structural pest control companies, and
commercial landscaping firms. (California Department of
Pesticide Regulation, 2000.)
Better indicators of the linkages between chemical applications on
the landscape and chemicals that find their way into the bodies of
humans and other species are needed This includes better informa-
tion on the chemistry, quantities, and longevity of various sub-
stances; on the cumulative effects of various chemicals on the envi-
ronment and humans; and on the pathways and effects of exposure
In cases where nutrients do reach receiving waterbodies and raise the
concentrations^above background levels, considerable uncertainty
still exists concerning ultimate ecological effects. Current research
does not clearly quantify the relationship between raised nutrient
levels and resulting ecological changes.

Better information is needed to provide an accurate picture of the
human health effects of pesticide use. This information is difficult to
collect, however. Even in California, where significant resources are
ded,cated to pesticide regulation, the best available indicator is a
measure of reported illnesses and injuries from pesticide exposure in
the workplace. While this is valuable information, it does not address
potential long-term health effects of non-workplace exposure that
might result through drinking water and food exposure.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
3.4 Challenges and Data Caps
3-53
-------
, „ . 11 l| I •:•* •>: ' :. . ' i i.,,-1 -• ••-•!-• —i™™^^ H.npii«
3.4.3 Waste and Lands Used for Waste Management

Several challenges and data gaps limit the understanding of waste
and its effects on human health and ecological condition. First, as
noted, waste data tend to be developed in response to the require-
ments of specific mandates or regulations. Because these regulat.ons
do not apply to all types of waste and are carried out at different
levels of government, and in the private sector, complete data do
not exist to answer the question: "How much waste is generated?
Additionally, most waste generation is reported only by we.gnt
providing little understanding of the volume of waste produced.

Information about the amount of waste generated does not provide
a complete picture on either the extent of waste-related problems or
the effects of waste on human health, ecosystems, or the ambient
environment. Different waste types pose substantially different types
of risks. Some wastes are known to be hazardous to humans and the
environment, but specifics about exposures and the effects of many
other waste types are not well understood and data are limited.
Finally, the risks posed by waste are largely a function of the type
and effectiveness of waste management. The available data on waste
and waste management have been limited by the stringent regulatory
requirements and definitions that have driven most of the national
information collection efforts.

Data to describe how lands are affected by waste management are
also limited. Even basic statistics on the acreage of lands used for
managing waste and the condition of those lands are not available
at the national level. To gain a more complete understanding ot
the extent and effects of land used for waste management would
require information on waste management methods, standards,
and compliance, as well as information on lands where illegal
dumping occurs. Establishing linkages to human populations or
ecosystems within close proximity to lands managed for waste is
an additional challenge.
3.U.4 Contaminated Land

Today the best available information used to describe extent of
contaminated land includes measures of the number and location of
sites, two indicators of contaminated land that" lack national-quality
data are the extent of contaminated land and the effects of
contamination.

Determining the extent of contaminated land would require national-
level information on the number, location, and area of contaminated
lands and data on the specific site contaminants and the associated
risks, hazards, and potential exposures. Additional factors such as the
potential contamination of ground water sources and the
transportation or disposal methods needed to clean up the
contamination would have to be considered. Such data are currently
captured for only a subset of the nation's contaminated lands. In
addition, information on known contaminated lands (e.g., some sites
in EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System) that are not on the Superfund's
NPL data in state and local databases, and information on the other
type's of contaminated lands (e.g., leaking underground storage
tanks) are not captured in the existing data.
3-54
3.4 Challenges and Data Gaps
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
-------
Cl : i:-[ ••''. : 1: ••;*?•'..., j- ;;i 'i •••••!: - M '' v'-•.'''• • •• '.
hapter 4:

Human Health
-------
Indicators that were selected and included in this chapter were assigned to one o| |w,o categories:
• Category 1 -"he indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by natioi} j| level data coverage for more than one time period,
The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are characterized bj jsounrf collection methodologies, data management
systems, and quality assurance procedures.
• Category 2 -The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data a||availab|e only for part of the nation (e.g., multi-state
regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for mpre than |pe time period, or not all the parameters of the
indicator have been measured (e.g., data has been collected for birds, but not | olants or insects). The supporting data are
comparable across the areas covered, and are characterized by,; sound cpllectio Qfiethodologies, data management systems, and
quality assurance procedures. i
-------
ocument
4.0 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving in the
direction of measuring and assessing human health and ecological
outcomes. Traditionally, EPA has used indicators such as decreases
in emissions/discharges or decreases in ambient pollutant levels to
measure environmental improvement. Health outcome measures
complement these traditional approaches by reflecting the actual
public health or ecological impacts that result from environmental
pollution. By providing a quantitative assessment of these impacts,
outcome indicators can strengthen environmental decision-making
and enhance EPA's ability to evaluate, prospectively or retrospec-
tively, the success of those decisions.

The key to using outcome-based indicators is a clear understanding
of the sequence of events that link changes in environmental
conditions to health or ecological outcomes. Exhibit 4-1 depicts
this sequence for human health. Each block in the diagram can
have indicators associated with it. Indicators for the presence of
pollutants or other stressors affecting air, water, and land are
covered in Chapters 1 (Cleaner Air), 2 (Purer Water), and
3 (Better Protected Land), respectively, of this report. Indicators for
the presence of pollutants in the body and their effects on health
(altered structure or function, morbidity, or mortality) are covered
in this chapter.

The paradigm depicted in Exhibit 4-1 underlies the science upon
which EPA bases its risk assessment process (NRC, 1983). Risk
assessments, to a large degree, seek to estimate all linkages depicted
in the exhibit. However, understanding the link between human expo-
sure and health outcomes has always been challenging. Decades of
research have provided the scientific foundation for understanding
how exposure to individual pollutants at elevated levels'may affect
human health. There is less certainly, however, about the effects of
ambient exposures, which typically involve exposure to multiple
pollutants at lower levels. Improved understanding of the linkages
between these exposures and public health would strengthen EPA's
ability to make and evaluate decisions.

The indicators that describe the public health consequences of
environmental exposures are called environmental public health
indicators (EPHIs). Numerous national and international organiza-
tions have recognized the compelling need for EPHIs. The greatest
impetus came from a series of reports, by the Pew Environmental
Exhibit 4-1: Environmental public health paradigm
"** ). s . * a. 3 X* _ ... t, ,
[utant Formation
and Release
^Lfnom Source
Exposure/Contact I
Air, Water, and Land Chapters
- Individual
- Community
- Population
Adverse Outcomes
Mortality and
Morbidity
: Modified from National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the federal Government Managing the Process 1983

• •—-"—s—".-^~~~—<—-——__i^uu__^UUE ***itmf™li*mma&atmtmlnimfauimau^
Chapter 4 - Human Health
4.0 Introduction
4-3
-------
TecMcal Document
raft Report on the Ehyironi^ent 2p|)|
Health Commission, which called on "Congress and the White House
to protect Americans from chronic diseases—by tracking where and
when these health problems occur and possible links to environmen-
tal factors." The commission proposed that a Nationwide Health
Tracking Network be established to track selected diseases and
priority environmental exposures (Pew, 2001). When combined with
other information, such as environmental monitoring data and data
from toxicological, epidemiological, or clinical studies, EPHIs can be
an important key to improving understanding of the relationship
between pollution and health outcomes.
Use of Environmental Public Health
Indicators

Environmental public health indicators can be used to:
• Describe the health status of a population and discover
important time trends in disease and exposure frequency.
Most, if not all, of the indicators presented in this chapter
perform this function.
• Explain the occurrence or prevalence of diseases and exposure
by helping to identify causal factors for specific diseases or
trends. For example, the decline in the lung cancer rate in men
has been related to the decline in smoking. For some areas
presented in this chapter, the evidence for a relationship is
quite strong (e.g., air pollution and pulmonary-cardiovascular
related-illnesses). Other areas will require further research to
better understand these linkages.
• Predict the number of disease occurrences and the distribu-
tion of exposure in specific populations. Such predictions
could be used, for example, as input for setting priorities and
making decisions to protect public health—e.g., establishing
cleanup levels for environmental waste sites or regulatory levels
for ambient pollutant levels. (Understanding the relationship
between exposure and consequent health effects is critical to
using indicators for predictive purposes.)
• Evaluate policy decisions or interventions. (Again, understand-
ing the relationship between exposure and effect is critical for
this use.)
Two types of environmental public health indicators are described
in this chapter:
• Health outcome indicators. These indicators measure the occur-
rence in a population of diseases or conditions that are known or
believed to be caused to some degree or exacerbated by exposure
to environmental pollutants or stressors.
• Exposure indicators. While there are four types of exposure
indicators (see sidebar), this chapter focuses on biomonitoring
indicators, which involve using tests of human fluid and tissue
samples to identify the presence of a substance or combination
of substances in the human body.
S^
For some of the EPHIs. described in this chapter, a strong linkage has
been established between environmental exposure and outcome.
However, for many of the EPHIs presented, such as the outcome
indicator of overall mortality, no linkage between environmental
exposure and outcome has been determined. For these, further
research, would be needed to establish and strengthen any linkages.
Similarly, for some EPHIs, the linkage with the source of the pollution
is clear (e.g., lead in gasoline), while for others the source or sources
are much less certain. ' - .
if fypes of Exposure Indicators

Four j pproaches can be used to measure pr estimate exposure
(i.e., t irect human contact with a pollutant). No approach is
best": uited to all pollutants. Different approaches are
appropriate to different types of pollutants, and each approach
has si rengths and weaknesses.
• Arrbient pollutant measurements. Historically,
en\ ironmental measurements "of arobjent pollutant
concentrations have generally beerj used to estimate hupian
exposures. One limitation of ambient measurements is that
the "presence of a pollutant in the environment does not
necessarily mean that anyone has been exposed. Chapters 1
(Cleaner Air), 2 (Purer Water), arid 3 (Better Protected
Laiiid) provide examples of ambient measurement indicators.
• Stochastic models of exposure. This approach combines '.'.'.
knowledge of environmental pollutant concentrations with
information on people's activities and locations (e.g., time
spent working, exercising outdoors, sleeping, shopping) to
account for their contact with pollutants. This approach
requires knowledge of pollutant levels where people live,
work and play, as well as knowledge of the choice's thai t'Hey
make in regard to day-to-day activities. .......

• Personal monitoring data. With personal monitoring, the
mmbnifoTing''datar'S"everal environmental pollutants, '
nctably heavy metals and some pesticides, can be found it),.:
: th]l body. These, pollutants or their breakdown products (ue.,
metabolites formed when a pollutant is broken dpwh in the
; b|ray) leave residues that can be measured in human tissue
ouj.uicjs such as. blood or urine. These residues je fleet the^ ^^
a|Eunt of the pollutant that actually gets into the body, tut by"
trfimselves they provide no information on how the individual
came into contact with the pollutant.
1
4-4
4.0 Introduction
Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------
the Environment 2Q03: • ^chrik
Document
One of the greatest challenges to elucidating the connection between
environmental exposure and disease is the fact that exposure to an
environmental pollutant or stressor is rarely the sole cause of an adverse
health outcome. More generally, individuals are exposed to more than
one pollutant at a time, and exposure is just one of several factors that
contribute to the disease occurring or to the severity of a preexisting
disease. Other factors include, for example, diet, exercise, alcohol
consumption, heredity, medications, and whether other diseases are also
present Also, different people have different vulnerabilities, so some may
experience effects to certain ambient exposure levels while others may
not. All these factors make it difficult to establish a causal relationship
between exposure to environmental pollutants and disease outcome
except in rare cases, such as some historical occupational exposures,
where exposure was unusually high.

This chapter presents a broad spectrum of indicators that can now be
used, or could potentially be employed in the future, to assess and track
the public health impacts of environmental exposures. These indicators
provide an overview of the health and exposure of people in the U.S.
and identify the trends of those indicators in the U.S. Specific indicators
for exposure and outcomes in children are presented, as children may
be especially susceptible to_environmental pollutants.

This chapter is organized into six sections:

• Section 4.1 describes three case studies that illustrate the role of
indicators in establishing linkages between effects and outcomes
and in evaluating environmental management actions.

• Section 4.2 compares health measures within the U.S. to these
same measures throughout the rest of the world.
• Section 4.3 discusses outcome indicators and trends for selected
diseases that either have a major impact on the health .of people
in the U.S. or may be caused to some extent by environmental
pollution. Exhibit 4-2 lists the key public health questions thatare
asked in this section and the indicators that are available to help
answer these questions.

• Section 4.4 presents biomonitoring indicators and trends for spe-
cific environmental pollutants. The section begins by providing
background on biomonitoring indicators and their limitations and
data sources. The section then presents biomonitoring indicators
for numerous specific pollutants and discusses other important
pollutants for which biomonitoring data are not yet available.
Exposure information for many of these pollutants is discussed in
Chapters 1 (Cleaner Air), 2 (Purer Water), and 3 (Better
Protected Land) of this report. The key exposure questions asked
in this section and the indicators available to help answer these
questions are presented in Exhibit 4-2.

• Section 4.5 discusses an emerging field that attempts to quantify
the overall burden of environmental disease on society.
• Section 4.6 discusses the key challenges and data gaps for
understanding the link between environmental exposure and
health outcomes, and some recent government activities to
continue and advance the work in this area.
Many federal and state government agencies collect data that
underlie environmental public health indicators. Continued effective
coordination and collaboration among such agencies will be vital to
further the development and use of environmental public health
indicators. Key data sources used for this chapter include the:

• World Health Organization (WHO), World Health Statistics
Annual, a joint effort by the national health and statistical admin-
istrations of many countries, the United Nations, and WHO.

• United Nations, Demographic Yearbook, a comprehensive
collection of international demographic statistics compiled from
questionnaires sent annually and monthly to national statistical
services and other government offices.

• National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics
System, which provides data on births, deaths, marriages, and
divorces in the U.S. since 1933.

• National Center for Health Statistics, National Health
Interview Survey (NHIS), a continuous nationwide survey in
which data on personal and demographic characteristics, illnesses,
injuries, impairments, chronic conditions, utilization of health
resources, and other health topics are collected through personal
household interviews.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology
Program Office, National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance
System, which provides weekly provisional information on the
occurrence of diseases defined as notifiable (i.e., a disease
that health providers must report to state or local public health
officials due to its contagiousness, severity, or frequency).
• National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute,
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program,
which provides data on all residents diagnosed with cancer in
11 geographic areas of the U.S.

• The EPA's National Human Exposure Assessment Survey
(NHEXAS), a multiday, multimedia study that examined
chemical concentrations in indoor air, outdoor air, dust, soil, food,
beverages, drinking water, and tap water.

• National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a series of surveys
designed to collect data on the health and nutritional status of
the U.S. population. Chemicals and their metabolites were
measured in blood and urine samples from selected participants.

The chapter is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it provides a
snapshot, at the national level, of the current U.S. environmental
public health indicators and status based on key data sources with
sufficiently robust design, quality assurance, and maturity. The
chapter does not provide health status information that may be
more applicable to certain geographic areas or to subgroups with
potentially greater susceptibility to environmental pollution due to
such factors as age, genetics, lifestyle, or medical status.
Chapter 4 - 'Human Health 4.1 Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes
4-5
-------
, —~ : 1 * " if, -

£FAs Draft teport on the Environment 2003
ecnnica
BWSBil^

Exhibit U-2: Human Health - Questiqhs and indicators
!
s
i

i
r -
i.
•s -Health Status of the U.S. : Indicators and Trends,Ef Health and Disease
I *- «
0,,«r«n i ' i i . Indicator ^ame i: ; j
What are the trends for life expectancy?

What arc the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma?
What are the trends for gastrointestinal illness?
What arc the tends for children's environmental health issues?
Life expectancy
l_ancer mortality
Cancer incidence
Cardiovascular disease mortality
Cardiovascular disease prevalence
Chronic obstructive pulmona 7 disease mortality
Asthma mortality
Asthma prevalence
Cholera prevalence
Cryptosporidiosis prevalence
E. coli O157:H7 prevalence
Hepatitis A prevalence
Salmonellosis prevalence
Shigellosis prevalence
Typhoid fever prevalence
Infant mortality
Low birthweight incidence
Childhood cancer mortality
Childhood cancer incidence
Childhood asthma mortality
Childhood asthma prevalence
Deaths due to birth defects
Birth defect incidence
*- it
Category ],.;. [
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1

' 1
] Section 1 1
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4

1 | i Measuring Exposure to Environmental follutioi|: Indicators and trends, r , t
Question [ : , - i , , ,

What is the level of exposure to heavy metals?

What is the level of exposure to cotinine?
What is the level of exposure to volatile organic compounds?
What is the level of exposure to pesticides?
What is the level of exposure to persistent
organic pollutants?
What are the trends in exposure to environmental
pollutants for children? _,
What is the level of exposure to radiation?
What is the level of exposure to air pollutants?
Wttatis the level of exposure to biological pollutants?
What is the level of exposure to disinfection by-products?
Indicator Name i
Blood lead level
Urine arsenic level
Blood mercury level
Blood cadmium level
Blood cotinine level
Blood volatile organic compound levels
Urine organophosphate levels to indicate pesticides
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Blood lead level in children
Blood mercury .level in children
Blood cotinine level in children
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Cleaner Air chapte •
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Categrku
1
2
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1

Section j 1
4.4.3
4.4.3
4.4.3
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4.7
4.4.8
4.4.8
4.4.8
4.4.9
4.4.9
4.4.9
4.4.9
4-6
4.0 Introduction
Chapter U - Human Health
-------
Tecnriical DocunientM Efir\i| Draft Report oh tke Environment 20Q3

U.I Environmental Follution
and Disease: Links
"Between txposure and
Health Outcomes
Many studies have demonstrated an association between environ-
mental exposure and certain diseases or other health problems. '
Examples include radon and lung cancer; arsenic and cancer in
several organs; lead and nervous system disorders; disease-causing
bacteria such as £. coli O157:H7 (e.g., in contaminated meat and
water) and gastrointestinal illness and death; and particulate matter
and aggravation of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

As mentioned in Section 4.0, indicators of outcome and exposure
can be important tools both for elucidating these links and monitor-
ing the success of environmental management efforts. Indicators are
one of several components needed to establish linkage. Other
important components include ambient pollutant measures and toxi-
cological, epidemiological, and clinical studies. Three case studies
are described in this section to demonstrate how indicators can be
used to establish associations between exposure and effect and to
evaluate environmental management actions.
fever each year. Deaths due to diarrhea-like illnesses, including
typhoid, cholera, and dysentery, represented the third largest cause
of death in the nation.

Then scientists identified the bacteria responsible for most diarrhea
deaths (typhoid, cholera, and dysentery) and elucidated how these ,
bacteria were transmitted to and among humans. Infected and
diseased individuals shed large quantities of microbes in their feces,
which flowed into and contaminated major water supplies. The -
contaminated water was then distributed untreated to communities,
which used the water for drinking and other purposes. This created a
continuous transmission cycle.

When treatment (filtration and chlorination) of drinking water was
initiated to remove pathogens, the number of deaths due to
diarrhea diseases dropped dramatically. Deaths due to typhoid fever
were tracked throughout the early 20th century, as drinking water
treatment was implemented across the country. Exhibit 4-3 shows
the percent of the U.S. population that had treated water and the
disease rate for typhoid fever from 1880-to 1980.

In this example, the outcome measure was death rates due to
typhoid, which was used in conjunction with an environmental
process (the number of people getting treated drinking water)
to evaluate and promulgate the use of drinking water treatment
across the U.S.

Drinking water treatment was one of the great public health success
stories of the 20th century (NAE, 2000). It dramatically and
significantly reduced death rates from waterborne disease, increasing
C_ase jtudy on Waterborne Di
isease
This case study focuses on the impact of drinking
water treatment on the decrease in mortality related
to waterborne diseases. It demonstrates the valuable
contribution to public health protection that can
occur when the link between exposure and health
outcomes is successfully made. As the case study
describes, officials knew there was a high incidence of
gastrointestinal disease, but they were not able to
protect human health until they understood what
caused these diseases. Based on this connection,
officials were able to take effective action to protect
public health. They also were able to use an outcome
measure (deaths due to typhoid) to evaluate the
success of these protective actions.

At the beginning of the 20th century, waterborne
diseases such as typhoid fever and cholera were
major health threats across the U.S. More than
ISO in every 100,000 people died from typhoid
txhioit £1-3 tercent of population with treated water
s versus typhoid deaths in the United States, 1880-1980
-=$
^«?fe*^;p-r,4,^«^^JMt^^^ „,

-stf^K'Wj^^rnfc^r-^i^^^^^^^^^^lF^iti'i'.';",I'1^."«1

r^rls|communicationi_^6p3.L|. ,'; r ./ -;•- . J_: .,., ."j, 17;.'.' .. , -V> •''"' -.'- • "., ••". • •'. ' ',.'•'- ' -'-''-..' P'!'
V_napter 4 - tiuman Health 4.1 Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes
4-7
-------
EPAs Draft Report on the Environment 20d3
echnica
IE
I "' i
Uocuniierit
life expectancy and reducing infant mortality. Today, public health is
protected against new and emerging waterborne microbial
contaminants by continual improvements to the drinking water
treatment process and continual monitoring of waterborne diseases.
Deaths due to cholera, typhoid, and dysentery are so rare in this
country that they do not provide valuable information for evaluating
the public health impacts of drinking water treatment Instead, the
number of cases of these diseases are tracked to some extent,
although reporting is not federally required. Indicators for
waterborne disease and other important diseases with actual or
potential environmental origins are discussed in Section 4.3.

Case Study on Air iollution

This case study illustrates how the association between deaths and peak
air pollution concentrations was initially discovered by comparing mortali-
ty rates and air monitoring data. It also describes how basic research on
the health effects of air pollution has helped to establish strong linkages
between levels of certain air pollutants and human health effects. These
associations have provided sufficient basis for establishing regulations to
control the level of pollutants in air. The success of these environmental
management efforts can be evaluated by monitoring levels of regulated
pollutants in air. However, except for lead (the subject of the third case
study below), there are as yet no biomonitoring or outcome indicators
that can more directly measure reduced human exposure or outcome on a
national level. Nevertheless, a number of potential outcome indicators are
discussed tliat could be available in the future if systems can be set up to
track relevant biomonitoring or outcome data with sufficient reliability
and coverage at a national level.

Air pollution has been associated with several human health out-
comes, including reported symptoms (nose and throat irritation),
acute onset or exacerbation of existing disease (e.g., asthma, hospi-
talizations due to cardiovascular disease), and deaths. The impact of
air pollution on health was underscored in London in December of
1952, when a slow-moving area of high pressure came to a halt over
the city. Fog developed, and particulate and sulfur pollution began
accumulating in the stagnating air mass. Smoke and sulfur dioxide
concentrations built up over 3 days. Mortality records showed that
deaths increased in a pattern very similar to that of the pollution
measurements. (This is illustrated in Exhibit 4-4.) It was estimated
that 4,000 extra deaths occurred over a 3- to 4-day period. This
was the first quantitative air pollution exposure data with a link to an
adverse health outcome (i.e., mortality).

While the London episode highlighted the hazard of extreme air
pollution episodes, it was unclear whether health effects were
associated with lower concentrations. By the 1970s, the association
between respiratory disease and particulate and/or sulfur oxide air
pollution had been well established (Dockery and Pope, 1997).

Clinical studies (controlled studies in healthy adult subjects) also
provide information about the association between air pollutants and
health effects. For example, these studies have demonstrated that
ozone causes a number of functional, symptomatic, and inflammatory
responses, which tend to increase with an increase in ozone exposure
dose (EPA, 1!?96). Effects of ozone include:

•I Decreased pulmonary function, characterized by changes in lung
volumes and flow; changes in airway resistance and
responsiveness; and respiratory symptoms, such as cough and
pain on deep inspiration (EPA, 1996).

• An inflamii|iatory response in the lungs (EPA, 1996).

Based on these types of associations from toxicological, epidemio-
logical, and clinical studies, EPA has established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for six pollutants of concern: ozone, particulate
matter, carbcin monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.
These standards set limits to protect human health, including the
health of "sensitive populations" such as asthmatics, children, and
the elderly (EPA, 1999). '

Improvements in measuring air pollution and health endpoints,
together with advances in analytical techniques, have made it
possible to begin to quantitatively evaluate the success of air
pollution control measures—such as the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and associated regulations—to protect and
improve public health. Though insufficient data were available at the
time of this report to develop EPHIs for any criteria pollutants
except lead, possible future EPHIs for air pollution include death due
to respiratory and cardiovascular disease as well as increased hospital
admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular disease.

4-8
4.1 Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes
Chapter 4 - Human
-------
^

feSS^K'E*.asSiasS :*=
Future EPHIs include:

• Mortality. In many countries including the U.S., particulate air
pollution has been associated with increased daily mortality from
heart and lung diseases (e.g., congestive heart disease, chronic
obstructive lung disease). In addition, chronic exposure to air
pollution has been linked with increased risk of premature
mortality (EPA, April 2002).

• Hospital admissions. Hospitalization records are not widely
available, and studies have been limited by their availability in
communities around the U.S. Nevertheless, many studies have
shown that increased admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory
diseases are associated with increased pollutant concentrations.

Most recently, subtle changes in the cardiovascular system that
can increase a person's risk of heart attack and bring about other
cardiovascular effects have been identified as possible EPHIs.

Establishing EPHIs for air pollution and health effects, whether
cardiovascular or pulmonary, is still challenged by limits in knowledge
of how much air pollution contributes to the risk of both
cardiovascular and respiratory disease. Research is still needed to
better understand which components of air pollution (i.e., gases,
metals, or organics) cause health effects; the extent to which they
contribute to risk; and the extent to which other factors (e.g.,
genetics, lifestyle, age) contribute to risk. Given these limitations, no
indicators are presented for any of the six criteria pollutants except
lead. A case study on lead is presented below, with further
discussion on lead as an indicator provided in Section 4.4.

Case Study on Lead

The third case study concerns lead, a toxic pollutant to which there is
human exposure from many different sources. In the previous case studies,
outcome indicators were an important key to establishing a linkage
between a health effect and its cause. Understanding the cause enabled
officials to take action to protect public health. In the case of lead,
though it was a known toxin, exposure came from so many sources that it
was difficult to know what actions at the national level would effectively
reduce lead exposure. Once regulations to do so were put in place,
biomonitoring data provided a way to evaluate the success of this
environmental management effort in reducing exposure to lead in the U.S.

Lead is a neurotoxic metal that affects areas of the brain that regu-
late behavior and nerve cell development (NAP, 1993). Its adverse
effects range from subtle responses to overt toxicity, depending on
how much lead is taken into the body and the age and health status
of the person (CDC, 1991).

Currently in the U.S:, human exposure to lead may occur in several
ways, as listed in Exhibit 4-5. For example:
• Homes built before 1978, commercial buildings, and steel struc-
tures may contain deteriorating lead-based paint, which creates
lead-contaminated dust (EPA, 1996). An estimated 24 million
housing units in the U.S. are at risk for containing some lead paint
hazards (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
2000). Of these, 16 million homes with lead-based paint have
children in residence who are younger than 6 years old.

• Other sources of lead exposure include lead-contaminated soil,
dust, and drinking water; industrial emissions; and miscellaneous
sources (CDC, 1991).

For many years, the largest source of lead in the U.S. environment
came from leaded gasoline. Elemental lead was emitted in the
exhaust and settled on the ground and in people's homes.

Most lead enters the body via ingestion and inhalation, after which it
is absorbed by the bloodstream. Also, lead can cross the placenta,
exposing the fetus to lead (EPA, 1996). In adults, most lead poison-
ing is associated with occupational exposures.

Infants, children, and fetuses are more vulnerable to the effects of
lead because'their blood-brain barrier is not fully developed
(Nadakavukaren, 2000). In addition, ingested lead is more readily
absorbed into a child's bloodstream. Children absorb 40 percent of
ingested lead into their bloodstreams, while adults absorb only 10
percent. In children, three major organ systems are affected by lead:
the nervous system (the brain), the kidney, and the blood-forming
organs (NRC, 1993).
Lead-based paint
Homes (built before 1978)
Commercial buildings
Steel structures (bridges, water towers)
Lead-contaminated
soil and dust
Industrial emissions
Past leaded gasoline use
Deteriorating lead-based paint
Lead-contaminated
drinking water
Leaded plumbing solder
(now banned)
Miscellaneous Home hobbies - art, jewelry,
fishing weights
Use of pewter dishware
Cosmetics, traditional medicines
Parental occupations
gpurce CDC. Preventing lead Poisoning in Young Children 1991.
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.1 Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes
4-9
-------
EFAs Draft feort on the Environment 2003 • Technical Document
l'"T :: I ••'•'!- • . :||:, ;,
As awareness of the health effects of lead has increased, the CDC
has lowered the level considered to be a human health hazard
(Exhibit 4-6) (CDC, 1991). In 1970, a blood lead level of 40 micro-
grams per deciliter (Ug/dL) or higher was considered a hazard.
Today, 10 |Jg/dL or higher is considered a hazard (EPA, December
2000). Recent research suggests that blood lead levels less than 10
(Jg/dL may still produce subtle, subclinical health effects in children
(Schmidt, 1999). In 1984, an estimated 6 million children and
400,000 fetuses were exposed to lead at levels that placed them at
risk for adverse effects (NAP, 1993). Approximately 4.4 percent of
all U.S. children in the 1990s had elevated blood lead levels (NCEH,
1998). As of 1998, an estimated 1 million U.S. children had blood
lead levels above 10 Mg/dL (NCEH, 1998).

Lead is one of the few pollutants for which biomonitoring and link-
age data are sufficient to clearly evaluate environmental management
efforts to reduce lead in the environment. The National Center for
Health Statistics' National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES), a national survey of the health status of the U.S. popula-
tion, has determined blood lead levels for the U.S. population since
the early 1970s. In the 1970s, lead poisoning occurred increasingly
in children who did not live in dwellings with lead-based paint,
suggesting that another source or sources of lead exposure were
of even greater concern than lead paint. Research found that
combustion of leaded gasoline was the primary source of lead in
the environment EPA promulgated two regulations:
• One required the availability of unleaded fuel for automobiles
designed to meet federal emission standards (e.g., catalytic
converters) (EPA, 1973).
fc Exhibit U-6: Blood lead levels considered elevated by the ^
'.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Public ,
1 : HealtK Service, 1970-1990
„ 1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
|

fcSWMSK,£fiC. Prmntmg I-""* ftiisorring in Young CWWren. 1991.
d
in Hiiiniii 111 inn u i in • in iii iii i n«iff i i
• The second required a reduction of the lead content in leaded
gasoline (EPA, 1986).

Over the next decade, peak outdoor-air lead concentrations
decreased as a result of these controls. Exhibit 4-7 compares the
amount Of lead used in gasoline production and the average blood
lead levels provided by the NHANES from 1976 to 1980. The
NHANES survey found a similar decline in children's blood lead levels
(Exhibit 4-8). In 1991, a report from the National Academy of
Sciences predicted that declining ambient lead levels would reduce
the average.blood lead level to less than IS Ug/dL By the late
1990s, the average blood lead level in the U.S. for children was
3 |Jg/dL (Schmidt, 1999). These data show a demonstrable effect
between regulatory actions to control lead and human exposure.

id used in qasoW production
f ^^^K&^fAMMs^iAi^ffy'iAtf^ii^iS
ik, .4 *,*-* ««y^«gK*afe;fe!WS*S^
* i V«« /-,^~ *to^'>:.n^.te***^iS!S«*^*-i!^yfe|iii
;d rates per TOQ.OOO people . |
'iS*iiSliiS|
Lead used in gasoline
Average blood lead (ug/dL)
icit Measunn^ le^w Expdswres7n/nfonts, •
i^i'n-lfcVVW (>Tn»W,T&f"l^-j;Ar^S*1".'a1f;"X>ai%W>* IV.JJi.-lft^HSlW^r
fe?i^-;;:,?v^;iK«J^'a*'P"?-.^^i .' ,.-;:«,>:,;--?-»;;;»;' :-.,i: ISr., fc.s,;,3;;,,;,;.rj.
4-10
4.1 Environmental Pollution and Disease: Links Between Exposure and Health Outcomes Chapter U - Human Health
-------
'" • ' * * '"''-• i "•••••" •- " ' '° ~-~ . • .— .__

£fi^i:DraftReport on the Environment 2003
tlucidating Other Linkages
For all three case studies, the linkage between exposure and disease
is fairly strong. Subsequent sections of this chapter describe a
number of areas of concern regarding the potential human health
impacts of environmental exposure. The linkage in these areas ranges
from strong to weak. For example, in some cases outcome indicators
are available, but scientists are not yet sure how much of that
outcome is contributed by environmental factors. In other cases,
biomonitoring indicators are available, but scientists are not sure
whether the presence of a contaminant in the body at the levels
shown by the indicators causes adverse health effects. These areas
are discussed in this chapter, despite relatively weak linkages,
because the use of outcome and biomonitoring indicators is a
developing area. Understanding of linkages will be strengthened
over time as more research is conducted to develop environmental
public health indicators and other data that reveal how pollutants
contribute to disease.
Exnibit 4-8: Concentration of lead in Uood of
age 5 and under, 1976-198O 1988-1991,
Li' 1992-1994,1999-2000
children
"T
"4
25
*<* 20
15
S .1QU
Err
90th percentile (10 percent of
_ children have this blood lead level
or greater)
Median value
(SO percent of children
have this blood lead level
or greater)
1976-
1980
1988- 1992-
1991 1994
1999- J
2000 J
10 jig/dL of blood lead has been identified by CDC as elevated, which
indicates the need for int^rver^on, (CDC Preventing Lead Po,Son,ng m
Young Children 1991.)

Recent research suggests that bipod Jewels less than 10 (ig/dl. may still
produce subtle, subclinical heajth, effects m children (Schmidt, C W
Poisoning Young Minds. 1999.)

Source- U S ^Environmental Protection Agency America's Children and the
Environment-Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses, Second
Edition February 2003. Data from CDC, National Center for Health
Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Bafiwahoji Survey, 1976-
2000
- J
4.2 Health Status of the

U.j. C-ompared to the

Rest of the World

Several measures are used worldwide to describe health status.
These indicators include life expectancy (i.e., the number of years
people can expect to live at birth), the number of infant deaths, and
the major causes of deaths.

Collecting and reporting the data necessary to compare these
measures between nations is a challenge. Yet, as travel and
communications increasingly link the health of nations in the world,
the importance of having comparable information has increased.
Fortunately, considerable progress has been made to improve the
comparability of the necessary data among nations.

In addition to enabling comparisons of health status, the data also
can be used to inform U.S. environmental health policy and
programs, to focus research efforts, and to provide insights into
linkages between environmental factors and health.

Life Expectancy

Life expectancy is the average number of years at birth that a
group of infants would live if throughout life they experienced the
age-specific death rates present at birth. In 2000, life expectancy at
birth for all people in the U.S. was a record 76.9 years (Pastor, et al.,
2002). In 1997, the U.S. ranked 19th in terms of life expectancy for'
both females and males when compared with other countries
(Exhibit 4-9). Life expectancy at birth varies widely, both between
males and females and between nations. For both sexes, Japan
reports the highest life expectancy of all nations, with males
- expected to live 772 years and females expected to live 83.8 years.

Infant Mortality

Infant mortality is a particularly useful measure of health status
because it indicates both the current health status of the population
and predicts the health of the next generation (NCHS, 2001).
Between 1970 and 2000, the infant mortality rate in the U.S.
declined from 20.0 to 6.9 per 1,000 live births, the lowest ever
recorded in the U.S. (Pastor, et al., 2002; Mannino and Smith,
2001). When compared to other countries, the U.S. ranked 11 th in
1960 with regard to infant mortality. In 1998, the U.S. ranked 28th
(Exhibit 4-10).
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World
4-11
-------
EFAs Draft Report on tne Environment 2OQ3
JL.
Leading Causes of Death

It Is customary to measure the health of a nation by listing the lead-
ing causes of death. Comparisons of the 10 leading causes of death
in the U.S. and for the world demonstrate that infectious diseases
are a major contributor to deaths outside of the U.S. Four of the 10
leading causes of death in the world are infectious diseases
(Exhibit 4-11). These diseases account for 20.3 percent of the
deaths worldwide. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the
U.S. as well as in the world. While heart disease accounts for nearly
one-third of the deaths in the U.S., it accounts for only 12.4 percent
of the deaths in the world.
Cancer Morbidity and Mortality
The age-adjusted cancer mortality rates for all body sites except skin
are higher for males than females in all of the countries presented in
Exhibit 4-12. There is wide variation among men and women in age-
adjusted cancer death rates. Hungary has the highest age-adjusted
total cancer (except skin) death rates for both males and females
(272.3 and 149.4 per 100,000 people, respectively). The U.S. ranks
16th for males, with an age-adjusted cancer death rate of 161.8 per
100,000, and 10th for females, with an age-adjusted cancer death
rate of 116.4 per 100,000. Sweden has the lowest age-adjusted
Exnitit 4-9: Life expectancy at birth,i:|ccording to sex,
United States and selected coifitries, 1997
• --T .-> •- .... 1^.. -..-. ->-..; .-...vfe- :•• •..•.•-:X".:.l*&!

Note:
least f
Source:
milfion'people.
Pastor* R.N., et al. Health. United States, 2I&02.
. (jgeinyedia Jit ,
lowest life, expectancy base j on the latest d|teha6rewfo^ountries^rge6gPaPh!c areas with at
4-12
4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World
Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------
°fi the;Environment 2003
ioit 4-10: Infant mortality rates per 1,000 live oirtns, ,
United States and selected countries, 1998
Hong kong
fesor^ i. Sweden
jlpi*~
/apan
Norway
, Finland
ISEX, f
1 f Singapore
1 Ife-^- France
(fc, • Germany
&, 4 Denmark
jf~ _» -Switzerland

H^ Austria
^™v Australia
|L Czech Republic
Is
SN>. . Netherlands
ft* i
SL, Canada

E=.— - " Italy

J"?}^ New Zealand

Is • Scotland

1*" Northern Ireland

E Belgium

Spain
nd and Wales

Israel

Greece

Portugal

Ireland

Cuba
United States
Slovakia

Kuwait

Poland

Hungary

Puerto Rico

Chile

Costa Rica

Bulgaria
EZL— "* Russia

Romania
B?2-
te,, .(
J!
IV — 1 4.2
-- '__J 4.6
; ^__J4.6
14.7
1 4.8 -

14.9
~ 15.0
15.2

; : 15.2

I 5.3

15.3

15.5

1 5.5

_ J 5.6

15.6

15.7
I 5.7

15.7

' -:----\ 5.7

15.9

16.2

S 7.1

1 8 8

I 9.4

..'. .19.5

19.7

110.5

. _ J10.9

1 12.6

114.4
1 16.4

1 20.5
till
} 5 10 15 20 2
JT

5!
Rate per 1,000 live births
1 f v
4 «„„ -; ^v
' Data for Ki^wait, Slovakia, and Spam are for 1996.

IT Source; Pastor, Jl.N., et al. Health. United States,2002. 2002.
cancer death rate for males, and Greece has the lowest rate
for females (137.9 and 81.8 per 100,000, respectively)
(United Nations, 2001).

The age-adjusted incidence of cancer for all sites except skin
varies widely among different countries (Exhibit 4-13).
Hungary reported the highest age-adjusted incidence of
cancers for males (405.4 per 100,000 people). New Zealand
had the highest age-adjusted cancer incidence rate for
females (303.2 per 100,000 people). The U.S. has the third
highest age-adjusted cancer incidence rates for both males
and females (361.4 and 283.2, respectively). Age-adjusted
cancer incidence rates are higher for males than females in
each of the countries presented in Exhibit 4-13 except
Denmark (GLOBOCAN 2000, 2001).

The varying incidence and mortality rates for cancer between
different countries could be due to many factors. Factors
related to the economic, social, cultural, psychological,
behavioral, and biological mechanisms that influence the
onset of cancer may contribute to these differences in rates
(NCI, 2002). A portion of these differences might also be
attributable to the varying prevalence of certain behavioral
risk factors for cancer—such as cigarette smoking, diet, and
alcohol consumption—within different countries. The
availability and use of certain drugs, such as anticancer and
immunosuppressive drugs, may also cause differences in the
rates of cancer among different countries. The extent to
which early diagnoses and treatment methods are available
and utilized could also account for some portion of the
variation in cancer rates among different countries, as could
variations in methods of classifying and reporting cancer.

For more on morbidity, mortality, and age-adjusted rates,
see Section 4.3.
Chapter 4 - Human Healtn
4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World
4-13
-------
EPAs Draft Report on the Environment 2003 • Technical Docur|i|h^
" 'LJUyX ' "' :" MMI^^
HflUliH
" ' , f' '" »- : L: •:"" • '• ' 'f
Cxnioit 4-11; NJumber of deaths and percent of total deaths;
l|

H
in
i
;
UN
I,,
L
! i
i

1
i
i

\ > world (including U.S.), 1990,
Lit H , h. [LI, i, ,1 iiailS;
•
i Cause of Death ;
World (Including U.S.) (1990)
All causes
Heart disease
Stroke
Lower respiratory infections
Diarrheal diseases
Conditions arising during the perinatal period
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Tuberculosis
Measles
Road traffic accidents
Trachea, bronchus and lung cancers
All other causes
United States (1999)
All causes
Heart disease
Cancer
Stroke
Chronic lower respiratory diseases
Accidents (unintentional injuries)
Diabetes mellitus
Influenza and pneumonia
Alzheimer's disease
Nephritis, nephritic syndrome, and nephrosis
Septicemia
All other causes
;,„ 'Sources: TOfid Resources Institute, e, t 'al. World Resources 'i'9,98-,99.
and Unite!
iSiSiiiiKSilSsiSi
iNumber
,6f Deaths

50,467,000
6,260,000
4,381,000
4,299,000
2,946,000
2,443,000
2,211 ,000
1,960,000
1,058,000
999,000
945,000
27,502,000

2,391 ,399
725,192
549,838
167,366
124,181
97,860
68,399
63,730
44,536
35,525
30,680
484,092
'l9S»8;'Ari3ef|
prJO Jeading causes of death,
Itates, 1999^
H3M539b££&3Mbl!!9&!S!£l!£S$^1&%!?!!?
'.;]
Percent of : I ^H
Total Deatjhs | j •

100.0
12.4
8.7
8.5
5.8
4.8
4.4
3.9
2.1
2.0
1.9
54.5

100.0
30.3
23.0
7.0
5.2
4.1
2.9
2.7
1-9
1.5
1.3
20.2

\ *
"i
;1
-•i
r,4
si

i?
I
i
'!
•' • 1
:'-.!
^
%
;,:-.|
;"1
;"!
/j
~i
1
3
3
"" "LS
•1
#&£
«8|
• : : " : n ii ; ; :.: ; • i::,,, ; ; '.;: .• .'^ 4^ • ^i&'^:£3jj^^
4-14
4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World
Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------

m
Exhibit 4-12: Age-adjusted cancer mortality rates for all sites except skin, Ly sex for selected countries, 20OO
Unjtedingdom __ -128-1
lreland 1 27. 8
Netherands 120
anada i:116.7
116.4
Austria 113.8
Nprwa
Slovakia 108.8

1673
161.8
United States

_Sweden104
JJwjtzerland J103.3
'Australia 2J 103.2
Russian Fed. ; 100.6
J 92-5
149.5
145.8
Bulgaria^ ^89.4
Portugal J89.1
_Spain_j85
Greece 81.8
260 220 180 140 100
Surce: United Nations. Demographic Yearbook, l!)99.2QOT.
60 20 , 60f
*Rate per 100,000 peopfe "
T
I
100 , 140, 180 220 260
300
_ Qiapter 4 - Human Health 4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World
4-15
-------
Exnitjit 4-13: Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates for all sites excepllljin, b^ sex
for selected countries, 2000
4-16
4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World
Chapter 4 - Human
-------

Pw=:a«vvr^\—x^e-rr—.•••• "--•
Exhibit 4-13: Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates for all sites except skin, by sex for selected countries, 2000
Males
405.4]

375.31

361.4]
359.3 1
355.3
Females
New Zealand 303.2
Denmark : 296.9
United States
United States

342.6J
335.2 j
323.4]
318.3
3123

299.7
299.6 J
290.511!

287.2
283.4
281
278
275-5
272.3
272.1
270.3

283.2
"Australia 1 279.3
275-9
Canada ! 266
Netherlands 253.4
Sweden; 250.1
2 249.8
I242-6
237.1
235.3
234.3
222.6
AustriaJ 219.6
~™IZOiE 217-8
SwrtzeriancT? 211.3
~SlovaEia"s 204.3 -.
d^^J 193.5
PortugaH 192.8
Romania^ 185.8
Bulgaria^! 180.4
japarT^ 170.5
Spain_ _^ 166.3
Greece :! 158
-~ 450 400 350 300 250
200 150 100 15J3 2.0Q
^ i
Incidence rate per 100,000 people
250 300 350 400 450
= Source GLOBOCAN. Cancer Incidence, Mortality, and Prevalence Worldwide, Version 1.0 2001, Internattonal Agency for Research on Cancer. 1ARC Cancer Base No. 5. 2001
4-16
4.2 Health Status of the U.S. Compared to the Rest of the World
Oiapter U - Human
-------
Technical Document • EfAs Draft Report on the fii4/ironm
Exhibit 4-12: Age-adjusted cancer mortality rates for all sites exce:
Hungary J149.4
144
ew Zealand 131 .1
jnite
-------

4.3 Health Status of the
U.J.: Indicators and Irend:
f Health and Di
Morbidity
o
isease
This section identifies key indicators of health outcomes (mortality
and disease) in the U.S. and describes trends for these outcomes.
These outcomes are featured in this report because they are
important measures of the health of people in the U.S., and/or
because environmental exposure does or may play a role in
contributing to the outcome.

The case study on air pollution, presented earlier in Section 4.1,
provides an example of how health outcome data can be used to
elucidate the linkage between pollution exposure and health
outcomes. In this case study, a comparison between mortality rates
and air monitoring data revealed an association between deaths and
peak air pollutant concentrations.
Mortality
Overall mortality is a key measure of health in a population. There
were more than 2,391,399 deaths in the U.S. in 1999 (Anderson,
2001), a number much larger than the 1,989,84T recorded in 1980.
The increase in the number of deaths reflects the increase in the size
and the aging of the U.S. population. The age-adjusted death rate for
all causes has declined steadily since 1950, from 1,446 per 100,000
people to, 876 in 1998. The age-adjusted death rates are higher for
men than for women, a relationship that has not changed over the
years. Heart disease, cancer, and stroke are the three leading causes of
death, accounting for about 60 percent of all deaths.

This section presents trends in life expectancy and in mortality
due to cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, and asthma. It also presents trends in mortality for children,
including infant mortality and mortality due to cancer, asthma, and
birth defects.

Unless otherwise noted, the death statistics are based on the
underlying cause of death and are compiled from death certificates.
The underlying cause of death is the disease or injury that is judged to
have initiated the events that led to death. The mortality rate is the
proportion of the population that dies of a disease. The rate is usually
calculated for a calendar year, is often expressed per 100,000
population, and is called the crude death rate.
Morbidity is another measure of health for a population. Morbidity
data are often described by using the incidence and prevalence of a
disease or condition:
• Incidence refers to the number of new cases of a disease or con-
dition in a given time period in a specified population.
• Prevalence refers to the total number of persons with a given
disease or condition in a specified population in a particular
time period.

This section provides information on trends for several diseases,
including cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and gastrointestinal
illness. It also examines trends in children's environmentally related
diseases, including cancer and asthma as well as low birthweight and
the incidence of birth defects.

C-omparison Across lime, Topulations, and (ueograpnic

Areas

Incidence, prevalence, and mortality statistics may be used to
compare the rates of disease at two or more points in time or across
different populations or between different geographic areas. These
comparisons are particularly useful to determine whether the
populations differ by some factor (often called a risk factor) that
is known or suspected of affecting the risk of developing the disease
or condition. For example, different populations that are compared
can be countries, workers in factories, or states.

In general, disease incidence, prevalence, and mortality increase with
age. For this reason, when comparing different populations, the data
must often be adjusted to account for the age differences between
the populations. The adjusted data, called "age-adjusted rates," are
used when appropriate in this chapter.
Terceived Well-Being
Another measure of health, perceived well-being, is discussed briefly
here, but is not covered by an indicator. The reporting of health as
excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor captures both the physical
health of the individual and the emotional aspects of well-being
(Kramarow, et al., 1999). In 1999, approximately 90 percent of the
population of the U.S. reported that they were in good, very good,
or excellent health (Eberhardt, et al., 2001), a slight increase from
89.6 percent in 1991. As might be expected, the percentage of
people reporting good-to-excellent health decreases with age. While
95 percent of those 18 to 44 years of age reported good-to-
excellent health, only 77 percent of persons 65 years of age and
older reported that they were in good-to-excellent health. Also,
non-Hispanic African Americans and Hispanics of all ages reported
worse health than non-Hispanic Whites (Eberhardt, et al., 2001).
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease . 4-1 7
-------
tr/vs Draft Mport $,NO!
OfjlcwS phuyrw
.

—
-

-
_

-
„
.

-
-3
-45.;
-49.8
66.51
39.3 I
•BBH
JBBH
)••
^•H;
a 20
9H izf
• 10.3
-------
Cancer mortality - Category 1 (continued)
Cancer incidence - Category 2 (continued)

_-~--~_J*__^ .^,. , , -^^^^^^^J
E Exhibit 4-14: Trends in United States cancer mortality rates and Surveillance, Epidemic ogy and End Results (SEER)
^ - incidence (annual percentage change 1973-1998)
Er Mortality Incidence
Sr^~
!^__ Lung (females)
||r Liver &, intrahep
g Non Hodgkm
fe?"» Melanomas of skin
ISr" "Multiple myeloma
i^
pttS? .".Esophagus
H^_ Kfdney/renaf
|%x=— - Brain &ONS
SF£ Lung (males)
~f- Prostate
&^T_ .All cancers
jS^ ~ Pancreas •
k_ Leukemia
js^ ~ Alt except lung
^~ Ovary
^L, ™_Breast (females)
|r _ ^ Larynx
aUS^n. ~ "^"Thyroid
^^ Urinary bladder
H^ , Colon/rectum
^Corpus & uterus, NOS
K£ ^ Oral cav & pharynx
Sr.^ Stomach
k— L Cervix i4ten
SPife— H.pdgfa'n's
E= Testis

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-?
-^
-2
-2
-31
-45.2
-49.8
«iayJi^--i..».mJi.MJJi.»i".m»a 150.6

m^
^im
^a3
?S 20
SI 17.S
JH 10.3
|J 4.4
1 1.6
i 0.0
-3.2 1
-9.0 1
-10.0^
13.0 •
4.2 B
4.7 B|
0.9 !S(
4.1 HS
.801
.1 BH
4 •!
tt@B{
f^s6t
66.5 BSSSSaaJ!
-^93
I 56 1
45.2
?5.8
2.7
4

- i
Melanbmas of skin
Lung, (females)
Prostate
b'ver & intrghep
Non-Hodgkin's
•Testis
Thyroid
Kidney/renal
Breast (females)
Ali cancers
AH except lung
Multiple myeloma
Brain S.ONS
Esophagus
Urinary bladder
Ovary
lung.(males)
Colon/rectum
ieukemias
Pancreas
Oral cav & pharynx
Hpdgkin's
Larynx
Corpus & uterus, NOS
Stomach
Cervix uteri
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
-

Jgjr,,,,,,,' ,-- -- ^—^-,-j; 14q ^

116 3
tew^sfcs— isj^4n

JKiSSSa^fi •?
£^^S4.9
ia^aite/
inat-;j>^
SB! 22.4
SI 21 d
8119.0
»17.6

llO.l
-l.ll
-4.8|
-S.9<
-6.7*
-9.5 g
-14.71
16.4 B
-?3.oB|
-26.3 IB!
-34.0 BB
-43.7 H|

if
1

'! *
i

' 'I
. ' '|
? " 1
; ...i

1 '• i
-"'i
."1
' 1
•••'I
j
1
5*
. •. .4
•• 1
-.".1
-'. '1
-'I
•'. J

•Sf
:.
iv
i*^. ~ "20° "15° •10° ~SO ° 50 10° 1SO 20° ^ -200 -150 -100 -JO 0 SO 100 ISO 200 '
|^ Percent change, 1973-1998 ^ Percent^change, 1973-1998
sf*?TQS » Not otherwise specified _ , ^ J
g-OI^S « Other nervous system |
?,Source Ries LAG, eta! Swrvq/fance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Cancer Statistics Review, 7573 1998 2001 * " 1

4-20 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health
Chapter 4 - Human .Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-23
-------
raft Report on the Environment 2003 • lecnnical Document

EPAs Draft "Report on the Environment 2003 • Ipchnical Documeht
includes five years 1997-2001. These include two diseases—cholera
and typhoid fever—that are rarely identified in this country. These
diseases are nevertheless included because they can be severe
illnesses and a sudden increase in their reporting would signal a
public health emergency for which prompt action would be needed.
In addition to the seven diseases discussed here, a number of other
gastrointestinal diseases are caused by microorganisms. These
include giardiasis, caused by the pathogen Giardia. Giardiasis has
become notifiable only as recently as 2002 (CDC, 2003), so no
indicator is available at this time.
The primary means of transmission for the seven diseases reported
here is oral-fecal. The disease microbes shed in the feces of infected
individuals and then can be transmitted to humans through food,
water, person-to-person contact, or contact with ill animals. The
seven diseases are cholera, cryptosporidiosis, E. coli O157:H7,
Hepatitis A, salmonellosis, shigellosis, and typhoid fever. Exhibit 4-22
shows the incidence of each for 1997 through 2001.
Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Associated wit* Drinking Water 1971 -2000
Since 1971, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), EPA, and the Couij oil of State and Territorial Epidemiologists have
maintained a collaborative surveillance system for the occurrences and causes of water!: orne-disease outbreaks (WBDO). These data are only
a small part of the larger body of information related to drinking water quality in the United States. State, territorial, and local public health
agencies are primarily responsible for detecting and investigating WBDOs and voluntary reporting them to CDC these data are used to
identify types of water systems, their deficiencies, the etiologic agents (e.g., microorgar
evaluate current technologies for providing safe drinking water and safe recreational wa
sms and chemicals) associated with outbreaks, and to
ers. This system reports outbreaks and estimated
numbers of people who become ill. It does not provide information on non-outbreak re ated or endemic levels of waterborne illness.
Moreover, the focus is on acute illness. The system does not address chronic illnesses s
CDC and EPA are collaborating on a series of epidemiology studies to assess the magn tude of non-outbreak waterborne illness associated
with consumption of municipal drinking water.
Between 1971 and 2000, there were 751 reported waterborne disease outbreaks associ
ty systems, and community water systems (Exhibit 4-21). During 1999-2000,
community systems, and 12 from community systems) associated with drinking water
ted with drinking water from individual, non-communi-
a total of 44 outbreaks (18 from private wells, 14 from non-
; reported by 25 states (Craun and Calderon, 2003).
However, these data should be interpreted with caution. Many factors can influence
local, territorial, and state public health agencies. For example, the size of the outbre
public awareness of the outbreak, whether people seek medical care or report to a
laboratory testing for organisms, and resources for investigation can all influence
This system underreports the true number of outbreaks because of the multiple stej
investigated. Thus, an increase in the number of outbreaks reported could either refj
and reporting at the local and state level.
Exnibit 4-21: Number or reported waterborne diseasi
with drinking water by year and type of water system, Unite
:h as cancer, reproductive, or developmental effects.
Ic'call
hether a WBt)O is recognized and investigated by
k, severity of the disease caused by the outbreak,
:al health authority, reporting requirements, routine
the identification and investigation of a WBDO.
; required before an outbreak is identified and
ct an actual increase or improved surveillance
ifr
•outbreaks associated
! Btates, 1971-2000 (n=75l)
Type of Water System*
IHH Non-community
•Non-community water systems are systems that either (1) regularly supply water to at least 25 of the s|
Krtooh, f«tori«s, office buildings, and hospitals that have their own water systems), or (2) provide water ij
a JJS iUtion of campground). ' ' *

Individual water systems .are not regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act and serve fewer than 25 persoij
*
Community water jystems provide water to at least 25 of the same people or service connections year roj

Source; Based on data pre;ented in Craun, G.F. and R.L Calderon. Waterborne Outfcreafo in the United States^

\e peopfe at least 6 months per year, but not year round (e.g.,
1 place where people do not remain for long periods of time (e.g.,
fe , ,™ 0^,, ^ ^ * 5 «,

i or 15 service connections, including many private wells.
20Q3,
4-26 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease .Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------

The data source for these seven indicators is the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National
Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. This system provides weekly
provisional information from the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE) on the occurrence of diseases defined as
notifiable. A notifiable disease is one that, when diagnosed, health
providers report to state or local public health officials. Notifiable
diseases are of public interest because of their contagiousness, -
severity, or frequency (Pastor, et al., 2002). State epidemiologists
report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabulates and
publishes -these data in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
(MMWK) and Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Policies
for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or report-
ing jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recommend
additions or deletions to the list of nationally notifiable diseases
based on the need to respond to emerging priorities. Reporting
nationally notifiable 'diseases to CDC, however, is voluntary. Reporting is
currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state
level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are considered notifiable
varies slightly by state.

Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and
determining relative disease burdens. These data, however, must be
interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of
completeness of data reporting is influenced by many factors such as
the diagnostic facilities available; the control measures in effect;
public awareness of a specific disease; and the interests, resources,
and priorities of state and local officials responsible for disease
control and public health surveillance. Finally, factors such as
changes in case definitions for public health surveillance,
introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease
entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent
of the true incidence of disease.
1997 • 1998 M 1999
H 2000 • 2001
Exhibit 4-22: Prevalence of reported gastrointestinal diseases, United States, 1997-2001
Cryptosporidiosis E. co/i O1 57:H7
t ^ „ » * r»iWi wJ-.-» Disease
gyrces CDC Notice to Readers- Final 2001 Reports of Notifiable Diseases. 2002; CDC Notice to Readers Ftnal 2000 Reports of Notifiable Diseased 2001, CDC Notice to Readers
Inai 1999 Reports of Notifiable Diseases. 2000. CDC. Notice to Readers: Final 1998 Reports ofNabfiqble Diseases 1999, CDC Notice to Readers Final 1997 Reports of Notifiable
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Di:
Disease 4-27
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-29
-------
EfAs Draft "Report on the Environment 20Q3 • technical DocurneM
lf?nCP_ — \.nolprfl — y ^pit'pnf
__l , ! I
E"PAs Draft "Report on the Environment 20O3 • Technical Documejfij:
Infectious disease prevalence - Salmonellosis - Category[2
Salmonellosis is a disease caused by one of the more than 2,000
strains of the bacterial genus Salmonella. Most persons infected
with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12
to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days,
and most persons recover without treatment, though antibiotics
can be used. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so
severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. In these patients,
the Salmonella infection may spread from the intestines to the
bloodstream and then to other body sites. It can cause death
unless the person is treated promptly with antibiotics. The elderly,
infants, and those with impaired immune systems are more likely
to become severely ill from salmonellosis (CDC, 2001 f).
What the Data Show

Every year, approximately 40,000 cases of salmonellosis are
reported in the U.S. Because many milder cases are not diagnosed
or reported, CDC estimates the actual number of infections to be
1.4 million. Salmonellosis is more commori in the summer than
winter. It is estimated that somewhat more than SOO persons die
each year with acute salmonellosis (CDC,'2001 f).

Data Source

National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-29, for
more informaition.)

Infectious disease prevalence - jnigellosis - Category 2 -
Shigellosis is a bacterial disease affecting the intestinal tract.
Anyone can get shigellosis, though it is most common in children
between the ages of 1 and 14. Most who are infected with Shigella
develop diarrhea, fever, and stomach cramps starting a day or two
after they are exposed to the bacterium. The diarrhea is often
bloody. Shigellosis usually resolves in S to 7 days. In some per-
sons, especially young children and the elderly, the diarrhea can
be so severe that hospitalization is necessary. Some persons who
are infected may have no symptoms at all, but may pass the
Shigella bacteria to others (CDC, 2001 g).

What the Data Show I

Every year, about 14,000 cases of shigellosis are reported in the
U.S. Because many milder cases are not diagnosed or reported,
the CDC estimates the actual number of infections to be
448,000. Shigellosis is particularly common and causes recurrent
problems in settings where hygiene is poo]r (CDC, 2001 g).
!
Data Source
National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. (See App'endix B, page B-29,
for more information.)
4-30
4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------
The data source for these seven indicators is the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, National
Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. This system provides weekly
provisional information from the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE) on the occurrence of diseases defined as
notifiable. A notifiable dfsease is one that, when diagnosed, health
providers report to state or local public health officials. Notifiable
diseases are of public interest because of their contagiousness,
severity, or frequency (Pastor, et al., 2002). State epidemiologists
report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabulates and
publishes these data in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
(MMWR) and Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States. Policies
for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease or report-
ing jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recommend
additions or deletions to the list of nationally notifiable diseases
based on the need to respond to emerging priorities. Reporting
nationally notifiable 'diseases to CDC, however, is voluntary. Reporting is
currently mandated by law or regulation only at the local and state
level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are considered notifiable
varies slightly by state.

Notifiable disease data are useful for analyzing disease trends and
determining relative disease burdens. These data, however, must be
interpreted in light of reporting practices. The degree of
completeness of data reporting is influenced by many factors such as
the diagnostic facilities available; the control measures in effect;
public awareness of a specific disease; and the interests, resources,
and priorities of state and local officials responsible for disease
control and public health surveillance. Finally, factors such as
changes in case definitions for public health surveillance,
introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease
entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent
of the true incidence of disease.
txniuit 4-22: Trevalence or reported gastrointestinal diseases, United jtates, I997-20O1
1997 • 1998 B 1999
2000 H 2001
Cryptosporidiosis E. co/iO157H7
Disease
&' «- -: - w ,**">• ' *
gpurces CDCJVofice to Readers, Final 2001 Reports of Notifiable Diseases 2002, CDC Notice to Readers Fmaf2000 Reports of Notifiable Diseases 2001; CDC Notice to Readers.
fjjjtJ999 Reports of Notifiable Diseases. 2000: CDC. Notice to Readers final 1998 Reports of Notifiable Diseases 1999, CDC. Notice to Readers' Final 1997 Reports of Notifiable
jjseases 1998
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-27
-------
UT/AS Draft "Report on the "Environment 2003 • lechnical Docum^t
nfectious disease prevalence - CJnolera - Category 2
1
Cholera is a diarrhea illness caused by infection of the intestine
with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae. Infections can often be mild or
without symptoms, but can sometimes be severe, and even fatal.
Approximately 1 in 20 infected persons has severe disease
characterized by severe, watery diarrhea that can lead to dehydra-
tion and shock. Without treatment, death can occur within hours
(ICTDRN, 2002).
What the Data Show

Very few caseis of cholera are reported on Jan annual basis in the
U.S. It is believed most cases are associ^t^d with consumption of
contaminated seafood or with international travel to areas where
cholera is endemic (e.g., South America) (CDC, 2001 a).

Data Source
i
National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance ^ystem, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page E>-27, for
more information.) '
Infectious disease prevalence - Cryptosporidiosis - Category 2
Cryptosporidiosis is an illness resulting from infection of the
gastrointestinal tract with Cryptosporidium panum and other
species of Cryptosporidium. This pathogen is excreted by humans,
as well as wild and domestic animals, including farm animals; it
contaminates water sources via animal feces or domestic sewage.
Runoff from agricultural operations into drinking water sources has
been one cause of Cryptosporidiosis outbreaks (Franzen and
Muller, 1999).

Severe diarrhea is the most common symptom. Additional
symptoms include gastric pain, fever, nausea, and fatigue
(Guerrant, 1997). There is no antibiotic that is effective for
treatment of Cryptosporidiosis. As a result, a healthy immune
system is important in limiting an individual's response to
Cryptosporidium parvum infection. Cryptosporidiosis can be deadly
when contracted by immunocompromised individuals. In extreme
cases of Cryptosporidiosis, infection can spread beyond the
gastrointestinal tract to the gall bladder and biliary tract.
What the Data Show ;

The occurrence of symptoms or conditions associated with
Cryptosporidiosis are likely underreported, "We do not know
exactly how many cases of Cryptosporidiosis actually occur. Many
people do not seek medical attention op ate not tested for this
parasite and so Cryptosporidium often gbe|s undetected as; the
cause of intestinal illness" (CDC, 1998b).; ;

Data Source

National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance £ystem, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-28,
for more information.)
4-28 " 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human rlealtn
-------

nfectious disease prevalence - £ coll Ol57:j i7 - Category 2
E. coll O157:H7 is one of over 170 strains and many hundred
sub-strains of the bacterium Escherichla coli. Most strains are
harmless and live in the intestines of healthy humans and animals;
this strain can cause severe illness. E. coli O157:H7 is not a
disease itself, but rather a cause of illness. The identifier in the
name of the bacterium refers to the specific antigenic markers
found on its cell wall and distinguishes it from other types of £.
co/i. Infection often leads to bloody diarrhea and occasionally to
kidney failure, particularly in young children (CDC, 2001 b). A
1982 outbreak of severe bloody diarrhea was traced to
contaminated hamburgers.
What the Data Show

CDC estimates that 73,000 cases of £. coli O157:H7 occur
annually in the U.S., and that 61 fatal cases occur annually. The
illness is often misdiagnosed; therefore, expensive and invasive
diagnostic procedures may be performed. Patients who develop
severe disease may require prolonged hospitalization, dialysis, and
long-term follow-up (CDC, 2001 b).

Data Source

National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-28, for
more information.)
nfectious disease prevalence - Hepatitis /\ - Category 2
Hepatitis A virus (HAV) is one of five viruses in the hepatitis
group of viruses (A to E) that cause liver disease. Symptoms
include jaundice, fatigue, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, nausea,
diarrhea, and fever. Adults tend to be more symptomatic than
children. HAV is found in the feces of infected people and is
usually spread through contaminated food, water, or intimate
contact (CDC, 2002d).
What the Data Show

The annual number of reported cases for HAV in the U.S.
exceeds 10,000. The estimated number of new infections
approaches 100,000 per year. It continues to occur in epidemics
both nationwide and in communities. The number of cases is
now reaching historic lows and continues to slowly decline, though
about one-third of Americans show evidence of past infection
(CDC, 2002e).

Data Source

National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-28,
for more information.)
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-29
-------
EPAs Draft "Report on the Environment 2003
ecnnica
Document
Infectious disease prevalence - Salmonellosis - Category
Salmonellosis is a disease caused by one of the more than 2,000
strains of the bacterial genus Salmonella. Most persons infected
with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12
to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days,
and most persons recover without treatment, though antibiotics
can be used. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so
severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. In these patients,
the Salmonella infection may spread from the intestines to the
bloodstream and then to other body sites. It can cause death
unless the person is treated promptly with antibiotics. The elderly,
infants, and those with impaired immune systems are more likely
to become severely ill from salmonellosis (CDC, 2001 f).
What the Data Show

Every year, approximately 40,000 cases of salmonellosis are
reported in the U.S. Because many milder; cases are not diaghosed
or reported, CDC estimates the actual nujnber of infections to be
1.4 million. Salmonellosis is more common in the summer than
winter. It is estimated that somewhat mpr^ than 500 persons die
each year with acute salmonellosis (CDC, !2001 f).
I i I !
Data Source

National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-29, for
more information.) j
lie
nrectious disease prevalence - Jnigellosis - Category 2 I
, , ^ p.™™™™™^™™™™^,.^™.^™^^!!!!*
Shigellosis is a bacterial disease affecting the intestinal tract.
Anyone can get shigellosis, though it is most common in children
between the ages of 1 and 14. Most who are infected with Shigella
develop diarrhea, fever, and stomach cramps starting a day or two
after they are exposed to the bacterium. The diarrhea is often
bloody. Shigellosis usually resolves in 5 to 7 days. In some per-
sons, especially young children and the elderly, the diarrhea can
be so severe that hospitalization is necessary. Some persons who
are infected may have no symptoms at all, but may pass the
Shigella bacteria to others (CDC, 2001 g).
What the Data Show
i
Every year, about 14,000 cases of shigellosis are reported in the
U.S. Because many milder cases are not diagnosed or reported,
the CDC estimates the actual number of infections to be
448,000. Shigellosis is particularly common and causes recurrent
problems in settings where hygiene is poof (CDC, 2001 g).

Data Source
National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-29,
for more information.) |
4-30 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 14 - Human Health j
-------

Infectious disease prevalence - Typhoid fever - Category 2
Typhoid fever is a life-threatening illness caused by the bacterium
Salmonella typhi. Typhoid fever is characterized by fever, headache,
nausea, and loss of appetite. Salmonella typhi lives only in humans.
Persons with typhoid fever carry the bacteria in their bloodstream
and intestinal tract. In addition, a small number of persons (2 to 5
percent), called carriers, recover from typhoid fever but continue
to carry and shed the bacteria. Both ill persons and carriers shed
S. typhi in their feces and urine (WHO, 1997).
What the Data Show

In the U.S., about 400 S. typhi cases occur each year, many of
which are acquired while traveling internationally. Typhoid fever is
transmitted by eating food or drinking beverages that have been
handled by a person who is shedding S. typhi, or by consuming
water contaminated with S. typhi bacteria (CDC, 2001 h).

Data Source

National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-30,
for more information.)
4.3.4 What are the trends for
children's environmental health
issues?
Special consideration must be given to children's health issues '
because children may be more susceptible to disease and generally
may be more vulnerable to their surroundings for many physiological
reasons. This section discusses five indicators for children's
environmental health issues: infant mortality, low birthweight,
childhood cancer, childhood asthma, and birth defects.
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease
4-31
-------
EPAs Draft "Report on the Environment 2003
ecnca
Document
Infant mortality - Category
Infant mortality in the U.S. is defined as the death of a child
before age 1 .
What the Data Show
In 1999, a total of 27,937 deaths occurred in infants under 1 year
of age (Hoyert, et al., 2001). The infant mortality rate was 7.1 per
1 ,000 live births, the lowest ever recorded in the U.S. The infant
mortality rate for African American infants was 14.6 per 1 ,000
live births, more than twice the rate for White infants (5.8 per
1 ,000 live births). The infant mortality rate for Hispanic infants
was 5.8 per 1 ,000 live births. The 10 leading causes of infant
deaths account for 67.6 percent of all infant deaths in the U.S.
(Exhibit 4-2:5). Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, and Utah have
the lowest infant mortality rates. Mississippi, Alabama, and
Louisiana have the highest (Hoyert, et al., 2001 ).
Data Source
National Vitiil Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-30, for more information.)
1 ; ,
|" ' •""• WWRff&S$''~1SBf '' ~r 7TIT*ii£T~4:^'"7P'
if lf* '" MI Exhibit U-23: Number of infant deatns, percent of fptai deaths, and infant
It! ~™ " " <^S~ "i IT mil n Ita ft in into Mi 1 ^fc^y,..^ ^ j, kite (»* T *M, 4, 4 Newborn affected by maternal complications of
i pregnancy
J 5 Respiratory distress of newborn
"I
ii 6 Newborn affected by complications of placenta, cord,
1 and membranes
i
i 7 Accidents
1 8 Bacterial sepsis of newborn
|; 9 Diseases of the circulatory system
|;:! 10 Atelectasis
in All other causes
1' — " '
U R»t« a pel 100,000 ir« births in 1999
E, ^
tou«;..% : _
: ^'
•*£,/-%
J,. ^.
vl •
-"i
-^*
^ili'irri^i - !
' 1

4-32 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------
;..-.'-;...•:.:•---- .--•--.-•-..-.. • ; •; . .- - _ .. ; ;-...--_.. I | -•-.-'.'- : . . - -' I .•-•.-.-'.••!'.(;.'.,'>.--' __ •• .' . . ,.."_.....'.. ,••".. ';',%l -..•' -f. „.....',.....'. -
Low Dirtnweignt - Category I
An infant with low birthweight is defined as a full-term infant, born
between week 37 and 44 of pregnancy, and weighing 2,500
grams or less at birth. Weight is a critical health measure because
low birthweight children are more prone to death and disability
than their counterparts.
What the Data Show
The percentage of infants who were born with a low birthweight
(weighing less than 2,500 grams) was 7.6 percent in 2000
(Martin, et al., 2002). In 2000, the low birthweight rate for non-
Hispanic African Americans (13.1 percent) was twice the rate of
that for non-Hispanic Whites (6.6 percent), a relationship that
existed for at least the 9 prior years as well (Exhibit 4-24). In

2000, the low birthweight rate for Hispanics was similar to that of
non-Hispanic Whites (6.4 and 6.6, respectively). Also shown in
Exhibit 4-24 is that non-Hispanic African Americans had the
highest proportion of very low birthweight infants (weighing
less than 1 ,500 grams) in 2000, compared with Hispanic and
non-Hispanic White populations in the U.S.
Data Source
National Vital Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. (See Appendix B, page B-30, for more information.)
KS ' ' > * ? t * & tf J 3 4 * ' |
^ Exhibit 4-24; Tercent of live birtns of very low birthweight and" low birthweight,
|$ri_ '<• ty race and Hispanic origin of mother, United States, 1991-2000
5S~~ w ., ^ ^ ^^un-tsw*^,^^* ^^ ^^ ~- * * S
1 ! Very Low Birthweight1
1 White Black
Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Hispanic3
" 2000 1.14 3.10 1.14
i 1999 • ' 1.15 . 3.18 1.14
1998 1.15 3.11 1.15
1 1997 1.12 3.05 1.13
| 1996 1.08 3.02 1.12
1 1995 . 1.04 2.98 1.11
; 1994 1.01 2.99 1.08
I 1993 1.00 2.99 1.06
! 1992 0.94 2.97 1.04
i 1991 0.94 2.97 1.02
Jless than 1 ,500 grams (3 Ib 4 02 )
EUss than_2,JOO grams (5 Ib 8 oz )
jpStr -
^Includes all persons of Hispanic origin of any race
pboxe Martin, I A , et al Births Final Data for 2000 2002
l^~"^

Low Birthweight2 B^l
White Black ^
Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Hispanic3 :
6.6 13.1 6.4 1
6.6 13.2 • 6.4 ?
6.6 13.2 6.4 . .1
i 6.5 13.1 6.4 '.'4
i 6.4 13.1 6.3 "3
] 6.2 ' 13.2 6.3 , '_'_i
j 6.1 13.3 6.2 :~f
; 5.9 13.4 6.2 , 1
! 5.7 13.4 6.1 1
5.7 13.6 6.1
1 1 \ " » / •> , H v> , , JM
4^ ( "1^^ ^ t T & ^A(t^^ \!w
S * AJ
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease
4-33
-------
E"RAs Draft foport on the Environment 2003
ecnnica
Documdrit

Childhood cancer mortality - Category
Childhood cancer incidence - Category 2
— " •"••' -•-•••— "-"|f
il
. . 1
^
y2
i
qP_^_~__lw^v_rw____r_
8 1

-mfKpm—^-nTvv**-^*

I
*,> , i
tn*w%

1
Cancer is a disease characterized by uncontrolled growth of cells.
A cancerous cell loses its ability to regulate its own growth, con-
trol cell division, and communicate with other cells. These cellular
changes are complex and occur over a period of time. They may
be accelerated in children. Cancer cells can invade nearby tissues
and can spread through the bloodstream and lymphatic system to
other parts of the body (NCI, 2003). The classification of cancers
in children differs from the classification used for adult cancers.

What the Data Show

In 1999, there were nearly 2,200 deaths due to cancer in children
and adolescents under 20 years of age (Anderson, 2001). The
age-adjusted cancer mortality rates by race and age group are
presented in Exhibit 4-25. In 1999, cancer was the third leading
cause of death in children 1 to 4 years of age, accounting for 8
percent of the total deaths in this age group (Anderson, 2001).
The death rate for cancer in this age group was 2.8 per 100,000
population. For children 5 to 9 years of age, cancer was the sec-
ond leading cause of death accounting for 14.7 percent of total
deaths. The death rate was 2.6 per 100,000 for children 5 to 9
years of age. In older children (15 to 19 years of age), 5.4
percent of total deaths in this age group were due to cancer,
Cancer ranked fourth among leading causes of death, with a
mortality rate of 3.8 per 100,000 population.

Exhibit 4-26 presents the age-adjusted iricidence rates for cancers
in children of all races between the ages of 0 and 19 years, 1975
to 1998. There has been an increase in the incidence for all types
of childhood cancer since 1975. There als,o has been a substantial
decline in the cancer death rate for children, largely due to
improved treatment (EPA, December 200|0).

Data Sources

Mortality: National Vital Statistics System, National Center'
for Health Statistics. (See Appendix B, page B-31, for
more information.) |

Incidence: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program,
National Cancer Institute. (See Appendix^, page B-31,
for more information.) !
i, ; „ ..-..; ... , :.. :; i .;,V,.,.;;,..:
Exhibit H-25: Age-adjusted1 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results ISEER) childhood cancer (all sites) incidence J '
t 3 ' ir i " i i •Ip^*'*'*'*^^
... - ,„, and United Jtates mortality rates by race and ag!rarpi)|, 1994-1998 ••-..,
Bi • - i : ' -. M :
Ages 0-14 , !; . , ; . .; : Ages 0-19 jj •. j
a
I
|
i-
M
sin
3
•«
L
§N
1
p

Race
All Races
White
Black
ill**
Rates Jcc dci
nit nil
Source: R:ei
Incidence
Total Male Female
14.4 15.4 13.4
14.8 15.6 13.9
12.0 13.0 10.9
Mortality
Total Male Female
2.7 3.0 2.4
2.7 3.0 2.4
2.8 2.9 2.6
Incidence
Total Male Female
15.9 16.7 15.0
16.4 17.2 15.6
12.5 13.3 11.7
' Mortality
Total Male Female
3.0 3.3 2.6
3.6 3.4 2.6
:3.1 3.2 2.9
, ,, „, , i,,,, , „ , ; ;, „„„
tlis per 100,000 per year and are age adjusted to the 1970' US. standard populat
LA.G, irt al. SffR Cancer Statistics Review, !973- 1988. 2001 . '. '[ ". .

,:3l^l4J4i3IISi3£SsEs5a35Siil;&

4-34 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter U - Human Health
-------

Cnildnood cancer mortality - Category 1 (continued)
Cnildnood cancer incidence - Category 2 (continued)

P-«- Exhibit U-26: Age-adjusted Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer incidence rates by
f-'~ international c assification of childhood cancer (1CCC) selected group and subgroup and year of diagnosis,
|£" . ' childrenO to 19 years, 1975-98
a— , ,_ -f1 ,» *,<< i t , J
|iH': \ 1975-1980 i 1981-1986 1987-1992 1993-1998 ^Hj^^HI
F '
£
£"-"
IP^
£
%£•
fti
E
E1*
tw :
^£5
g^L
^
BN^_
^ -• "
^ !
E-
ITT
iS-E^
cw
p-
All groups combined 140.0 149.0 157.5 159.1
Leukemia 33.2 36.3 37.6 . 37.4
Lymphomas and
reticuloendothelial
neoplasms 24.1 , 24.9 24.8 23.9
Central nervous system 23.4 24.3 29.6 27.8
Sympathetic nervous
system tumors 7.7 8.1 ^ 7.6 8.5
Retinoblastoma 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1
Renal tumors 6.0 6.6 6.3 7.1
Hepatic tumors 1-2 1.5 1.7 1.8
Malignant bone tumors 7.8 9.2' 8.9 9.4
Soft tissue sarcomas 10.4 10.9 11.2 11.4
Germ cell, trophoblastic
and other gonadal .
neoplasms 8.6 9.8 11 .3 11 .7
Carcinomas and other ' ,
malignant epithelial
neoplasms 13.9 13.5 14.6. 15.0
Notes Rates are cases per 1 ,000,000 per year and are age adjusted to the 1970 U S standard population
Source Ries, L A G , et al SEER Cancert Statistics Review, 1973 7998 2001
• . 1
- ' - 1
'-• •• 1
I
\

Chapter 4 - Human Healtn 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease
4-35
-------
EFAs Draft pport Ml the Environment 2^63 • I ethnical Upcum^Hi|:

Childhood asthma mortality - Category 1
Childhood astnma prevalence - Category 1
ir
Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by inflam-
mation of the airways and lungs. During an asthma attack, the
airways that carry air to the lungs are constricted. As a result,
less air is able to flow in and out of the lungs (NCHS, 2001).
Currently, there are no preventive measures or cure for asthma;
however, children and adolescents who have asthma can still lead
quality, productive lives if they control their asthma. Asthma can
be controlled by taking medication and by avoiding contact with
environmental "triggers" for asthma. Environmental triggers
include cockroaches, dust mites, furry pets, mold, tobacco smoke,
and certain chemicals (CDC, 2002g; CDC, 2003b).

What the Data Show

In 2001, approximately 6 million (9 percent) of U.S. children had
asthma, compared to approximately 3.6 percent of children in
1980 (EPA, 2003a).

In 1999, there were 32 deaths due to asthma for children
under 5 years of age and 144 deaths for children 5 to 14 years
of age (Mannino, et al., 2002). This number is slightly lower
than the 189 asthma deaths among children under IS years
of age in 1998.
Boys were more likely to have been diagnosed with asthma than
girls; the condition was diagnosed in 13 percent of boys
compared with 10 percent for girls. Of the 4 million children who
reported that they had an asthma attack in the last 12 months,
boys were most likely to have had an attack when they were 5 to
11 years of age. Girls were most likely to nave had an attack in the
previous year at 12 to 17 years of age. Fourteen percent of non-
Hispariic African American children had been diagnosed with
asthma. The proportion of non-Hispanic White and Hispanic
children who had ever been diagnosed with asthma was nearly the
same, 11 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Asthma rates in
children have increased since 1980, especially for children age 4
and younger and for African-American children (Exhibit 4-27).

Data Sources

Mortality: National Vital Statistics System, National Center
for Health Statistics. (See Appendix B, page B-31,
for more information.)

Prevalence: National Health Interview Survey, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (See Appendix B, page B-32,
for more information.)
. !
t. MO
120
!>100
astnma attack prevalence, 1997-2001, i
40
20
diagnosis, current asthma, ana
OWvSr ***** *»*** ^ P* ^ * - M
children
Asthma prevalence
Asthma lifetime diagnosis
Current asthma prevalence
Asthma attack prevalence
J_
J_
Nate:
T980 198? 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
The survey question! for asthma changed in 1997; data before 1 997 cannot be directly compai

i! Based 0" and updated (jpoi Akinfaami, LJ. and K,C. Schoendorf. Trends in C/iiUfipoi
4-36 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------

^b^^A^^lSi^y-'^lk^j^'^^-^^'^-'ig-
Deaths due to birth defects - Category 1
Birth defect incidence - C-ategpry I
Congenital anomalies, or birth defects, are structural defects
that are present in the fetus at birth. Because the causes of
about 70 percent of all birth defects are unknown, the public
continues to be anxious about whether environmental pollu-
tants cause birth defects, developmental disabilities, or other
adverse reproductive outcomes. The public also has many
questions about whether various occupational hazards,
dietary factors, medications, and personal behaviors cause or
contribute to birth defects (CDC, 2002c).
txnioit U-28: Number and rate of live births witn :
^p1" I_AIHUIU M--Z.U. i >*uinut;i CLIIU iau3 uj uvti uuuii wiui M; fc:(-Leq cviiyeiHLcll
Hi* anomalies, United States, 2000
aa.
•
I
I
I5
i
i
1
r
J
I
i
E
P
i"
P
S
K
£
i
i
;i
i
f
K-
h
i

Congenital Anomaly ;
(All races) | . j
Anencephalus
Spina bifida/Meningocele
Hydrocephalus v
Microcephalus
Other central nervous system anomalies

Heart malformations
Other circulatory/respiratory anomalies
Rectal atresia/stenosis
Tracheo-esophageal fistula/Esophageal atresia
Omphalocele/Gastroschisis
Other gastrointestinal anomalies
Malformed genitalia
. Renal agenesis
Other urogenital anomalies

Cleft lip/palate
Po lydacty ly/Sy ndactyly/Adacty ly
Clubfoot
Diaphragmatic hernia
Other musculoskeletal/integumenta! anomalies
Down's syndrome
Other chromosomal anomalies
A ^
Number of Congenital
Anomalies Reported
425
822
940 .
284
822

4,958
5,484
333 •
481
1,180
1,185
3,344
547
3,943

3,259
3,460
2,271
427
8,614
1,863
1,575
4 j -;
!
Rate !
10.7
20.7
23.7
7.2
20.7

124.9
138.1
8.4
12.1
29.7
29.9
84.2
13.8
99.3 .

82.1
87.2
57.2
10.8
217.0
46.9
39.7
What the Data Show

Birth defects (congenital anomalies) are a leading cause of
infant deaths, accounting for 5,473 (19.6 percent) of the
27,937 infant deaths in 1999 (Hoyert, et al., 2001). The most
frequently occurring types of birth defects were those affecting
the heart and the lungs. Because some birth defects are not
recognized immediately, they are und.erreported on the death
certificate, so the numbers underestimate the problem (Friis, et
al., 1999). Exhibit 4-28 presents the number and rate of live
births with congenital anomalies.

Data Source
National Vital Statistics System,
National Center for Health Statistics.
(See Appendix B, page B-32,
for more information.)
__ Stes^aca nuniber of live births with specified congenital anomaly per 100,000 IIVP births in
[specified group I
jj-, I
y3ote- Of the 4,031,591 live births, there was no response recorded for the congenital anomaly item t
%r 61,744 births ,
r , s i
ource- Martin, J.A, et al. Birihs: final Data for 2000. 2002.
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-37
-------
£"PAs Draft import !on the Environment 2dOS • 1e{:hnical Dqc^m|||j:
4.3.5 What are the trends for
emerging health effects?
In addition to the diseases reported in the preceding pages, several
other diseases are the cause of emerging concern because of their
potential impacts on the health of the .U.S. population. Information
for eight such diseases—diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's
disease, renal disease, autism, and three arthropod-borne diseases
(lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and West Nile
virus)— is presented in this section. The increasing prevalence of
these "emerging" illnesses positions them as potential future candi-
dates for consideration as EPHIs. This will be dependent on their ,
increasing prevalence in the population or a better determination
of the role of exposure to environmental pollutants in the onset or
exacerbation of these diseases. No specific indicators have been
presented for these diseases at this time, but data collected by the
CDC, individual states, and other sources illustrate the recent
trends in these diseases.

Diabetes

Diabetes is a set of metabolic disorders. Diabetes mellitus (type 2) is
the most common form of diabetes and is a disease whereby the
body's insulin activity is altered. Insulin is a hormone that signals
many biological processes such as the conversion of glucose to
glycogen. Glycogen is the form in which food energy is stored in the
body. The general symptoms of diabetes are elevated blood glucose
levels, excessive thirst, frequent urination, and unexplained weight
loss. Heredity, obesity, and age are factors that also contribute to
diabetes. Estimates of the prevalence of diabetes vary widely.
However, CDC estimates that there are about 11.1 million diagnosed
cases of diabetes (CDC, 2002b). In addition to these cases, CDC
estimates that there may be about 5.9 million more cases that are
undiagnosed (CDC, 2002b). The total of 17 million diagnosed and
undiagnosed cases combined amounts to a prevalence of 6.2
percent of the U.S. population. CDC estimates that 1 million new
cases of diabetes are diagnosed per year among people aged
20 years and older (CDC, 2002b).

In 1999, diabetes ranked as the sixth leading cause of death in the
U.S. There were 68,399 deaths due to diabetes (Hoyert, et al.,
2001). The age-adjusted death rates for diabetes increased between
1980 and 1996 from 15.3 to 20.6 per 100,000 people. By 1999,
the rate had risen to 25.2 per 100,000 people.

On average, Hispanic Americans are 1.9 times more likely to have
diabetes than non-Hispanic Whites of similar age. The risk of
diabetes for Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic Blacks is almost
twice that for non-Hispanic Whites. Similarly, residents of Puerto
Rico are 2.0 times more likely to have diagnosed diabetes than U.S.
non-Hispanic Whites. On average, American Indians and Alaska
Natives are 2.6 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic
Whites of similar age. Approximately 15 percent of American Indians
and Alaska Natives receiving care from the Indian Health Service have
diabetes. At the regional level, diabetes is' least common among
Alaska Natives (5.3 percent) and most cpmrnon among American
Indians in the southeastern U.S. (25.7 percent) and in certain tribes
from the Southwest (CDC, 2002b). Exhibit 4-29 shows age-adjust-
ed prevalence data for diabetes in the U.S. by race/ethnicity.
Alzk
Dis
leimers Uisease ;
-1 I
r j
Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder. The symptoms
of Alzheimer's disease may include demerytia, loss of memory, and
decreasing physical abilities such as dressing or eating. In the U.S.,
an estimated 4 million people, mostly elderly, have Alzheimer's dis-
ease (Hoyeit and Rosenberg, 1999). In 1999, an estimated ,
354,000 non-institutionalized adults 18 |to 64 years of age!reported
Alzheimer's disease as their main disability (CDC, 2001 e).

The death rate due to Alzheimer's disease rose steadily from 1979 to
1996. In 1999, Alzheimer's disease was the eighth leading cause of
4-38 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health arid Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------
death in the U.S. (Hoyert, et al., 2001). There were 44,536 deaths
attributed to Alzheimer's disease (16.3 deaths per 100,000
population). The death rate for Alzheimer's disease rises sharply with
age. In 1999, among people 75 to 84 years of age, there were
15,836 deaths and in this age group Alzheimer's disease ranked as
the seventh leading cause of death (Anderson, 2001). The death
rate for Alzheimer's disease for this age group was 130.4 per
100,000 population. Among persons 85 years of age and older,
there were 24,980 deaths due to Alzheimer's disease for a death
rate of 598.3 per 100,000 population.

Death rates for Alzheimer's disease are higher for women than for
men and higher for Whites than African Americans (Hoyert, et al.,
2001). The 1999 death rates for Alzheimer's disease are highest for
White females (25.6 per 100,000), followed by White males (11.4),
African American females (9.0), and African American males (4.2).
The Alzheimer's disease death rate for Hispanics is 3.1 per 100,000.
Hispanic females have a higher death rate (4.3 per 100,000 popula-
tion) than Hispanic males (2.0 per 100,000). The death rates from
Alzheimer's disease are higher in the Northeast and in the Northwest
regions of the U.S. (Hoyert and Rosenberg, 1999).
Tarki
Dis
insons L/isease

Parkinson's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by
symptoms such as tremors, muscle rigidity, and changes in walking
patterns. The National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke
(NINDS) estimates that there are about 500,000 people in the U.S.
with Parkinson's disease (NINDS, 2002). The disease mostly affects
elderly people and is second only to Alzheimer's disease in the num-
ber of older people that are affected (Checkoway and Nelson,
1999). It affects about 0.4 percent of those 40 years of age and
older, 1 percent of those older than 65 years, and about 3 percent
of those 80 years of age and older. Males are 1.3 times more likely
than females to have Parkinson's disease.

A steady increase in the death,rate due to Parkinson's disease among
people 75 years of age and older has been observed in the U.S. In
1999, there were 14,593 deaths due to Parkinson's disease (Hoyert,
et al., 2001). Virtually all of the deaths (14,298) occurred in people
65 years of age and older. The death rate was 5.4 per 100,000
population, with males having a higher death rate than females (6.2
versus 4.5 per 100,000).

The 1999 death rate due to Parkinson's disease was higher for
Whites (6.2 per 100,000 people ) than for African Americans
(1.5 per 100,000) (Hoyert, et al., 2001). The death rate for
White males was 7.1 per 100,000 and for White females 5.3 per
100,000. The death rate for African American males was 1.6 and
for African American females 1.3 per 100,000. The death rate for
Hispanics was 1.2 per 100,000, with Hispanic males having a
slightly higher death rate (1.4 per 100,000) than Hispanic
females (1.1 per 100,000).
"Renal Disease

The kidneys are vital organs and can be seriously affected by a
number of primary diseases such as diabetes or hypertension. As
these diseases progress, the kidneys may fail to function. Total and
permanent kidney failure is called end stage renal (kidney) disease
(ESRD). It is estimated that about 424,179 people in the U.S. have
ESRD (NIDDK, 2001). Most ESRD occurred in people who have
diabetes (150,404 people), hypertension (100,169 people), or
glomerulonephritis, a kidney disease (62,119 people).

The U.S. government maintains the U.S. Renal Data System, which
provides information on the incidence, prevalence, and mortality for
ESRD (CDC,-2000a). Data from this system indicate that there were
89,252 people with ESRD who began treatment in 1999. These
cases of ESRD resulted from diabetes for 38,160 people and from
hypertension for 23,133 people. Kidney diseases and other primary
diseases were responsible for the remainder.

Between 1979 and 1998, the age-adjusted death rates for all types
of kidney disease increased, peaking between 1984 and 1988. The
age-adjusted death rates for all types of kidney disease are higher
among African Americans than among Whites, with African American
males having the highest rates during the 1979 to 1998 period.

In 1979, the death rate for total kidney disease was 8.6 per
100,000 people. By 1999, kidney disease had risen to rank as the
ninth leading cause of death in the U.S. (Hoyert, et al., 2001). That
year there were 35,525 deaths due to all types of kidney disease;
34,719 of them were due to kidney failure. The death rate for kidney
disease was 13.0 per 100,000 people; the death rate for kidney
failure was 12.7 per 100,000 people (Exhibit 4-30). Death rates for
kidney failure were highest for African American females at 19.0 per
100,000, followed by African American males at 17.8 per 100,000.

African Americans and American Indians have higher rates of ESRD
than Whites or Asians (AHA, 2001). African Americans represent 32
percent of the patients receiving treatment for ESRD. Recently there
has been an increase in ESRD due to diabetes among American
Indians and Alaskan Natives (CDC, 2000c). Between 1990 and
1996, the age-adjusted rate of new ESRD treatment among
American Indians with diabetes increased 24 percent, from 472 to
584 per 100,000 persons with diabetes.

Autism

Autism is one of several related severe cognitive and neurobehavioral
disorders that are classified under the term autistic spectrum
disorders. Information about the prevalence of autism in the U.S. is
limited, reflecting the use of different diagnostic criteria and a lack of
research. First described in the 1940s, autism was thought to affect
2 to 4 children per 10,000 population^ Today the prevalence is
currently believed to be as high as 1 in 500 children* for all autistic
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease
4-39
-------
EPAs Draft feport on the Environment JJ30$

Exhibit 4-30: Death rates for kidney disease United States, 1999
i I _ks , *rii;:.'S«.:»: v.
'„ IB!::.:;/,,: n
pmHiHi
Cause
of Death
Nephritis, nephrotic
syndrome, nephrosis
Kidney failure
Other

All Races
Both Male Female
Sexes
13.0 12.8 13.3
12.7 12.5 13.0
0.3 0.3 0.3
e
White 1 ,:i ' , i
Both Male Female
Sexes
12.5 12.4 12.6
12.2 12.1 12.3
0.3 0.3 0.3
«
A! Other : i
Both Male Female
Sexes
1S.6 14.8 16.3
15.2 14.4 16.0
0.4 0.4 0.3*

HEDi@39MHMHHniI
: Both Male Female
' Sexes !
. ,19.3 18.2 20.2
i 1
18.9 17.8 19,0
| 0.4 0.4* 0.4*
•-i
-«
!'i
,;:|
>r,.f
. ;f;
S-
y
-.'«
J (Utfts are per 100,000 population.
I: '%i(e does not meet the standards of reliability or precision.
! Source; Hoyert, et it. Deaths: flnol Data for 1999. 2001.
spectrum disorders (Iversen, 2000). Currently, autism affects about ,
400,000 people in the U.S., and occurs about four times more often
in boys than in girls.

Researchers have reported that the number of persons with autism is
increasing. For example, a recent California Department of
Developmental Services (CDDS) report showed an over 200 percent
increase in the number of persons entering the regional center
service system with autism between 1987 and 1998 (CDDS, 1999).
Other states have reported increasing numbers as well (Yazbak,
1999). However, these reports do not necessarily reflect a change in
the rate of autism because they do not consider the increase in the
total population (Fombonne, 2001).

The number of cases of autism in children in the U.S. has increased
over time. The number of children 0 to 21 years old with autism who
are also enrolled in federally supported programs for the disabled
has grown from 5,000 in 1991 to 79,000 in 2000 (NCES, 2001).
This represents an increase from 0.1 to 1.1 percent of all children
with disabilities served, or an increase from 0.01 to 0.14 percent of
all children in public schools.
Artnropoa-fiome Diseases
Certain ticks and mosquitoes (arthropods) can carry bacteria and ,
viruses that cause disease in humans. They acquire the bacteria and
viruses when they bite an infected mammal or bird. Arthropod-borne
diseases include Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever
(RMSF), and West Nile virus (WNV).

Lyme Disease

Lyme disease is the most commonly reported arthropod-borne
disease in the U.S. (Orloski, et al., 2002). The illness was first ;
described in Europe during the 1800s; however, it was not identified
in the U.S. until the early 1970s when a cluster of children with
??SS5S;JS^^

!!>iiJ:i^!iifii
"juvenile rheumatoid arthritis" in Lyme, Connecticut, was reported
by their parents (Shapiro and Gerber, 20:00). Investigation of the
cluster led to the description of Lyme arthritis in 1976 and then to .
the identification of the causal pathogen) Between 1992 and 1998,
there were 88,967 cases of Lyme diseasej reported to the CDC..
The number of cases increased from 9,8$6 in 1992 to 16,802 in
1998 (Exhibit 4-31). , j

The incidence of Lyme disease was highejst in eight northeastern and
mid-Atlantic states and two north centraj states. These states
accounted for 92 percent of the total ca£es.
: i
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever . ;
it ,
Although Lyme disease is the most commonly reported tick-borne
disease in the U.S., RMSF is the most cojnmonly fatal tick-borne
disease in the U.S. (Holman, et al., 2001^. Physicians first recognized
RMSF in the; northwestern U.S. during the late 1800s; Howard
Ricketts identified the causal pathogen ir) the early 1900s (Gayle
and Ringdahl, 2001; Paddock, et al., 199|9). RMSF was the first
disease in the U.S. shown to be transmitted by tick bite (Walker,
1998). Although RMSF was first identified in the Rocky Mountain
states, fewer than 3 percent of cases we^e reported from that area
between 1993 and 1996. The highest incidence of cases in that time
period was found in North Carolina and Oklahoma. These two states
accounted for 35 percent of the total cases from 1993 to 1996
(CDC, 2002c). RMSF has been reported throughout the continental
U.S. (excep" in Maine, New Hampshire, a|nd Vermont).

' Between 1990 and 1998, there were approximately 4,800 cases of
RMSF reported to the CDC (CDC, 2000b). The annual number of
cases has varied between 250 and 1,200 cases since 1942J, with a ;
peak between 1975 and 1981. ; |

1 i • I
The ratio o':the number of deaths due tb RMSF compared to the
number of cases of the disease is the highest'in children under 10
4-40
4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------
Exhibit 4-31: Number of reported cases of Lyme disease, United States, 1982-1998
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 (1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
BCS&urce: Orloski K.A, et al Surveillance for Lyme Disease. 2002.
years of age (2 to 3 percent) and those over 70 years of age (9
percent) (CDC, 2000b).

West Nile Virus

In 1937, WNV, a strain of encephalitis, was first identified as a human
pathogen in the West Nile region of Uganda. The pathogen was
found in blood taken from a woman during a yellow fever
investigation (Rappole, et al., 2000). Since 1937, WNV has been
determined to be widespread in many areas of the world, particularly
Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Russia, India, and Indonesia
(Horga and Fine, 2001).
Year
Cases of WNV were first documented in the U.S. in 1999 (CDC,
2000d). A total of 80 cases in humans were reported in 1999
(62 cases) and 2000 (18 cases). Because severe neurological illness
(encephalitis meningitis) occurs in fewer than 1 percent of persons
infected, it is thought that a greater number of cases with less
severe symptoms may go unreported. Based on this assumption,
it is estimated that approximately 2,000 persons may have been
infected with WNV during 2000 (CDC, 2000d). The prevalence of .
the disease in humans is increasing. During 2002 there were 3,989
diagnosed cases in humans (CDC, 2002f). The number of deaths
caused by West Nile encephalitis has increased from 7 in 1999 to
259 in 2002 (CDC, 2002f).
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.3 Health Status of the U.S.: Indicators and Trends of Health and Disease 4-41
-------
El As Draft "Report on the tnvironment 2dQ3
ecnnica
AAeasuring txposure
to tnvironmental Tollution:
Indicators and Irends
Historically, human exposure to pollutants has been estimated
based on:
• Measurements of ambient pollutant concentrations in air, water,
or land, combined with:
• Estimates or measurements (through personal monitoring) of
the frequency and duration of human contact with the
contaminated media.
This approach has provided a valuable foundation for many of the
regulatory and non-regulatory actions that have been taken to limit
exposure to ambient pollutants. However, ambient measurements do
not provide information on the degree to which ambient pollutants
actually enter into the body. Another type of indicator—biomonitor-
ing data—can help provide this information. Biomonitoring measures
the amount of a pollutant in human tissue or fluids. It provides an
important complement to more traditional exposure assessment
indicators. National-scale biomonitoring data can be used to:
• Measure and track average body burden resulting from exposure
across the entire population to a variety of pollutants.
• Enhance environmental disease prevention efforts by providing an
important bridge to understanding the relationships between
ambient pollutant concentrations, exposures to these poljutants,
and health problems. (The lead case study, discussed earlier in
Section 4.1, provides an excellent example of this application.)
• Establish reference ranges to identify people with unusually high
exposures or the percentage of the population with pollutant
exposures above established levels of concern (CDC, 2003a).

This section focuses primarily on biomonitoring indicators and is
divided into ten parts:
• Section 4.4.1 provides background information on biomonitoring
indicators—what they are and their limitations.
• Section 4.4.2 describes the major data sources for these
indicators.
• Sections 4.4.3 to 4.4.8 describe specific pollutants and the data
available to monitor these pollutants, including heavy metals
(Section 4.4.3), cotinine (Section 4.4.4), volatile organic com-
pounds (Section 4.4.5), pesticides (Section 4.4.6), and persist-
ent organic pollutants (Section 4.4.7): Section 4.4.8 presents
indicators that are available to specifically monitor children's expo-
sure to some of these pollutants. In'alj, 10 biomonitoring indica-
tors are currently available for trackingjtrends in human exposure
to specific environmental pollutants. Summaries of the data linking
exposure to human health effects can be found in ATSDR's toxico-
logical profiles and EPA's criteria documents for these chemicals.

H Section 4,4.9 briefly discusses a number of pollutants—radiation,
air pollutants (except for lead), biological pollutants, and
disinfection by-products —for which rio biomonitoring indicators
currently are available or feasible. For these pollutants, traditional
exposure assessment will continue to s^rve as the method for
estimating human exposure until biomonitoring indicators become
available or feasible. ,

•I Finally, Section 4.4.10 touches on endocrine disrupters—
considered an emerging issue. '

U.U.I Diomonitoring Indicators •'• •. :

"Dose" (the amount of a pollutant that enters the body) is often
expressed as average daily dose or total potential dose. Once a
pollutant crosses the boundary into the body, biological processes :
act on that contaminant to utilize, remov£, or store the contaminant
and/or its metabolites. Body burden isjthe concentration of a
contaminant dose that is retained in the human body Body burden
can be estimated from measurements of the contaminant in the
blood, urine, or adipose tissue. These 'measurements provide the
basis for biomonitoring indicators. ,

The buildup of a contaminant in the body (i.e., the level of body
burden) depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the
contaminant; the efficacy of the biological removal processes; and
the magnitude, timing, frequency, and duration of exposure. Some
contaminants, such as lead, are not easily removed and are retained
in the body for long periods of time. Other contaminants, such as
many volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are rapidly eliminated in
exhaled breath or other removal processes. ;

The level of body burden is usually estimated from the concentration
of a contaminant (or its metabolite) meaiured in the blood, urine,
hair, or adipose tissue, and can be used 1:o infer that an exposure
occurred. In some cases, the level of body burden associated with a
particular contaminant may prove to be ajn indicator of the person's
extent of exposure to that pollutant. ' ;

There are a number of potential problemk, however, with using body
burden as an indicator of exposure. In some cases, several different
pollutants may give rise to the same biomarker. Further, most '
measures of body burden reflect only a
different exposure scenarios can lead to •
snapshot" in time and many
:he same concentration
measurement. Lastly, the measure gives no information about how
the person was exposed. \
4-42 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators Jind Trends CJiapt£r 4 - Human Health
-------
Nonetheless, national scale measures of body burden are useful
indicators of exposure in the population. While such measures do
not necessarily provide information about the nature of the expo-
sures, they do represent the average levels of exposure in the popu-
lation as a whole. Such national scale measures of body burden are
often more convenient to obtain than to estimate the exposures by
accounting for all of the exposure concentrations and durations for
the whole population. As mentioned earlier, body burden (biomoni-
toring) data are not available for all pollutants of interest to EPA. In
such cases, ambient data or exposure measurements and models are
used to assess human exposure.

4.4.2 Data Sources for Diomonitoring Indicators

Two primary sources provided data for the biomonitoring indicators
presented in this section:

• The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES), conducted by the National Center for Health
Statistics (NCHS). Specifically, data were used from the second,
third, and fourth surveys (NHANES II; NHANES III; and NHANES
IV [1999-2000]).

• EPA's National Human Exposure Assessment Survey
(NHEXAS). Specifically, data were used from surveys of three
regions: Maryland, EPA Region 5, and Arizona (NHEXAS-MD;
NHEXAS-Region 5; and NHEXAS-AZ).
Two others sources of biomonitoring data—autopsy data and tissue
registry data—were considered but not used for these indicators. As
described below, neither of these sources contains rich biomonitor-
ing data, which significantly limits their usefulness as data sources for
human contaminant levels.

National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and

Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)

NHANES consists of a series of surveys conducted by CDCs
NCHS. The survey is designed to collect data on the health of the
U.S. population, including information on topics such as nutrition,
cardiovascular disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001 c).
The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of
years. The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through
1975; NHANES II occurred from 1976 through 1980; NHANES III
was performed from 1988 through 1994; and the most recent
NHANES for which data are available took place in 1999-2000. In
this section, the year(s) in which the data were collected are
identified in each citation, of NHANES.

As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were collected to
measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be potentially
harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with
laboratory analysis, some chemicals were measured for all people in
the survey, while other chemicals were only measured in representa-
tive subsamples of people in an age group.

The CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals (often referred to as the "CDC Report Card") (CDC,
2001 c) summarizes chemical exposure data from NHANES.
Information from the CDC report is presented hereafter under the
heading "NHANES 1999-2000." To date, this report has been
released twice. Data from the first report are updated in the larger,
second report. The second report represents the U.S. population
over a 2-year period, 1999-2000. Two years of data provide more
stable estimates for the total population and are necessary for
adequate sample sizes for some subgroup analysis. Future reports
will be released every 2 years and will cover data for a 2-year
period (e.g., 2001-2002, 2003-2004, 200S-2006).

National Human Exposure Assessment Survey

(NHEXAS)

The goal of NHEXAS was to better understand the complete picture
of human exposure to toxic chemicals by looking at humans' many
exposures to all types of toxic chemicals. NHEXAS was a multiday,
multimedia study that examined chemical concentrations in indoor
air, outdoor air, dust, soil, food, beverages, drinking water, and tap
water. For some contaminants, body burden measurements were
obtained from samples of blood, hair, or urine.

Phase 1 of NHEXAS consisted of demonstration and scoping studies
in Maryland; Phoenix, Arizona; and EPA Region 5 using probability-
based sampling designs. Although the study was conducted in three
different regions of the U.S., it was not designed to be nationally
representative. The Region 5 study was conducted in Ohio,
Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and measured
metals and VOCs. The Arizona study measured metals, pesticides,
and VOCs. The target population for the NHEXAS-MD study
consisted of the non-institutionalized permanent residents of house-
holds in the city of Baltimore or four counties in Maryland. Samples
from select environmental and biological media, as well as question-
naire data, were collected in NHEXAS-MD. The three NHEXAS
studies are identified in this section as NHEXAS-AZ, NHEXAS-
Region 5, or NHEXAS-MD, to indicate where they were performed.
Autopsy Data
Autopsies can provide important information about deaths resulting
from known or suspected environmental or occupational hazards. For
example, one of the earliest indications of the rise in lung cancer
deaths came from reports that lung cancers were being identified
with increasing frequency in autopsies (Hanzlick, 1998).

The value of an autopsy database for body burden and
epidemiologic studies has been recognized; however, few such
studies have been conducted. This is partly because autopsies are
Chapter H - tiuman Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-43
-------
; i '.'.,,.. J_ - :.:,•' |
El/As Draft Report on the Environment 2003 | Technical Docqnp||t
performed on a non-random sample of deaths and because
environmental contaminant levels are typically not measured during
an autopsy (Moore, etal., 1996). Also, autopsies are performed on
only a small percentage of the U.S. population. In 1980, autopsies
were performed in approximately 17 percent of deaths in the U.S. By
1985, the percentage had declined to 14 percent. While nearly all
deaths due to homicide and other medico-legal causes were
autopsied, autopsies were performed in only 12 percent of all deaths
due to natural causes (CDC, 1998a).

Difficulties in accessing autopsy data can limit their usefulness as
well. Prior to 1995, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
collected data from death certificates indicating whether an autopsy
was performed. Since that time, however, such information is no
longer available from the NCHS national mortality statistics
databases (Hanzlick, 1998).
Tissue Registry Data
Human tissues are stored for study in many forms including solid
organs, organ sections, histology slides, cells, and DMA. Tissue
registries are maintained for medical education and biological
research, but few studies have been conducted to identify trends in
environmental contaminants in tissues using tissue registries. Tissue
registry samples and information are not population-based, and at
present there is no central database containing information about
tissue samples (Eiseman and Haga, 1999).

EPA has conducted one of the most extensive tissue studies. From
1976 to 1987, the EPA conducted the National Human Adipose
Tissue Survey (NHATS). NHATS was a national survey that
collected adipose tissue samples to monitor exposure to toxic
compounds among the general population. Pathologists and -
medical examiners from 47 metropolitan areas collected samples
from autopsies and elected surgeries (Crinnion, 2000; Orban, et
al., 1994). Even though the study was a significant biomonitoring
effort, data from NHATS are not presented in this report because
nesver data sources are available.
14.4.3 What is the leVef of !expsij(re
[to heavy metals? j | j I
Heavy metals; are important environmental pollutants because they
are related to several adverse health effecjts when ingested or ;
inhaled. Five metals have been selected fojr in-depth presentation in
this section: chromium, lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium. These
metals are known to be related to severe Adverse health effects and
are relatively common in household, workj and school environments.
Exhibit 4-32 presents EPA regulatory standards and guidelines for
these five metals. Indicators are available for lead, arsenic, mercury, •
and cadmium and are discussed on the following pages. At present,
no indicator is available for chromium, but it is discussed bejow
because human health may be adversely Affected by chromium iri
the environment. (For additional information on heavy metals in the:
environment, see Chapter 1, Cleaner Air.):

(_nromium ' I "

Chromium is a naturally occurring element found in rocks, animals,
plants, soil, and in volcanic dust and gase^. Chromium is present in
the environment in several different forms!, but primarily in two
valence states: trivalent chromium (III) anid hexavalent chromium (VI).
Chromium (111) is an essential nutrient and is much less toxic than
chromium (VI), which is generally produced by industrial processes.
Chromium (III) and chromium (VI) are used for chrome plating, dyes
and pigments, leather tanning, and wood preserving (ATSDR, 2001).

In air, chromium compounds are present rnostly as fine dust particles
that eventually settle over land and water. Chromium can strongly
attach to soil and only a small amount cap dissolve in water and
move deeper in the soil to underground \vater. Fish do not accumu-
late much chromium in their bodies from Water (ATSDR, 2001).

People can be exposed to chromium by eating food containing
chromium (III); breathing contaminated! workplace air or experiencing
skin contact during use in the workplace; Idrinking contaminated well
water; or living near uncontrolled hazardous waste sites containing ;
chromium or near industries that use chromium (ATSDR, 2001).
Although studies have been conducted trjat measure the amount of
chromium in drinking water, ground water, soil, and air, there,are no
studies that measure the body burden 'of;chromium in human tissue.
I
4.44 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends LJiapt^r 4 - "Human Health
-------
Chromium III is an essential nutrient that helps the body use sugar,
protein, and fat. An intake of 50-200 JJg of chromium (III) per day is
recommended for adults. On average, adults in the U.S. take in an
estimated 60-80 (Jg of chromium per day in food. Therefore, many
people's diets may not provide enough chromium (III). Without
chromium III in the diet, the body loses its ability to use sugars,
proteins, and fat properly, which may result in weight loss or
decreased growth, improper function of the nervous system, and a
diabetic-like condition. Therefore, chromium (III) compounds have
been used as dietary supplements and are beneficial if taken in
recommended (but not excessive) dosages (ATSDR, 2000). Chronic-
high exposures to chromium (III), however, may affect the skin, liver,
or kidneys (ACGIH, 1991; Rom, 1992).
In general, chromium (VI) is more toxic than chromium III. Breathing
in high levels (greater than 2 (Jg/m^) of chromium (VI), such as in a
compound known as chromic acid or chromium (VI) trioxide, can
irritate the nose, causing symptoms such as runny nose, sneezing,
itching, nosebleeds, ulcers, and holes in the nasal septum. These
effects have primarily occurred in factory workers who make or use
chromium (VI) for several months to many years. Long-term exposure
to chromium (VI) has been associated with lung cancer in workers
exposed to levels in air that were 100 to 1,000 times higher than
those found in the natural environment. Lung cancer may occur long
after exposure to chromium VI has ended (ATSDR, 2000).

No biomonitoring data are readily available for chromium.
Interest is developing in examining chromium as an emerging
environmental pollutant.
: United States federal standards and criteria for five heavy metals
"^ f o -f , *
fT. MCLs are regulatory standards developed pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking
*~ Water Act (SDWA). &
2r A groundwater cleanup level is most often the MCL (per the Comprehensive
- Erwronmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA] [also known as
Superfund] and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] guidance) for
the particular contaminant Groundwater cleanup levels are established by EPA and
S?D^" a"se-by-«se basis for Superfund site clean-ups and corrective actions
at KCKA solid and hazardous waste management.
&-Thjs Standard is a quarterly average. Lead is a criteria air pollutant (under the Clean
; Air Act) and therefore has a health-based standard
_4 This heavy metal is not a criteria air pollutant and thus there is not a health-based
' -standard. Air pollution standards for this heavy metal are technology-based
•-standards, not health-based standards. For example, the emission standard for
_ _ arsenic is that which is achieya,ble wi,t,h the best available technology (BAT) for
± treating arsenic air emissions.Jn addition, the BAT for arsenic emissions varies
|T across industry sectors and thus emission standards for arsenic also vary across
te-^ Industry sectors ,„ ,,..,._„,,.
^Source: EPA Current Drinking Water Standards. 2002; EPA EPA Handbook of
groundwater Poliaesfor RCRA Corrective Action 2000; EPA. National Air Quality and
jyyitssions Trends Report 1999. 2001. ^ _ w_ „ _
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends
4-45
-------
, — __,_.___. : • , , | ! i I : :

EfAs Draft Rlport 66 the Environment 2J3C)$ • lechnic^
;''" I " ' ,,:•.' i • i
JE,
Blood lead level - Category 1
Lead is a naturally occurring metal found in small amounts in rock
and soil. Lead has been used industrially in the production of
gasoline, ceramic products, paints, and solder. Lead-based paint
and lead-contaminated dust from paint are the primary sources of
lead exposure in the home. The body burden of lead can be
measured as the amount of lead in blood or the amount of lead in
urine. The health effects of lead are discussed in Section 4.1 of
this chapter.

What the Data Show

NHANES 1999-2000. The mean blood lead levels for adults are
illustrated in Exhibit 4-33. The mean blood lead level for all males
in the survey was 2.0 micrograms per deciliter (pg/dL) and 1.4
ug/dL for all females. The mean blood lead level for non-Hispanic
African Americans was 1.9 pg/dL The mean blood lead level for
Mexican Americans was 1.8 ug/dL (CDC, 2001 c).
NHANES Illl (1988-1994). Blood lead jevels of people were
surveyed in two separate phases of NHANES 111. The data collect-
ed during Phase 2 (1991 through 1994)1 indicated that the U.S.
population's; exposure to lead was decreasing.

NHEXAS-Region 5. Blood lead levels fqr 165 participants were
obtained during NHEXAS-Region 5. Lead levels in blood were
detectable for about 94 percent of the population; most of the
individuals had lead levels well below lOJpg/dL. The mean blood
lead level of the participants was 2.18 M&/dL (Clayton, et al.,
1999). ! •
! i
Data Source ; :
i i

NHANES 1999-2000, National Center for Health Statistics.
(See Appendix B, page B-33, for more information.)
pr

i
i
Exhibit 4-33: Geometric mean and selectee] percentiles ol
! "" ior*the United States population, aged* 1 year and o
lead concentrations Vm |jg/dL)
of tota
:or the United States population, aged I year and older, by selected demographic groups,
lixlational Health and Nutnt.on Exanunabon Survey WANES), 1999-2000
*<: >aclv-""" t , ».*». *J* rti*fc*i»a
Selected Percentiles
Geometric Mean
1

-------
Urine arsenic level - C-ategory 2
Arsenic occurs in rock, soil, water, air, plants, and animals.
Exposure occurs when arsenic is further released into the environ-
ment through erosion, volcanic action, forest fires, or human _
actions. Human activities involve its use in wood preservatives,
dyes, paints, paper production, and cement manufacturing.
Arsenic mining is also a source of human exposure (EPA, 2001 a).

Inorganic arsenic has been recognized as a human poison since
ancient times, and large oral doses (above 60,000 ppb in food or
water) can produce death. Lower levels of inorganic arsenic
(ranging from about 300 to 30,000 ppb in food, water, or
Pharmaceuticals) may cause symptoms such as stomach ache,
nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Inorganic arsenic is a multi-site
human carcinogen. Populations with exposures above several
hundred ppb are reported to have increased risks of skin, bladder,
and lung cancer. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (USDHHS) has determined that inorganic arsenic is a
known carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on
Cancer (1ARC) had determined that inorganic arsenic is
carcinogenic to humans. Both the EPA and the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) have classified inorganic arsenic as a
known human carcinogen (ATSDR, 2001).

A large number of adverse noncarcinogenic effects have been
reported in humans. The most prominent are changes in the
skin, (e.g., hyperpigmentation and keratoses). Other effects
that have been reported include alterations in gastrointestinal,
cardiovascular, hematological, pulmonary, neurological,
immunological, and reproductive developmental function
(NRC, 1999).

Children who are exposed to arsenic may have many of the same
effects as adults, including irritation of the stomach and intestines,
blood vessel damage, skin changes, and reduced nerve function.
Thus, all health effects observed in adults are of potential concern
in children (ATSDR, 2001).
What the Data Show

NHEXAS-Region 5. Arsenic levels in urine were measured for
approximately 202 participants during NHEXAS-Region 5. The
mean urine arsenic level was 29.32 micrograms per liter (fJg/L),
while the median urine arsenic level was 3.65 |Jg/L. The mean
level is much higher than the median level, indicating that the
distribution is highly skewed to the higher values (Clayton, et
al., 1999).

MHANES. Future NHANES studies will include arsenic. Therefore,
MHANES will serve as the biomonitoring data source for arsenic.
When NHANES becomes the indicator data source for arsenic,
the indicator will become a Category 1 indicator.

Data Source

MHEXAS, Environmental Protection Agency. (See Appendix B,
page B-33, for more information.)
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-47

-------
EPAs Draft Report on trie Environrrient i(3t)^
                       1                                       :    i • •  •

               Blood mercury level - (Category
Mercury is a naturally occurring metal that is widespread and per- .
sistent in the environment. It is found in elemental form and in
various organic compounds and complexes. Methylmercury
(one organic form of mercury) can accumulate up the food chain
in aquatic systems and lead to high concentrations of methylmer-
cury in predatory fish. Consumption of contaminated fish is the
major source of human exposure to methylmercury in the U.S.     '
(NRQ 2000).

Methylmercury is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract
and readily enters the brain, where it accumulates and is slowly
converted to inorganic mercury. A spectrum of adverse health
effects has been observed following methylmercury exposure,
With the severity depending largely on the magnitude of the
dose. The most severe effects reported in humans were seen
following high-dose poisoning episodes in Japan and Iraq. The
fetus is considered much more sensitive than the adult Prenatal
exposures interfere with the growth and migration of neurons and
have the potential to cause irreversible damage to the developing
central nervous system. Infants exposed in utero during the Japan
and Iraqi  episodes were born with severe disabilities, such as
mental retardation, seizure disorders, cerebral palsy, blindness,
and deafness. Chronic low-dose prenatal methylmercury exposure
from maternal consumption offish has been associated with more
subtle end points of neurotoxicity (e.g., IQ deficits, abnormal
muscle tone, decrements in motor function, attention and
visuospatial performance) (NRC, 2000).

The human health effects of mercury are diverse and depend
upon the forms of mercury encountered and the severity and
length of exposure. Large acute exposures to elemental mercury
vapor can result in
lung damage. Lower
dose or chronic
inhalation may affect
the nervous system,
resulting in symptoms
such as weakness,
fatigue, weight loss,
gastrointestinal prob-
lems, and behavioral
and personality
changes. Organic
mercury is more toxic
than inorganic and
elemental mercury
(CDC, 2001 c).
Health effects of
                                                                  organic mercury include vision changes, $ensory changes in the
                                                                  limbs, cognitive.disturbances, dermatitis,; and muscle deterioration.;
                                                                  The developing nervous system of the fetus and infants is suscep- !
                                                                  tible to the effects of methylmercury (CDC, 2003).

                                                                  What the Data Show      \
                                                                                                  • i  I                       :
                                                                  NHANES 1 999-2000. The blood mercpry level reported in      ''
                                                                  NHANES is total blood mercury, including both organic and
                                                                  inorganic mercury. Mercury levels were measured in blood and
                                                                  urine during NHANES  1999-2000  for 70S children aged  1 -5
                                                                  years, and 1,709 adult females aged 16-49. The mean blood    ;
                                                                  mercury level for males and females aged 1 -5 years was 0.34     !
                                                                  micrograms per liter (Mg/j-), and the rriea'n blood mercury level for :
                                                                  adult females was 1.02 [Jg/L.        •  !
                                                                                                   I  ;                       ;

                                                                  NHEXAS-Region 5. Mercury concentrations in human hair were
                                                                  measured for 182 participants during NHlEXAS-Region 5.  The
                                                                  mean mercury level in hair, annualized fof seasonally, was  287
                                                                  ppb. More people in older age categories have high levels of
                                                                  mercury in their hair. This increase in mefcury level was found not ,
                                                                  to be an effect of income level (Pellizari, jst al., 1999).

                                                                  Data Source

                                                                  NHANES 1999-2000, National Center fpr Health Statistics.      \
                                                                  (See Appendix B, page B-33, for more information.)
                                                                                           Selected PerceniiU
                         Age Group and Sex
                         Mates/Females 1-5 years
                         Mates
                         Females
                         Females 16-49 years
                                            Sample Size ,  Geometric Mean; ,    10th
                                             - W M
                                r^y^-r
otirce CDC Second National Report on Human Exposure to EnmonmentaffKelnicals 200:
4-48         4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends        C-napter 4 - T~]umcin Health

-------
                           ';. ;y«:"";-'' •'•:r .. : ''' V- ''-..:• A- rV.'.". • .~\-J-'''.~' "'.'V.,:";'• '-j.--1- * ;.;..'.• =;.: '. ;;';>;,-';"* "'••'-.-"'- •-' •--' .!'(-"-';-'•-.•'"•--'*"• v.:'•-/:.-""-•-= -'•-• -•»-"• 1 V-.->vV.-^/>-"-[':-'i'+S-^'.4:^'t^fI^>,.:c'V^i:t:^'-Al:.-^Ki;^i- rt.!1--^1?;^:;^';.^- -...-i"-^ -'••. • •.'••';:.-^Sf"-*—.
                                                                                                                           !^>#fes3^^^^
                                                                                                                                  ^^s^i^«a£^te
                     Dlooa cadmium level  - Category 1
^
Elemental cadmium .is a metal that is usually found in nature
combined with other elements such as oxygen, chlorine, or sulfur.
. Cadmium enters the environment from the weathering of rocks
and minerals that contain cadmium. Exposure to cadmium can
occur in occupations such as mining or electroplating, where
cadmium is used or produced. Cadmium exposure can also occur
from exposure to cigarette smoke (CDC, 2001 c).
Cadmium and its compounds are toxic. Once absorbed into the
human body, cadmium can remain for decades. Exposure to
cadmium for many years may result in cadmium accumulation in
the kidneys and serious kidney damage. Chronic ingestion of
cadmium has resulted in osteomalacia, a bone disorder similar to
rickets. Acute airborne exposure, as occurs from welding on
cadmium-alloy metals, can result in swelling (edema) and scarring
(fibrosis) of the lungs (CDC, 2003).






















"" *~M^^™»>«**^^
What the Data Show
NHANES 1 999-2000. This survey measured blood cadmium
levels in people 1 year and older, and urine cadmium levels in a
sample of people 6 years and older. Recent advances in analytical
chemistry have made it possible to measure cadmium in very small
amounts in blood and urine. Finding a measurable amount of
cadmium in the blood or urine does not mean that the level of
cadmium causes an adverse health effect (CDC, 2001 c). The
blood cadmium biomonitoring measurements are similar among
males and females as well as among the racial or ethnic groups
sampled. Exhibit 4-35 shows that blood levels were higher among
people 20 years of age or older than for people younger than 20
years of age (CDC, 2001 c). The mean urine cadmium level was
0.3 ug/L (CDC, 2001 c).
Data Source
NHANES 1999-2000, National Center for Health Statistics/
(See Appendix B, page B-34, for more information.)
p1 ^ " Exhibit 4-35. Geometric mean and selected percentiles of blood cadmium concentrations (in ug/L) ]
Ifr k>r ^e United States population, aged I year and older, Ly selected demographic groups,
ffcrrr National HealtK and Nutrition E^minj^njuryey (NHANES), 1999-2000
1 ' ' " ' :
J Selected Percentiles B^^HI
ij . 1 Sample Size Geometric Meap 10th 25th 50th 75th onth H^^^^ll
f. Total, Age 1 and Older 7,970 0.4
 ^rn* ,- , , ^i^M3^"^ "^.^fr-in ft* ^, !?,«,• ,P - $


Chapter 4 - Human Health          4.4  Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends
4-49

-------

.,.,
4.4.4 What is the level of exposure
to cotinine?
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a dynamic, complex mixture
of more than 4,000 chemicals found in both vapor and particle
phases. Many of these chemicals are known toxic or carcinogenic
agents (ALA, et al., 1994). The EPA has classified ETS as a known
human carcinogen and estimates that it is'responsible for approxi- :
mately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year, among non-smokers in
the U.S. (EPA, NCEA, December 1992). ,

Cotinine is a major metabolic product of ijiicotine and is currently '•
regarded as the best biomarker for exposure of active smokers and
non-smokers to ETS. Measuring cotinine is preferred over measuring'
nicotine because, although both are specific for exposure to tobac-
co, cotinine remains in the body much (or ger than nicotine.
IndiclS
Blood cotinine level - C_ategory

Cotinine can be measured in blood, urine, saliva, and hair.
Non-smokers exposed to ETS have cotinine levels of less than 1
nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL), with heavy exposure to ETS
producing levels in the 1 to 15 ng/mL range. Active smokers
almost always have levels higher than 15 ng/mL (CDC, 2001 c).

What the Data Show

NHANES 1999-2000. Exhibit 4-36 presents data for the U.S.
non-smoking population aged 3 years and older. Males have
higher levels than females, and people aged 20 years and older
have lower levels than those younger than 20 years of age.
Levels for non-Hispanic African Americans are higher than for
other ethnic groups (CDC, 2001 c).
NHANES III (1988-1991). As part of NHANES III, CDC
determined that the median level of cotin ne among non-smokers
in the U.S. *as 0.20 ng/mL (Pirkle, et al.,
1996, in CDC, 2001 c).
Results from NHANES 1999-2000 shoy jthat the median cotinine
level has decreased to less than 0.050 ng^mL—more than a 75
percent decrease from NHANES 111 to NHJANES 1999-2000 (CDC,
2001 c). NHANES 111 (1988-1991) provided the first evidence from
a national study that serum cotinine levels are higher among Black
smokers than among White or Mexican American smokers at all
levels of cigarette smoking (Caraballo, etal., 1998).

Data Source

NHANES 1999-2000, National Center tor Health Statistics.
(See Appendix B, page B-34, for more information.)
ESt U-36 Selected percentiles of serum cotinine concentrations (in ng/mU |
f 4ge'd 3 years and older. National HealtK and Nutrition Examination ,

'
,'

!H;heUnited3tate non smoking, population,^
Ley (NHAKlB), 1999-2000 * '**
I ' " . i i j ' ' Selected; Percentiles Mill ' I
\ Sample Size M ] ! ! 10th 25th 50th " 75th: j jW M ii I
HBBB^iMBi^B^Bi^BI
Total, Age 3 years and Older
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Ethnicity
Black, non-Hispanic*
Mexican American
White, non-Hispanic"
Age Croup
3-11 years
12-19 years
204- years
^^m^^m^^m^^m^mm
5,999
3,210
1,333
2,242
1,949
1,174
1,773
3,052
-------
l-!!fci**E«^*«i^%^ "•-''1'"i* :""VK '-"••-'•^i^i^i-»**.£>^>..4^^iW^^"^;:f\^.;,Iv..^:!ik*\: v: .
4.4.5 What is the level of exposure
to volatile organic compounds?
In addition to the health effects attributed to VOCs themselves,
VOCs are also chemical compounds that contribute significantly to
the formation of ground-level ozone (smog) when released to the air.
Exposure to ground-level ozone can damage lung tissue and cause
serious respiratory illness. (For additional information on VOCs in
the environment, see Chapter 1, Cleaner Air.)
Blood VOC levels - Category
Biomonitoring data for volatile compounds are difficult to obtain
because these compounds do not persist for very long in the
body. For this reason, biomonitoring data are indicative of recent
exposure only. Only relatively older sources of data, NHEXAS and
NHANES III, are available for the body burden of VOCs.

What the Data Show

NHEXAS-Region 5. Blood levels of four VOCs were obtained for
participants in NHEXAS-Region 5. The four compounds were
benzene, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene (PERC), and
trichloroethylene (TCE). The mean level of benzene measured in
blood was 0.07 ug/L The mean level of chloroform was 0.07 ij/L.
The mean level of PERC was 0.21 jjg/L The mean level of TCE
was below the limit of detection (Clayton, et al., 1999).
NHANES III (1988-1994). Blood samples were analyzed for the
presence of VOCs during NHANES III. NHANES III was conducted
on a nationwide probability sample of approximately 33,994
persons aged 2 months or older. Of these, an exposure
questionnaire was administered and blood samples analyzed for
VOCs in a convenience sample of 1,018 adult participants aged
20 to 59 years. Toluene, styrene, and benzene were present in the
blood of more than 75 percent of the participants. Analysis of
this and other data collected during NHANES III shows a strong
association between lifetime cigarette smoking and toluene,
benzene, and styrene levels (Churchill and Kaye, 2001).

Data Source

NHANES III (1988-1994), National Center for Health Statistics.
(See Appendix B, page B-34, for more information.)
4.4.6 What is the level of
exposure to pesticides?
Organophosphate pesticides account for about half of the insecti-
cides used in the U.S. Organophosphate pesticides are active against
a broad spectrum of insects and are used on food crops as weir as in
residential and commercial buildings and on ornamental plants and
lawns. Exposure to these pesticides occurs primarily from ingestion
of food products or from residential use (CDC, 2001 c).
The mechanism of toxicity of the Organophosphate pesticides is to
inhibit the enzyme that breaks down acetylcholine, which transfers
nerve impulses between nerve cells or from a nerve cell to other
types of cells, such as muscle cells. This leads to a buildup of
acetylcholine, which overstimulates muscles, causing symptoms such
as weakness and paralysis (CDC, 2001 c). (For additional information
on pesticides in the environment, see Chapter 1, Cleaner Air;
Chapter 2, Purer Water; and Chapter 3, Better Protected Land.)
Cnapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends
4-5 T
-------

EPAs Draft feport on the Environmen
ecnnica
1 Document
~3K.
Urine organopnospnate levels to indicate pesticides -

-?te9ory '
Pesticides biomonitoring data are obtained by measuring the
chemicals that pesticides are broken down into in the body.
Measurement of these pesticide metabolites reflects exposure to
pesticides that has occurred predominantly in the last few days
(CDC 2001 c). The reason is that these metabolites persist within
the body for only a short time.

Presently, national biomonitoring data are available primarily for
organophosphate pesticides. Future studies may provide
additional indicators for non-organophosphate pesticides, such as
carbamates and persistent pesticides.

What the Data Show

NHANES 1999-2000. Urine levels of organophosphate
pesticide metabolites were measured in a subsample of NHANES
participants 6 through 59 years of age who were selected to be:
representative of the U.S. population. Finding a measurable
amount of one or more metabolites in urine does not mean that
the level of the organophosphate causes an adverse health
effect. Whether organophosphate pesticides at the levels of
metabolites reported during NHANES 1J999-2000 are a cause
for health concern is not known (CDC, |2001 c). Exhibit 4-37
shows the amount of each metabolite it) urine reported in
NHANES 1999-2000. ; !' '.
I ! :
NHEXAS-MD. Urine levels of metabolites of some common
pesticides v/ere measured during NHEXA'S-MD. 1 -naphthol
(1 NAP) is «i urinary metabolite of both jarbaryl and naphthalene.
The mean urine level of 1 NAP measured' for 338 participants was
33.7 Lig/L 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (JTCPY) is the major
metabolite in urine of the pesticides chiprpyrifos, chlorpyrifos-
methyl, and triclopyr. The mean urine lejrel of TCPY measured for
346 participants was 6.8 Ljg/L Malathi0n dicarboxylic acid
(MDA) is a principal metabolite of malajhion, an organophosphate
pesticide used against insects. The meap urine level for MDA
measured during NHEXAS-MD was below the level of detection.
Atrazine mercapturate (AM) is a urinary! metabolite of atrazine, a :
widely used herbicide in the U.S. The mean urine level for AM
measured during NHEXAS-MD was below the level of detection
; (Macintosh, et al., 1999).
I Ill l|l||lllll( illli i^ • ' I II Ill Ill Illlllll HI IPIII pita 1 Hill' ]J tJlt ^fM «a"pwp™ IT- "n^rr-™™-""
E 14-37: Geometnc mean and selectecTpercenbles of selected pestiade metabolS urine concentetions
"' ' ' j creahnine-adjusted levels for tke United States population aged 6-59 ysfe, National
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). 1999-jgOO
(Data Source

NHANES 1999-2000,
Rational Center for Health
Statistics. (See Appendix 6,
page B-35, for more
information.)
Dimtlhjtphosphate
pg/L of urine
pg/goftreatMne"
Olmcthylthiophosphale
(ig/1. of urine
ug/gofc«atln![»%
|)£/l of urine
ps/goferealinine*
Dtethylphosplttte
pg/L of urine
Hg/gofcreatinine'
Dicthylthiophosplute
gg/L of urine
pj/goferealinir.c"
4-52
4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends Copter 4 - Human Health
-------
^ 2003
4.4.7 What is the level of exposure
to persistent organic pollutants?
Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are manmade organic chemicals
that remain in the environment for long periods of time. Some POPs
are toxic; others are not. Toxic POPs are of a special concern
because they often remain toxic for decades orlonger. The more
persistent a toxic chemical is, the greater the probability for human
exposure over time.

POPs have been linked to adverse health effects such as cancer,
nervous system damage, reproductive disorders, and disruption of
the immune system in both human and animals. POPs released in one
part of the world can travel to regions far from their place of origin,
because they circulate globally long after their release into the
atmosphere, oceans, and other pathways (EPA, 2001 b).

Under the United Nations Environment Program, the international
community has identified 12 chemicals as primary POPs. These
chemicals include certain insecticides such as dichlorodiphenyl-
trichloroethane (DDT) and chlordane, which were once commonly
used to control pests, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which
were used in hundreds of commercial applications for electrical,
heat transfer, and hydraulic equipment, and in plasticizers in paints,
plastics, and rubber products.

The 12 chemicals targeted by EPA as POPs are the pesticides aldrin,
chlordane, DDT, mirex, toxaphene, dieldrin, endrin, and heptachlor;
hexachlorobenzene, an industrial chemical; PCBs; polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins); and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans
(furans) (EPA, 2001 b).

The following discussion of human exposure to POPs is derived from
the Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals, published in.January 2003 by the CDC National Center
for Environmental Health (CDC, 2003). Four of the 12 POPs are not
addressed by the CDC report and are therefore not addressed
specifically in this chapter. These four chemicals are aldrin,
toxaphene, dieldrin, and endrin. The remaining POPs were not
evaluated for indicators at this time but EPA anticipates that these
chemicals will become indicators in the future.
Cnlordane and Heptacnlor
In 1988, EPA banned the use and production of chlordane in the
U.S. Chlordane is an organochlorine pesticide that was applied in
and around buildings to eliminate termites and was also used as an
agricultural and lawn pesticide. The technical grade of chlordane
consists of a group of related chemicals, including heptachlor,
c/s-chlordane, trans-chlordane, and trans-nonachlor. Note that
heptachlor was also used individually as a pesticide separate from
chlordane. However, pesticide applications were mostly made with
technical grade chlordane and therefore chlordane is the main form
of heptachlor exposure.

Within the body, chlordane is metabolized to oxychlordane and
heptachlor is metabolized to heptachlor epoxide. Human exposure to
chlordane and heptachlor is determined by measuring the blood
serum concentrations of oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, and
heptachlor epoxide. However, generally recognized guidelines for
serum levels of these metabolites have not been established.

The NHANES 1999-2000 mean levels of oxychlordane and
heptachlor epoxide in the overall population were below the lipid-
adjusted level of detection, which averaged 7.4 ng/g of lipid. The
NHANES II (1976-1980) 9Sth percentile level was about twice the
NHANES 1999-2000 level for oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor.

DDT .

DDT was initially used by the military during the 1940s to control
mosquitoes that carried vector-borne diseases such as malaria. EPA
banned the use of DDT in the U.S. in 1973. DDT, however, is still
produced and used in other countries.

For the general population, food is the most common pathway of
exposure. Diets that involve large amounts of Great Lakes fish will
increase an individual's exposure to DDT. Food intake of DDT has
decreased since the 1950s; however, food imported to the U.S. may
have DDT contamination, especially food imported from tropical
regions where DDT is used in the greatest quantities.

Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) (more persistent than
DDT) is a major DDT metabolite that can be produced in people
or in the environment. DDT in the human body reflects either a
relatively recent exposure or a cumulative past exposure over time.
A high DDT-to-DDE ratio may indicate a recent exposure, and a low
DDT-to-DDE ratio may indicate an exposure in the more distant past.

The NHANES 1999-2000 95th percentile levels (lipid-adjusted
serum) for DDT and DDE in the overall population range from 5-fold
to 15-fold lower than levels detected in a non-random subsample of
NHANES II (1976-1980). These decreases in the U.S. levels are
consistent with the decreased use and manufacture of these chemi-
cals. Also, within NHANES 1999-2000, the group aged 12 to 19
years had DDE levels 2-fold lower than the group 20 years and older.

Hexacnlorobenzene (HCfi)

Hexachlorobenzene is a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic pollu-
tant (EPA, 2003b). It was commonly used as a pesticide until 1965,
as a fungicide to protect wheat seeds, and for a variety of industrial
purposes, including rubber, aluminum, and dye production and wood
preservation (EPA, 2003c). In 1984, EPA canceled its registered use.
There currently are no commercial uses of HCB in the U.S. (EPA,
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends
4-53
-------
EPAs Draft Report on the Envirdnment J003 • flechnicai DocurnHt
2003c); however, HCB is still formed as a by-product during the ,
manufacture of other chemicals (mainly solvents) and pesticides.

Human exposure to HCB can occur through work in or proximity to
chemical manufacturing sites where it is formed as a by-product or
to waste facilities where it is disposed. People also can be exposed
by consuming foods tainted with hexachlorobenzene (EPA, 2003 c).
EPA has set the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for
hexachlorobenzene in drinking water at 1 part per billion. If HCB
levels exceed this level, the water supplier must notify the public
(EPA, 2002g).

HCB has been found to potentially cause skin lesions and nerve and :
liver damage when people are exposed at levels above the MCL for
relatively short periods (EPA, 2002g). Lifetime exposure at levels
above the MCL can damage the liver and kidneys and cause
reproductive effects, benign tumors of endocrine glands, and cancer
(EPA, 2002g).

Epidemiologic studies of persons orally exposed to HCB have not
shown an increased cancer incidence. However, EPA has classified
HCB as a probable human carcinogen (Group B2) based on animal '
studies that have reported cancer of the liver, thyroid, and kidney
from oral HCB exposure. Very few inhalation data are available
(EPA, 2003c).

Generally recognized guidelines for HCB serum levels are not
available. HCB was detected in 0.6 percent of people during the
1999-2000 NHANES study. Rnding detectable amounts does not
mean that those levels produce adverse health effects. HCB has a
residence time of approximately IS years in body fat.

fCBs

PCBs are chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbon chemicals that were
once used as electrical insulating and heat exchange fluids. Within
the U.S., peak production occurred in the early 1970s and
production within the U.S. was banned in 1979. Concern over these
chemicals remains high because they are still released into the
environment

Sources of exposure for the general population include release of
PCBs from waste sites and from fires involving transformers and
capacitors; ingestion of foods containing PCBs due to contamination
of animal feeds; migration from packaging materials; and
accumulation in the fatty tissues of livestock. PCBs are found at
higher concentrations in fatty foods. In occupational settings,
workers can be exposed to PCBs from remediation activities at
hazardous waste sites and from the repair of transformers,
capacitors, and hydraulic systems (CDC, 2003a). . :

The Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration have developed criteria for allowable levels of
PCBs in foods and the workplace. EPA hgs established criteria for
water and for the storage and removal of PCB-contammated wastes.

Overall, there are three categories of at least 25 different PCB '.
compounds (termed congeners) as determined by molecular ;
structure. Congeners are closely related ;chemical compounds. The•
three categories are coplanar PCBs, mor|o-ortho substituted PCBs,
and other PCBs. The significance of these categories is that coplanar
and mono-ortho substituted PCBs have health effects similar to
dioxins. Overall, the human health effects of PCBs include liver
disorders, elevated lipids, and gastrointestinal cancers
(CDC, 2003a). ;
I i •
The detection of serum PCBs can reflect either recent or past
exposures to PCBs. Those PCBs with'higher degrees of chlorination
persist in the human body from several |months to years after
exposure. In the NHANES 1999-2000 kubsample, the frequency
of detection of the eight mono-ortho substituted PCBs ranged from
2 percent to 47 percent. Finding detectable amounts does not |
mean that those levels result in adverse! health effects. (For :
additional information on PCBs in the environment, see Chapter 2,
Purer Water; Chapter 3, Better Protected Land; and Chapter 5,
Ecological Condition.) :

Pol/chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins i(Dioxins) and

Polycrilorinated Dibenzo-p-rUrans (flirans)
; i •
Dioxins and furans are similar classes of] chlorinated aromatic
chemicals usually generated as pollutants or byproducts. They have
no commercial or natural use. Processes that result in their
generation include the incineration of Waste, the production of pulp
and paper, and the synthesis of variousjmanmade chemicals. Releases
from industrial sources have decreased ty approximately 80 percent
since the 1980s. The largest releases of dioxins and furans today are
the open burning of household and municipal trash, landfill fires, and
agricultural and forest fires. In the environment, dioxins and furans
occur as a mixture of about 20 congen
chemical compounds).
irs (i.e., closely related
Human exposure occurs primarily through foods that are
contaminated with dioxins and furans. Food contamination occurs
due to the accumulation of these chem
high-fat foods, such as dairy products,
icals in the food chain and in
eggs, animal fate, and some
types offish. People have also been exposed through industrial
accidents, the burning of PCBs, and through the spraying of
contaminated herbicides such as Agent; Orange. Workplace
exposures are rare and generally recognized standards for external
exposure have not been established. '.
i i
Human health effects associated with dioxins and furans are wide-
ranging. Given that the exposure of the general population occurs as
exposure 1» a mixture of congeners, this effects of individual
congeners, are difficult to determine. Overall, associated dioxin and
I :
4-54
4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends CJiapter H - Human liealfcn
-------
ii':.:ipjj>^
• l-lTM:Urart 1\ep<5rt brTtht triv!ra|tmtnt2QQ3.
furan health effects include liver disorders, fetal injury, porphyria,
elevated lipid levels, chloracne, hormonal changes, neurologic
damage, and immunogic changes. The dioxin cogener termed TCDD
is the most toxic form of dioxin and it is classified as a known human
carcinogen.

It is estimated that human serum lipid-based levels of overall dioxins
and furans have decreased by 80 percent since the 1980s and the
low NHANES 1999-2000 values support that estimation. The levels
detected via NHANES 1999-2000 are far below those associated
with occupational and unintentional exposures that resulted in
human health effects.

Further, the NHANES 1999-2000 subsample reveals that the more
highly chlorinated dioxin and furan cogeners are the main
contributors to the human body burden. The higher concentrations
in human tissues of these cogeners are due to their greater presence
in the food chain, resistance to metabolic breakdown, and greater
solubility in body fat. Half-lives for all the dioxin and furan cogeners
range from 3 to 19 years and TCDD is estimated to be 7 years.
4.4.8 What are the trends in
exposure to environmental
pollutants for children?
Children may be affected by environmental pollutants quite
differently than adults, both because children may be more highly
exposed to pollutants and because they may be more vulnerable to
the toxic effects of pollutants. Children generally eat more food,
clrink more water, and breathe more air relative to their size than do
adults, and consequently may be exposed to relatively higher
amounts of pollutants. Also, unlike adults, children's normal activities,
such as putting their hands in their months or playing on the
ground, create greater opportunities for exposures to pollutants. In
addition, environmental pollutants may affect children
disproportionately because their organ systems are still developing
and therefore may be more susceptible (EPA, December 2000). This
section presents three environmental pollutants that represent
exposures of concern to children: lead, mercury, and cotinine.
Indicaffir'
Blood lead level in children - Category 1
Infants, children, and fetuses are more vulnerable to the effects of
lead because the blood-brain barrier is not fully developed
(Nadakavukaren, 2000). Thus, a smaller amount of lead will have
a greater effect in children than in adults. In addition, ingested
lead is more readily absorbed into a child's bloodstream. Children
absorb 40 percent of ingested lead into the bloodstream, while
adults absorb only 10 percent. Because of lead's adverse effects
on cognitive development, CDC has defined an elevated bloojd
lead level as equal to or greater than 10 (jg/dL for children under
6 years of age (CDC, 2001 c).

What the Data Show

In NHANES III (1988-1994), the mean blood lead levels for chil-
dren ages 1 to S declined from 3.6 (Jg/dL in Phase 1 (1988 to
1991) to 2.7 ug/dL in Phase 2 (1991 to 1994). Over the same
time interval, the percentage of children aged 1 to 5 years with
elevated blood lead levels decreased from 8.6 percent to 4.4 per-
cent (Pirkle, 1998). In NHANES 1999-2000, the geometric medi-
an blood lead level for children 1 to 5 years old is 2.2 yg/dL. The
. median blood lead level for children 6 to 11 years old is 1.5 ug/dL
(see exhibit 4-8 in this chapter).
Data Source

NHANES 1999-2000, National Center for Health Statistics.
(See Appendix B, page B-35, for more information.)
Chapter 4 - Human Health
4.4
Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends 4-55
-------
EPAs Draft feport on the Environment 2Q(}3
echnica
1 Dbcumjmt
Blood mercury level in children - Category
Children may be more highly exposed to mercury and may be
more vulnerable to its toxic effects. The health effects of mercury
are diverse and can include developmental and neurological
effects in children.

What the Data Show

Extremely limited information has been available about children's
exposure to mercury and how it relates to levels in adults. Exhibit
4-38 shows that the geometric mean of blood mercury levels
among U.S. children measured in NHANES 1999-2000 was 0.34
1/g/L The geometric mean of blood mercury levels of women of
childbearing age was 1.02 ug/L Levels among women of child-
bearing age are particularly important because they reflect levels
of mercury to which the fetus is exposed j(NRC, 2000). During a
toxicological review of mercury levels, the; National Research
Council estimated a benchmark dose, whjch was an estimate of a
methylmercury exposure to the fetus, associated with an increase
in abnormal scores on cognitive functionjtests among children.
The lower 95 percent confidence bound Jon the benchmark dose
was 58 ug/L (NRC, 2000). To account fit 1-38: Geometric mean and selected" percentiles of total blood mercury c

|^^
Sample Size
ChtUrcn, aged
1-5 years, males
and females
70S
0.34

-------

4.4.Q Pollutants for Which Biomonitoring Data
Are Not Available • ,

As mentioned above, biomonitoring is an emerging field. More
biomonitoring indicators are available now than a few years ago. Still,
there are many environmental pollutants for which biomonitoring
techniques are not available or feasible. These include radiation, air
pollutants (except for lead), biological pollutants, and disinfection
by-products. Biomonitoring efforts have begun recently for disinfec-
tion by-products; however, at this time data are not sufficient to
develop indicators for these pollutants. All these pollutants are of
concern because exposure is widespread. For these pollutants,
exposure assessments currently rely primarily on ambient data.
What is the leve|l of exposure to
radiation?
Radiation is energy given off by atoms in the form of particles or
electromagnetic rays. There are actually many different types of
electromagnetic radiation that have a range of energy levels. They
form the electromagnetic spectrum and include radio and micro
waves, heat, light, and x-rays (EPA, 2002w).
Radiation that has enough energy to move atoms in a molecule
around or cause them to vibrate, but not enough to change them
chemically, is referred to as "non-ionizing radiation." Examples of
this kind of radiation are sound waves, visible light, and microwaves
(EPA, 2002y). Non-ionizing radiation can be used for some common
tasks, -such as using microwave radiation for telecommunications and
heating food, infrared radiation for producing warmth, and radio
waves for broadcasting (EPA, 2002y). Non-ionizing radiation has
relatively long wavelengths and low frequencies, in the range of 1
million to 10 billion Hertz (EPA, 2002y).

Radiation that has enough energy to actually break chemical bonds
or strip electrons away from atoms is called "ionizing radiation
(EPA, 2002x)." Radioactive materials that decay spontaneously
produce ionizing radiation. Any living tissue in the human body can
be damaged by ionizing radiation. The body attempts to repair the
damage, but sometimes the damage is too severe or widespread,
or mistakes are made in the natural repair process. The most
common forms of ionizing radiation are alpha and beta particles, or
gamma and X-rays (EPA, 2002x). Ionizing radiation has very short
wavelengths, and very high frequencies, in the range of 100 billion
billion Hertz (EPA, 2002y). This is the type of radiation that
people usually think of as 'radiation.' Ionizing radiation can be
used to generate electric power, to kill cancer cells, and in many
manufacturing processes (EPA, 2002y).
Exnifait tt-39 EPA map of ra
-------
raft port Mi the Envircihfcnt #$$
ecnnica

pathway occurs when people breathe radioactive materials into the
lungs. The chief concerns are radioactively contaminated dust,
smoke, or gaseous radionuclides such as radon (EPA, 2002z). Radon
is a colorless, tasteless, and odorless gas that comes from the decay
of uranium found in nearly all soils. Levels of radon vary throughout
the country. Radon usually moves upward from the ground and
migrates into homes and other buildings through cracks and other
holes in their foundations. The buildings trap radon inside, where it
accumulates and may become a health hazard if the building is not
properly ventilated (EPA, June 2000; EPA, 2002b).

No biomonitoring data are feasible for national estimates of exposure
to radon. Data for average national indoor and outdoor radon levels ;
are available, but unlike biomonitoring data, these data do not
represent the amount of radon found in human tissue. Rather, they
are the levels of radon measured in the air. Radon levels vary
throughout the U.S. Exhibit 4-39 shows the distribution of radon
levels throughout the country (EPA, 2003d). Based on a national
residential radon survey completed in 1991, the average indoor
radon level is 1.3 picocuries per liter in the U.S. The average outdoor
level is about 0.4 picocuries per liter (EPA, 2002b).

Radiation exposure by the ingestion pathway occurs when someone
swallows radioactive materials. For example, exposure by ingestion
can occur when drinking water becomes radioactively contaminated,
or when food is grown in contaminated soil. Alpha and beta emitting
radionuclides are of most concern for ingested radioactive materials.
They release large amounts of energy directly to tissue, causing DMA
and other cell damage (EPA, 2002z).

The third pathway of concern is direct or external exposure from
radioactive material. The concern about exposure to different kinds
of radiation varies by the particular type of particle or wave that is
being emitted. Alpha particles cannot penetrate the outer layer of
skin, but open wounds may pose a risk. Beta particles can burn the
skin in some cases, or damage eyes. Greatest concern is about
gamma radiation. Different radionuclides emit gamma rays of different
strength, but gamma rays can travel long distances and penetrate
entirely through the body. Gamma rays can be slowed by dense
material (shielding), such as lead, and can be stopped if the material
is thick enough. Examples of shielding are containers; protective
clothing, such as a lead apron; and soil covering buried radioactive
materials (EPA, 2002z).

Radiation can occur from man-made sources such as x-ray machines;
or from natural sources such as the sun and outer space, and from
some radioactive materials such as uranium in soil (CDC, 2003).
About 80 percent of human exposure to radiation is from naturally
occurring forms of radiation. The remaining 20 percent of exposure
is to manmade radiation sources, primarily medical x-rays (CDC,
2003).

Radiation doses that people receive are measured in units called
"rem (CDC, 2003)." Most people receive about 300 mrem every
year from natural background sources of radiation, primarily radon.
Health physicists generally agree on limitihg a person's exposure :
beyond background radiation to about 100 millirem (mrem) per year
from all sources. Exceptions are occupational, medical or accidental
exposures. (Medical X-rays generally deliver less than 10 mrem). EPA
and other regulatory agencies generally limit exposures from specific
sources to the public to levels well underllOO mrem. This is far below
the exposure levels that cause acute health effects (EPA, 2002x).
For additional information on radiationln' the environment, see
Chapter 1 , Cleaner Air.
What is the level of <^posure to j^ir
pollutants? ! |
Criteria air pollutants are common air pojlutants comprised :of ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfuj- dioxide, lead, and
particulate matter. The health effects associated with criteria air ;
pollutants are discussed in Chapter 1, Cleaner Air, Section 1.1.3.
Ozone is the result of a chemical reactiori in the atmosphere between
VOCs and nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen dirajide comes from the burning
of gasoline, natural gas, coal, and oil. Cars are an important source of
nitrogen dioxide. 1

Carbon monoxide comes from the burning of gasoline, natural gas,
coal, and oil. Carbon monoxide reduces {he ability of blood to bring
oxygen to body cells and tissues. Carborji monoxide may be
particularly hazardous to people who have heart or circulatory
problems. . | .

Particulate matter (PM) can be emitted directly into the atmosphere,
such as dust from roads or elemental car,bon (soot) from wood
combustion. PM can also be formed in t(ie atmosphere from primary
gaseous emissions such as sulfur dioxide; and nitrogen oxides, which
come from power plants, industrial facilities, automobiles, and other
types of coijnbustion sources. j ; ' ,

The primary source of sulfur dioxide is the burning of coal and oil, '
especially high-sulfur coal from the eastern U.S., and industrial
processes (paper, metals). The primary source of lead in ambient air
was leaded gasoline, which has been phased out in the U.S. Other '
sources of lead include paint, smelters, And the manufacture of lead
storage batteries. Major health effects associated with lead are
discussed in Section 4.1. j '

Except for lead, biomonitoring methods'are not available or feasible
for the remaining criteria air pollutants.
ambient air pollutant levels are available
Data for average national
(see Chapter 1, Cleaner Air).
Research on actual intake measures of a r pollutants and their rela-
tionship to :ambient levels as measured by monitoring networks is ;
under way. Many other studies have fou id links between air
4-S8
4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------

pollutants and disease, as noted in the discussion of diseases and
their relationships to environmental pollutants (see Section 4.1).
What is the level of exposure to
biological pollutants?
Biological p'ollutants are or were living organisms. In addition to
arthropod-borne, foodborne, or waterborne disease discussed
previously, other biological agents can promote poor indoor air
quality and may be a major cause of days lost from work or school
and of doctor and hospital visits. Some can even damage surfaces.
inside and outside the residence. Some common indoor biological
pollutants include: animal dander (minute scales from hair, feathers,
or skin); dust mite and cockroach parts, fungi (molds); infectious
agents (bacteria or viruses); and pollen.

Everyone is exposed to biological pollutants. The effects on one's
health, however, depend upon the type and amount of biological
pollution and the individual person. Some people do not experience
health reactions from certain biological pollutants, while others may
experience one or more of the following reactions: allergic,
infectious, or toxic.

Except for the spread of infections indoors, allergic reactions may be
the most common health problem with indoor air quality in homes.
They are often connected with animal dander (mostly from cats and
dogs), with 'house dust mites (microscopic animals living in
household dust), and with pollen. Allergic reactions can range from
mildly uncomfortable to life-threatening, as in a severe asthma attack.
Health experts are especially concerned about people with asthma,
who have very sensitive airways that can react to various irritants,
making breathing difficult. Infectious diseases caused by bacteria and
viruses, such as flu, measles, chicken pox, and tuberculosis, may be
spread indoors. Most infectious diseases pass from person to person
through physical contact Crowded conditions with poor air
circulation can promote this spread. Some bacteria and viruses
thrive in buildings and circulate through indoor ventilation systems.
(For additional information on indoor air pollution, see Chapter 1,
Cleaner Air.)

As with air pollutants and radiation, biomonitoring methods are not
available or feasible for many of the biological pollutants discussed
'in this section.
What is the level of exposure to
disinfection by-products?
Disinfection by-products (DBFs) are chemicals that form in drinking
water when disinfectants are added during the drinking water
treatment process. Disinfectants are added to drinking water to kill
bacteria and other microbes that cause disease. DBFs are formed
when the disinfectants react with organic matter (primarily from leaf
and vegetation decay) that is found naturally in drinking water
sources such as rivers and lakes (EPA, 2002c). The most common
drinking water disinfectant is chlorine. Other lesser-used
disinfectants include chloramines, chlorine dioxide, ozone, and
ultraviolet light. More than 200 million people within the U.S. drink
disinfected water (EPA, June 2001 a).

Hundreds of different DBPs—most of which result from chlorine-
have been identified in drinking water, and occurrence data have
been reasonably established for over 30 DBPs (EPA, ORD, November
1997). The two types of DBPs that are typically measured by
drinking water utilities are trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic '
acids (HAs).

DBP levels vary throughout the country because the levels are
dependent on several factors, including amount of organic matter in
the drinking water source, amount of rainfall in the area, season of
the year, water temperature, type of disinfectant used, water
treatment plant configuration, and size of trie water system
distribution system (EPA, 1999).

Current information on DBP exposures draws on monitoring results
from drinking water systems. Data for average national levels of
THMs in treated drinking water are available. Water monitoring for
DBPs is of limited value in classifying or identifying individual
exposures to DBPs. Individual exposures are influenced by route of
exposure (ingestion, inhalation, dermal absorption), individual habits
relating to water use or consumption, time and spatial distribution of
DBPs in the water system, and seasonal variables that affect the
precursors to DBPs (e.g., rainfall, temperature). The complex nature
of exposure to DBPs will require a better understanding of the chain
of events as illustrated in Exhibit 4-1.

4.4.10 Endocrine Disrupters An Emerging Issue

An endocrine disruptor is defined as an exogenous agent that alters
the function of the endocrine system and consequently causes
adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny or
(sub)populations (IPCS, 2002). A number of pharmaceuticals,
pesticides, commercial chemicals and environmental contaminants
are known to disrupt the endocrine system across a wide range of
species—invertebrates, fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals.
Chapter 4 - Human Health 4.4 Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution: Indicators and Trends
4-59
-------
EMs Drcffi Rlporgfl thef :rwiB!npnt'2:a|S
There is little information on the magnitude and pattern of human
exposures to endocrine disrupters. The limited exposure data that
exist are primarily for various environmental media, such as chemical
concentrations in air, food, and water. Often these data are limited by
geographical regions and cannot be extrapolated to national trends.
More relevant measures of human exposure, such as chemical con-
centrations in human blood, breast milk, and human tissue, are rare.
Often these data are available only for high exposure areas and pop-
ulations. As chemicals suspected of contributing to endocrine dis-
ruption in humans are identified, it will be necessary to obtain high-
quality exposure data to perform human risk assessments. Each
major state of the science report on endocrine disrupters has
acknowledged the critical need for research to increase our under-
standing of human exposures and related health outcomes. '•

The human health issue regarding exposure to endocrine disrupters
primarily relates to: (1) adverse effects observed in fish and wildlife,
(2) the increased incidence of specific endocrine-related adverse
human health outcomes/diseases, and (3) observations of endocrine
disruption in well-conducted experiments involving laboratory
animals. These chemicals can affect the endocrine system in several
ways including interfering with hormone synthesis and release from
the endocrine gland, competing with the hormone for the binding \
sites on transport proteins in the blood, binding to the receptor to .
either block hormone action or mimic it, and producing changes in
hormone metabolism and elimination (IPCS, 2002).

There are a few clear examples of adverse human health effects fol-
lowing high exposures to environmental chemicals (e.g., accidental
releases or poisoning incidents). Analysis of the human data by itself
has not provided firm evidence of direct causal associations between
low level exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and adverse
human health outcomes.

Of particular interest is exposure during very early development,
both in utero and postnatally. Sexual differentiation, growth, and
development are under hormonal control. Many of these early
processes are unique to this time period and disruptions of
carefully timed processes may lead to irreversible adverse human
health outcomes. Interest has focused on: (1) adverse effects on
reproductive and sexual development and function, (2) altered
immune system, nervous system, and thyroid development and func-
tion, and (3) cancers of various endocrine-sensitive tissues including
the testes, breast, and prostate. Additional research is needed to
determine whether linkages exist between these adverse human
health outcomes/diseases and exposure to suspected endocrine
disrupters. However, this research is challenging as the manifestation :
of the condition is frequently not observed until years after exposure,
has occurred and the measured concentration of the chemicals in
the affected adult may be very different from in utero, neonatal, or
pre-pubertal exposures/concentrations that may have given rise to ,
the adverse outcome.
4.5 A
Environmental Burden
ssessing
o
fDi
isease
Many factors may cause or influence djsejase in humans. These
factors include heredity, social factors, dietary factors, and environ-i
mental factors (e.g., chemical pollutants, infectious microorganisms,'
and radiation). The extent to which enyiranmental factors influence
overall disease is not entirely understopd. Disease burden, global
burden of disease, and environmental bu'den of disease are concepts
used to express the burden of disease or society:

|| Disease burden is the effect on sociey of both disease-related
mortality and disease-related morbidity (Kay, 2000; WHO, 2002).
It is assessed by several health measures, including mortality rates,
morbidity rates, and the number of days in the hospital.
Historically, disease burden has been i ivestigated by analyzing
disease outcomes, such as cancer, rath er than analyzing risk
factors trjat may cause cancer or disease in general. For example, it
is easier to compare cancer incidence between two countries than
to compare risk factors of cancer; iqnfcing radiation may be the
major risk factor for cancer in country A, while dioxin may be the
major risk factor in country B. j ;

|| Global burden of disease (GBD) assesses the disease burden on
a worldwide basis and then apportions that burden to various
causes, such as genetic, behavioral, and environmental.
I I , - !
Di Environnental burden of disease (EBD) measures that portion
of the GBD which is due solely to environmental risk factors. ,
EBD provides a method for summarizmgkhe environmental health of
population:;. The summary health data collected from EBD measure-
ments help identify environmental risk factors with significant public
health implications. EBD data can also b'e used to help prioritize
funding allocations for health and environmental research, assist in:
environmental policy development, justify environmental advocacy,
assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions, and monitor the
progress of a population's health (Prilss, et al., 2001). More impor-
tant, EBD pirovides a way to normalize risk factors, allowing cpmpara-
ble health evaluations between populations. Two approaches are
commonly jsed to determine the degree of disease burden that |
stems from ^environmental risk factors: : ,

• The outcome-based approach determines the degree to which,
specific environmental risk factors caijse a disease relative to other
environmental risk factors. , ;
4-60
4.5 Assessing the Environmental Burden of Disease
: :
Chapiter 4 - Human,Health
-------
• The exposure-based approach assesses the adverse health out-
comes resulting from dose-response relationships between risk
factors and associated disease outcomes (Priiss, et al., 2001).

This section summarizes estimates, in different studies, of the
environmental burden of disease.

World Health Organization Evaluation

In 1998, WHO estimated that 23 percent of GBD is due to environ-
mental hazards, including occupational exposures (WRI, et al., 1998).
In 1999, WHO researchers and researchers from the University of
California reported that an estimated 25 to 30 percent of the GBD
was attributable to the environment (Smith, et al., 1999).

In 2000, WHO introduced a new methodology for evaluating
changes to EBD, termed comparative risk assessment (CRA). CRA
measures the GBD due to risk factors. WHO is currently developing
CRA guidelines to help countries and smaller population groups,
such as villages and towns, measure their respective EBD (Kay,
2000). CRA does not have one standard unit, however, and it
incorporates other methodologies used to assess EBD. Because of
this variability in assessment methodologies, comparing EBD for
different countries can be difficult. Further, because EBD has not
been quantified extensively in the U.S., this country's level of EBD
cannot be easily compared with that of the rest of the world.

Doll and Teto Estimates

Richard Doll and Richard Peto quantified the environmental contribu-
tion to disease in their 1981 landmark study The Causes of Cancer:
Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States
Today. In that study, they concluded that pollutants in air, water, and
food contributed from 2 to 5 percent to cancer mortality (Doll and
Peto, 1981). They quantified the portion of cancer deaths that were
attributable to various environmental causes, excluding tobacco
smoke (Exhibit 4-40). Thirty percent of cancer was ascribed to
tobacco use.

Other Estimates

Other studies of EBD have investigated specific environmental risk
factors and disease outcomes. For example, Wynder and Gori
concluded in 1972 that environmental factors caused 12 percent of
all cancer cases for men and 14 percent for women in the U.S.
(Doll and Peto, 1981).

Why EBD Estimates Differ

EBD estimates are affected by the definition of "environment" that is
used in making the determination (Smith, et al., 1999), as well as the
measurement unit used, such as reporting mortality as a percentage
of the population. For example, some researchers include factors
such as stress or injury as environmental causes of disease, while
others include stress and injury as social causes of disease.

The quantity of disease burden (such as disease outcome or risk
factors) measured in EBD studies also produces variation in EBD
estimates. These differences can be attributed to the different ways
that risk factors are categorized, or to differences in the amount of
disease burden attributed to a particular source.
cancer <

Brer f- •lcco-jy,2Jl£l Sly'Si!" tf"5 If^fe J"he,Ee *ts fiot a distinction between
l|g«T(pnmental tobacco smofee and mainstream smoke

P°!kRJ,ctl!s! ^Oflgsstiard Peto JJi^Cguse^of Cancer Quamtative Estimates i
"f Avoidable Risks of Cancer in theJJmted States Tgday 1981, >
Chapter 4 - Human Health
4.5 Assessing the Environmental Burden of Disease
4-61
-------
EPAsDrift

'octirM
4.6 Challenges and

Data (naps

This chapter described key indicators for health and exposure.
Many exposure indicators presented were measured by biomonitor-
ing. Where biomonitoring data are not available, ambient exposure
measures serve to describe human exposure to key environmental
pollutants. Areas where strong associations have been demonstrated
between environmental exposures and health outcomes were
highlighted. However, in many areas those associations have not yet
been demonstrated.

The success of environmental decisions in improving public health
can be measured on a variety of levels:
M National level (e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services' Healthy People 2010 initiative).
• Geographic/regional level (e.g., East Coast versus West Coast,
CDC's state health reports).
• Community level (e.g., air and water quality monitoring).
• Individual level (e.g., screening programs for blood lead in
children).

Many indicators may be used at a number or all of these levels.
This report has focused on describing indicators and impacts at a
national level. Future versions of this report may utilize indicators to
evaluate success in reducing environmental health exposure and
outcomes at some of the other levels as well.

Use of Health Outcome Measures to Evaluate
Environmental Tolicy Decisions or Interventions

Mortality data were chosen as one of the major disease indicators
because these are collected nationwide in every state, county, and
community. These mortality data constitute a comprehensive data-
base, since every death is presumed to be reported. This information
has been collected for more than the past SO years and has been
used to document the success of major public health programs. For
example, treatment of drinking water through filtration or chlorina-.
tion eliminated diarrhea diseases as a major cause of death in the
20th century. More recently, anti-smoking campaigns aimed at men
are believed to be responsible for the sudden downward trend in
deaths due to lung cancer. In fact, an analysis of the key indicators of
health for the country confirm that the health of the U.S. population
is improving. The U.S. population is living longer (life expectancy)
and death rates for major causes of death (cancer, cardiovascular
disease) are declining. Except for those rare diseases that have a
short survival period and 100 percent death rate, death represents
only a small fraction of the true number pf cases for a disease in the
population (see Section 4.2). '• ;

Better information and insight into the health of the U.S. population
can be obtained from evaluating incidence data (new cases of illness)
or prevalence data (all existing cases of illness). At this time, no com-
prehensive nationwide systems for collecting incidence or prevalence
data on disease are in place. The majority of morbidity data reported
in this chapter are available either from national surveys that sample
the U.S. and are.assumed to be representative of the nation, or from
data (e.g., birth defects and cancer registries) collected by the state-
based centers around the country. The ; ctual picture of health may
differ from that suggested by the data, i s in the case of chjldhood :
asthma prevalence that has been rising fas described in Section
4.3.4). CDC has launched an initiative tj> improve the nation's health
tracking system. CDC recently awarded grants to state and local
health depjirtments to begin developing a national environmental
health tracking network and to develop Capacity in monitoring envii
ronmental health at the state and local levels ().
Several emerging areas of health conce
•n (e.g., Parkinson's disease,
diabetes) and emerging areas of enviro imental exposure (e.g.,
endocrine disrupters) were recognized
these areaij, either the link between en
n this chapter. In many of
ironmental exposures and
the disease has not been established or no systematic surveillance
or established indicators currently eXis
include many of the diseases and expo
;. Future reports may well .
;ures identified as emerging
issues and may establish associated indicators. Major efforts to ',
address diabetes, asthma, and obesity also present a very ;
promising opportunity to incorporate research on the role of
environmental exposures into such plaijis.

Use of Exposure Measures to Evaluate Environmental Tolicy

Decisions or Interventions : :

Most exposure indicators described in this chapter were biomonitor-
ing indicators. Ambient exposure measures were described for a
number of areas where, at present, bionjionitoring data are not
available (e.g., for certain air pollutants where there are no markers
in blood or urine). . ; .

The NHANES data provide examples where biomonitoring data have
reflected a public health benefit from EI^A actions. For example, the
decline in blood lead levels confirms that the removal of lead from,
gasoline, water, and paint has successfu ly reduced exposures. !
Similarly, the decline in urinary cotinifie levels demonstrates that :
efforts to reduce smoking have led to public health improvements.
However, interpretation of many of tHe pther exposure indicators is
difficult at this time. Either not enough is known about the exposure
levels in the population, or data gathering at a national level has just
begun. It will take time for a stable reference base to emerge. .
4-62
4.6 Challenges and Data Gaps
Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------

Efforts to .establish a national reference base are under way through
the work of CDC's National Center for Environmental Health, which
is developing the National Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals Report. The first report was released in 2001
()
and a second one was released in January 2003 with data on 116
chemicals (). CDC is
committed to expanding this database, and its recent Federal Register
notice called for nominations of chemicals to consider for inclusion
in the third report, to be published in 2005. The report will fill a
critical need to describe exposure. Use of the report indicators for
explanatory or predictive functions will require an understanding of
pathways and sources that may have contributed to the exposure
and the exposure's relationships to health effects. With this
additional understanding the report ultimately could be used to
guide exposure reduction programs.

Monitoring Environmental Health Status at trie
Community Level

Except for mortality data, many communities must look to their .
own local public health officials to monitor the health status of their
community. This is true for a number of reasons, including:

• Current health surveys have limited application at the community
level and often require extrapolation from a larger population
(state or national).

• Current disease reporting systems, whether national sample or
reporting systems- (e.g., National Notifiable Diseases Reporting
System), can rarely provide an answer for a specific community.

• Biomonitoring surveys that apply to specific communities are
extremely rare. For example, blood lead screening programs, while
common across the country, do not report in a systematic fashion
to a centralized location for compilation and analysis of the data.

Until such systems are developed, communities will continue to rely
on environmental monitoring programs to tell them about their
exposure to air or water pollution. EPA is pursuing a number of
activities to increase the capacity of information providers (e.g.,
states) and users (e.g., communities) to share information. This'
effort includes working closely with other federal agencies, such as
CDC, to build compatible systems for linking health and
environmental data bases. One potential outcome of such
partnerships is an opportunity to revisit and refine current sampling
designs such that future data collection efforts would provide better
information for smaller units (community level) and would ensure
better temporal and spatial congruence between environmental,
biomonitoring, and surveillance programs.
future Challenges

For EPA to make better use of more direct indicators of public health
outcomes, the science underlying the Agency's key public health •
functions (describe, explain, predict, evaluate) will need to be
strengthened. EPA will continue to work on providing a better under-
standing of the components of the source-dose-health continuum
(Exhibit 4-1). Key among them will be establishing the necessary
degree of predictive validity between indicators of each component
(e.g., exposure versus dose). Such an understanding is critical to
defining the degree to which one indicator can be successfully used
as a surrogate for another. However, this may not be conducive to
widespread use in surveys or may be difficult to ascertain in smaller
populations (e.g., at a community level).

EPA also will continue to build collaborations with CDC and other
federal agencies responsible for collecting health surveillance and
human exposure data. Such partnerships are essential to any effort
to describe the status and trends of exposure and disease in the U.S.
with the eventual goal of every U.S.,citizen understanding what the
status is for his or her family and community. An important initiative
along these lines is the interagency effort to develop the National
Children's Study, in which EPA is a collaborator. The Children's Health
Act of 2000 authorized the National Institutes of Child Health and
Disease and a consortium of federal agencies "to conduct a national
longitudinal study of environmental influences on children's health
and development." The study will investigate the interaction of
biologic, genetic, social, and environmental factors to better
understand their role(s) in children's health.

EPA will also seek to develop and evaluate methodologies for
understanding the contribution of other risk factors to a given
health condition in comparison to the environmental exposure
(i.e., partitioning out the risk attributable to the environmental
exposure[s] of concern). Such measures will assist in prioritizing
intervention/prevention programs and will allow the benefits and
cost of environmental management to be placed in the context of
the larger public health picture.

Other issues of emerging, or emerged, concern include:

• Susceptible populations. This chapter identified children as a
susceptible population and described indicators relating specifical-
ly to them. EPA also recently announced an initiative to define the
environmental risks associated with the ever-increasing aging pop-
ulation ()
to be undertaken in partnership with other federal agencies and
the many alliances for the aging. Many of the indicators in this
report are particularly relevant to the elderly (e.g., cardiovascular
disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and they are, or
can be, reported by age group. As other susceptible populations '
are identified, EPA will need to continue working with its federal
partners to see that the data are collected and analyzed to track
those populations.
Chapter 14 - Human Health
4.6 Challenges and Data Gaps
4-63
-------

• Aggregate and cumulative risks. Individuals are not exposed to
single chemicals, but rather to multiple pollutants and other
stressors through multiple pathways and routes over the course of
a day. The reality of aggregate and cumulative exposures further
complicates attempts to attribute risk to a single environmental
agent EPA has begun to look at this issue, stimulated in part by
mandates under the Food Quality Protection Act. The recently
released Cumulative Risk Guidance report (EPA, 2003e) lays the
groundwork for taking on this challenge and will help target the
research to better understand the nature and impact of such
"composite" exposures, especially as related to targeting
regulatory and health prevention strategies.

Finally, the health and exposure indicators described in this chapter
are only a portion of the story on the state of the environment.
These indicators should be viewed in conjunction with the other
indicators identified in the companion chapters on ecological
condition, land, air, and water. As presented in Exhibit 4-1, that
integration is vital to fully developing the understanding envisioned
by the cascade of events from source to effects.
4-64
4.6 Challenges and Data Gaps
Chapter 4 - Human Health
-------
-------
Indicators selected and included in this chapter were assigned to one of two catego
• Category 1 - The indicator has been peer reviewed and is supported by
period. The supporting data are comparable across the nation and are charact
management systems, and quality assurance procedures.
national level data cpverage for more than one time
Sized by sound collection ^ethodologies, data
Category 2 - The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the supporting data t
state regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been measured for more
the indicator have been measured (e.g., data has been collected for birds, but
comparable across the areas covered, and are characterized by sound collectiqri
qualify assurance procedures.
re available only for part of the nation (e.g., multi-
IJian one time period, or not all the parameters of
iot for plants or insects). The supporting data are
methodologies, data management systems, and
-------
5.0 Introduction
As described in Chapter 4, Human Health, EPA is moving in the .
direction of measuring outcomes that reflect the actualimpacts that
result from environmental pollution. This chapter applies that
approach to ecosystems. Previous chapters examined impacts on air,
water, and land—all elements of the environment that EPA seeks to
protect. This chapter links the state of the nation's air, water, land,
and living organisms into a broad framework termed "ecological
condition"—the sum total of the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the environment, and of the resulting processes
and interactions among them.1 Understanding ecological condition is
crucial, because humans depend on ecosystems for food, fiber, flood
• control, and countless other critical "services" they provide to
society (Daily, 1997). Many Americans also attribute deep,
significance and important intangible benefits to ecosystems and
their diverse flora and fauna.

Ecological condition reflects the result of a complex array of factors,
including natural disturbances, invasions of new species, resource
management, planning and zoning, and pollution. EPA has statutory
authority to regulate only a few of these factors, but it exerts policy
leadership across a broad spectrum of public and private activities,
including review of significant federal projects under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These efforts reflect the EPA's
important role as one of many federal, tribal, state, and local govern-
ment and private partners in protecting the nation's environment.

This chapter asks questions about our current understanding of the
ecological condition of:

• Forests:
• Farmlands
• Grasslands and shrublands
• Urban and suburban areas
• Fresh waters
• Coasts and oceans
• The entire nation2

Exhibit 5-1 is a depiction of the events that link environmental
changes to ecological outcomes. "Stressors," indicated by arrows, rep-
resent factors such as insect outbreaks or pollutants affecting the
system. These act directly on one or more of the "essential ecological
attributes" shown in the circles in the center of the diagram. (These
attributes are described in more detail below.) Each of these attributes
can, in turn, act on and be acted on by others. The web of arrows
among the indicators illustrates some of the possible interactions.
Effects on ecological attributes can be direct or indirect. This diagram
• illustrates the fact that ecological processes have important feedbacks
on the chemical and physical structure of the environment in which
these changes occur. The overall changes in the attributes result in
altered structure and function of the ecosystem, which in turn lead to
outcomes (good or bad) about which society is concerned.

Exhibit 5-1 shows that monitoring only stressors or monitoring
single ecosystem attributes-such as living things-in isolation
cannot convey a full and accurate picture of ecological condition.
Assessments of ecological condition must incorporate measures of
different characteristics, potentially at different times and in differ-
ent places within a system. EPA can build on decades of monitoring
stressors to develop and appropriately monitor multidimensional
and better-linked ecological condition indicators.

This chapter presents initial work toward identifying indicators that
can help to answer the question "What is the ecological condition
of the U.S.?" and it can help elucidate the sequence of events
shown in Exhibit 5-1. The chapter is organized into nine sections
that describe:

n The framework used in this report to identify indicators to assess
ecological condition and outcomes (Section 5.1).
m The ecological condition of forests (Section 5.2), farmlands
(Section 5.3), grasslands and shrublands (Section 5.4), urban and
suburban areas (Section 5.5), fresh waters (Section 5.6), coasts
and oceans (Section 5.7), and the entire nation (Section 5.8).
M The key challenges and data gaps for developing adequate
indicators of ecological condition (Section 5.9). ,

Because ecological condition depends critically on the physical and
chemical characteristics of land, air, and water, this chapter draws on
indicators from Chapters 1 through 3 of this report, as shown in
Exhibit 5-2. Those chapters should be consulted for the data
sources for those indicators. Many of the indicators were drawn from
The H. John Heinz 111 Center for Science, Economics, and the
Environment (The Heinz Center) report, The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems: Measuring Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United
States, 2002, which also presents more detail on data sources, as
does Appendix B of this report.

The key data sources reflect the fact that monitoring ecological con-
dition is a multi-organizational task. Organizations in addition to EPA
that are responsible for collecting the data to support indicators in
this chapter include:
• The U.S. Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration)
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service, Agricultural
Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, and
Natural Resource Conservation Service)
• The U.S. Department of Interior (U.S. Geological Survey and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service)
• NatureServe, a private foundation
TThe term ecosystem is used in its broadest sense as any interacting sys-
tem of physical, chemical, and biological components and the associated
flows of energy, material, and information (Odum, 1971).
- Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
2This seventh category refers to the overall condition of the complex,
interconnected mosaic of different ecosystem types across the
entire nation.
5.0 Introduction
5-3
-------
_

txnioit 5-1: tcological condition paradigm
Together, the six ecological attributes constitute "ecological condition
Stressors (shown as ) affect ecological attributes directly and al
(interaction)among the attributes ( | )
p indirectly through feedback
Programs such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program and the Natural Resources
Inventory (NRI) have a long history, because they measure aspects
of the environment that are critical to multi-billion dollar industries
(e.g., timber, crops, etc.). Programs with a strictly "ecological" focus
(e.g., the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Monitoring [FHM]
Program, the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality
Assessment Program [NAWQA], the multi-agency Multi-Resolution
Land Characterization Consortium [MRLC], and EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program [EMAP]) are newer on the
scene, and most have produced only Category 2 indicators as this
report goes to press. ' !
Like Chapter 4, Human Health, this chapter is not intended to be ;
exhaustive. Rather, it provides a snapshot,|at the national level, of [
current U.S. ecological condition indicatorjs and status based on key :
data sources with sufficiently robust desigri, quality assurance, and
maturity. , ', i
5-4
5.0 Introduction
C-napter 5 -' Zoological Condition
-------
Exhibit 5-2: Ecological C-ondition - Questions and Indicators

Forests
- " • -.-v-. " -;•;• i;--';: ••-..-: '••-:•" .'!;•- i:/.. -.-•','-•-: !'~'.!>; ' :',.;-'. ':£;•" .. '..-' '.: '•• '.;• ;•'-. -•-".'-" •:-.-. ..-.'••- - •!-•!" -' -' :. .'"' M '.. .•".'••,':.' .: V":" -" '.. |.| : •'- *-'•'•:' - ". :' --•--•. ' •- •'-•• -'•:. '- • :'.'•' ' • •"• •'• '•' •'•'. ••'•'.".'• .-.'''- '* ••;':"<- ; : •'•'••• ;---•-••- >~'<..:- . . ;.*"• •-.• •.••'•.;::•'
. ;,;o;!^;4^y^
What is the ecological condition of forests?
Extent of forest area, ownership, and management
Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water
Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen
Changing stream flows
Extent of area by forest type
Forest age class
Forest pattern and fragmentation
At-risk native forest species
Populations of representative forest species
Forest disturbance: fire, insects, and disease
Tree condition
Ozone injury to trees
Carbon storage
Soil compaction
Soil erosion
Processes beyond the range of historic variation
7
2
2
7
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
5.7.4
2.2.4 Ji
1.2.2 '
2.2.4.a
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
L,

Farmlands

What is the ecological condition of farmlands?"
Extent of agricultural land uses
The farmland landscape
Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water
Phosphorus in farmland, forested and urban streams
Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water
Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields
Sediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelands
Pesticide leaching potential
Soil quality index
Soil erosion

7
7
2
2
2 -
2
2
2
2
2
3.7.2
3.7.2
2.2.4.fc
2.2.4.b
2.2.4.C
3.2.4 ..
3.7.6
5.3
5.3
5.3
Grasslands ana SnruDlancIs
1
. - ••:-.•,•".••,• --:•«!-/•- ..-.. •: |2uestiorY .•: ssiipaEaassssi^BBSE^ indicator KtemS™JHSfpaMW^
What is the ecological condition of grasslands
and shrublands?
Extent of grasslands and shrublands
Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in grasslands and shrublands
At-risk native grassland and shrubland species
Population trends of invasive and native non-invasive bird species
7
2
2
1
3.7.3
2.2.4.0
5.4
5.4
: Italicized indicators are presented in other chapters.
CJiapter 5 - ecological C-ondition
5.0 Introduction
5-5
-------
(T 51" ' l ' fri |
Uroan and Suburban Lands . ,
;;"- ™ ; "~f: jQj^g^:;:;:3L:»
£
f
What is the ecological condition of urban ^
and suburban areas? f
(.
f
xtent of urban and suburban lands
tnbient concentrations of ozone: 8-hour and 7 -hour '
'titrate in farmland, forested and urban streams, and ground water '•
hosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams
'hemical contamination in Urban streams and ground water
atches of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland in urban/suburban areas
\ t ^ f
fS ' I
t> / t
Fresn Waters :" \ "
i

1 1 3.7.7
2
2
j_2
j 2
2
7.J.7.b
2.2.4.b
2.2.4.b
2.2.4.C
5.5
h
1
. T" ,, ~: i&kfon ::=i: pip ' ; i f i :: :: : : 41: ^^^^^[l^^^'^^^^^^^j^^^^l^^i^^^
What is the ecological condition of fresh waters?
Wetland extent and change ' :|: ' 1 2-2'2 1
Altered fresh water ecosystems
Contaminants in fresh water fish ; !
Phosphorus in large rivers ; :
Lake Trophic State Index
Chemical contamination in streams and ground water !
Acid sensitivity in takes and streams
Changing stream flows • ; " •
Sedimentation index .
Extent of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs ;
At-risk native fresh water species :
Non-native fresh water species '
Animal deaths and deformities <
At-risk fresh water plant communities ; •>
Fish Index of Biotic Integrity in streams
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index for streams
C-oasts and Oceans "h ; \ i

What is the ecological condition of coasts
and oceans?
Chlorophyll concentration's
Water clarify in coastal waters "' [
Total nitrogen in coastal waters
Total phosphorus in coastal waters
Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters . J
Total organic carbon in sediments
Sediment contamination of coastal waters
Sediment toxicity in estuaries '
Extent of estuaries and coastline ! . . ;
Coastal living habitats ; • '
Shoreline types
Benthic Community Index i ;
Rsh diversity !
Submerged aquatic vegetation '
Rsh abnormalities :
Unusual marine mortalities
iote: Italicized indicators are presented in other chapters.
E ^
! 2
: 2
i 2
i 2
'2
\ 2
\ 1
• 2
1
j 2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2.1
2.5.1
2.2.4.b
2.2.7
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.a
2.2.4.0
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6 .
5.6
5.6

2
2
i 2
! 2,
! 2
2
' . "2
2
i . 1
1 2
2
i 2
2
2
2
2

2.2.3
2.2.3
2.2.4.fc
2.2.4.fc
2.2.3
2.2.3 :
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
. 5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7 .
5.7
5.7
5.7
f
» i
T * - A- ^ i L
5-6
5.0 Introduction
Chapter 5 -
Zoological
C-onditi'
on
-------
Tne Entire Nation
•\- ;-,^-:< j'^^/'-S:^
What is the ecological condition of the
entire nation?

Ecosystem extent
At-risk native species
Bird Community Index
Terrestrial Plant Growth Index
Movement of nitrogen
Chemical contamination
2
2
2
T
•\
2
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
|f Npte: Italicized indicators are presented in other chapters.

5.1 Links Between jtressors

and Ecological Outcome:

A framework for AAeasuring

tcological Condition

The primary reasons to monitor ecological condition are similar to
those for monitoring air, water, and land;
• To establish baselines against which to assess the current and
future condition.
• To provide a warning that action may be required.
• To track the outcomes of policies and programs, and adapt them
as necessary.

Measuring ecological condition is not as straightforward as monitoring
water or air to determine whether temperatures or concentrations of
pollutants exceed a legal standard, however. Ecosystems are dynamic
assemblages, of organisms that have more or less continuously adapted
to a variety of natural stresses over shorter (e.g., fire, windstorms) and
longer (climate variations) periods of time, taking on new and different
characteristics. This makes determination of the condition of a "natu-
ral" system difficult (Ehrenfeld, 1992). In addition, people have altered
natural ecosystems to increase their productivity of food, timber, fish,
and game, and to provide the infrastructure needed to support a mod-
ern society. How should the ecological condition of these altered
ecosystems be measured, and against what reference points? Several
recent reports by experts in the field have provided advice to guide
current and future efforts.

The National Research Council (NRC) report, Ecological Indicators for
the Nation (NRC, 2000), provides an introduction to recent national
efforts to measure ecological condition and a thoughtful discussion
of the rationale for choosing indicators. EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB) also proposed a Framework for Assessing and Reporting
on Ecological Condition (EPA, SAB, 2002). The framework identifies
six "essential ecological attributes" (EEAs) of ecosystems:
81 Landscape condition '
• Biotic condition
m Chemical and physical characteristics
si Ecological processes
Bl Hydrology and geomorphology
Bl Natural disturbance regimes

The EEAs, along with reporting categories and examples of
associated indicators, are displayed in Exhibit 5-3. Neither report
identifies specific methodologies, network designs, or actual datasets
corresponding to the examples.

The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the
Environment (The Heinz Center) led a nationwide effort by
government, academia, and the private sector to develop a report
entitled Jhe State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring Lands, Waters,
and Living Resources of the United States (The Heinz Center, 2002).
According to the introduction, the report "provides a prescription
for 'taking the pulse' of the lands and waters. It identifies what
should be measured, counted, and reported, so that decision-makers
and the public can understand the changes that are occurring in the
American landscape." The Heinz Center report identified 103
specific indicators, of which 33 were judged by the authors to have
adequate data for national reporting.

The Heinz Center report provides an important core of indicators for
this chapter. The Heinz Center report uses a somewhat different cat-
egorization of indicators than the Category 1 and 2 designations,
and indicators identified by The Heinz Center that have inadequate
data or need further development have not been included here. The
Heinz Center indicators in this chapter are organized around the SAB
framework, but given the similarities among the NRC, SAB, and Heinz
Center approaches, this choice does not affect the final result. This
chapter also includes, in addition to The Heinz Center national indica-
tors, some Category 2 indicators from regional monitoring studies that
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.1 Links Between Stressors and Ecological Outcome
5-7
-------
Exhibit 5-3: Essential ecological attributes ar
Landscape Condition ]
• Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Types
• Landscape Composition
• Landscape Pattern and Structure
Biotic Condition
' ' :'
I Ecosystems and Communities
- Community Extent
- Community Composition
- Trophic Structure
- Community Dynamics
- Physical Structure
[ Species and Populations
- Population Size
- Genetic Diversity
- Population Structure
- Population Dynamics
- Habitat Suitability
| Organism Condition
• Physiological Status
- Symptoms of Disease or Trauma
^Chemical and Physical Characteristics
Jigger;'TCfc Soil, and Sediment) ^' _^
• Nutrient Concentrations
- Nitrogen
- Phosphorous
- Other Nutrients
• Trace Inorganic and Organic Chemicals
- Metals
- Other Trace Elements
- Organic Compounds
• Other Chemical Parameters
-pH
- Dissolved Oxygen
- Salinity
- Organic Matter ;
- Other
• Physical Parameters ;
reporting categories
rrfljp^/Ceornorpjjojogy_
I Energy Flow
- Primary Production
- Net Ecosystem Production
- Growth Efficiency
| Material Flow
- Organic Carbon Cycling
- N and P Cycling
- Other Nutrient Cycling
Surface and Ground Water Flows
- Pattern of Soqrc£ Flows
- Hydrodynamics j '
- Pattern of Gro'urtd Water Flows ;
- Salinity Patterhs j
- Water Storage . •
Dynamic Structural Characteristics
- Channel/Shoreline Morphology, Complexity
- Extent/Distribution of Connected Floodplain
- Aquatic Physical Habitat Complexity •
Sediment and Material Transport
- Sediment Supply/Movement
- Particle Size Distribution Patterns
- Other Material Fjlux
itural Distu
I Frequency
| Intensity
| Extent
I Duration
Source: EPA, Science Advisory Board. A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition. June 2002.
show promise for implementation on a national scale. Regardless of
whether the indicators are Category 1 or 2, all indicators were drawn
directly from scientifically defensible studies published in peer-
reviewed reports and journals. ',

One of the most critical data quality objectives of monitoring for EPA
is representativeness, the degree to which monitoring data accurately ;
and precisely represent the variations of a characteristic over an entire
population (e.g., all streams or forests)3. Sampling design4 approaches
the problem of representativeness and the effects of sampling and
measurement error on environmental management policies and deci-
sions. Sampling designs fall into two main categories, probability designs
and judgmental designs. Probability designs apply sampling theory, so
that any sampling unit (e.g., a stream of a stand of trees in a forest)
has a known probability of selection. This important attribute allows
the characteristics of the entire population of streams or forest stands
to be estimated with known uncertainty, ensures that the results are
reproducible within that uncertainty, and enables one to calculate the
probability of decision-error based on the uncertainty in the data.
Probability designs do not provide information on the precise condi-
tions at any location where measurements are not made, or of the
populations during times when measurements are not made,5 or of
populations not included in the sampling jdesign. ' i :

Judgmental (designs rely on expert knowledge or judgment: to select ,
sampling units. They can be easier and jess expensive to implement
than probability sampling. Monitoring sites selected at random can be
difficult or even impossible to access, ahd'some monitoring programs1
require sites that are easy to access repeatedly, or remote sites from
which to search for faint signals such as climate change or long-range
transport of pollutants. The accuracy of the results of judgment
designs depends on the quality of the professional judgment, but in
the best of cases quantitative estimates or uncertainty cannot be
made. In this report, Category 1 indicators were required to be based
on indicators collected using probability c esigns or "wall-to-wall"
coverage by remote sensing, unless a stro ig case could be made that
the data were representative of the popul ation being sampled.

This chapter follows The Heinz Center (2CJ02) in reporting on six major
ecosystem types.6 With a few exceptions, Environmental and natural
resource monitoring programs currently! are structured to track the .
condition of individual natural resources! (ig., trees, crops, soil, water, or
air) represented by the first six ecosystem [types. Though some of this
Hike the U.S. Census, which strives to collect data on every person in
the U.S., an ecological census could attempt to collect data on every plant,
animal, stream, etc. This is generally impossible or cost-prohibitive, except for:
data collected on land cover or other features of the environment that can be
measured by satellite.
4Olsen, et al., 1999, and Yoccoz, et aj., £0.01, provide useful .discus- :
sions of sampling oriented toward ecological hionitoring.

5For example, if estuaries are sampled ojnly in the fall, the sample reveals
nothing about estuaries in the spring or winter.
5-8
15.1 Links Between Stressors and Ecological Outcome
L-napter 3 - tcology
-------

monitoring takes place on a national level, it still focuses on discrete
resources or ecosystem types. For this reason, most available indicators
can help answer questions about the condition of individual ecosystem
types, but cannot track the overall ecological condition of an area
comprising different interconnected and interacting ecosystem types.
Therefore, this chapter includes a seventh category representing
indicators potentially suitable for the entire nation.

A few indicators are available to help provide a more holistic assess-
ment of ecological condition at the national level. For example, large or
migratory organisms (e.g., bears or neotropical birds, respectively)
depend on many ecosystem types over large areas for their continued
survival. As another example, all of the terrestrial ecosystems types
may contribute nitrogen, carbon, or sediment to streams and rivers in
watersheds. Even the arrangement of ecosystems in the landscape and
the composition of patterns of land cover and land use have been
identified as critical components in the way ecosystems function
(Forman and Godron, 1986; Naiman and Turner, 2000; Winter, 2001;
EPA, SAB, 2002). Section 5.8 corresponds approximately to the core
national indicators in The Heinz Center report

Ideally, the indicators in this chapter would be presented in a way
that spoke to the success of our efforts to protect and restore the
ecological condition of the types of ecosystems considered in this
chapter. Trends in biotic condition and ecological functions and in
the physical, chemical, hydrological, landscape, and disturbance
regimes of each ecosystem would provide keys to stories involving
acid rain, or landscape fragmentation, or changing climate. The
resulting "stories" would establish baselines, provide warnings, and
track the effectiveness of management actions by EPA and its part-
ners, as envisioned by the NRC (2000). Because so few reliable data
exist on trends for any indicators at the national level, however, such
a presentation is not yet possible. Instead, the chapter presents a
disturbingly fragmentary picture of what little is known reliably and
nationally based on Category 1 indicators. It also anticipates what
could reasonably be known if monitoring of Category 2 indicators
were to be expanded.

Sections 5.2 through 5.8 below describe the ecological condition of
the seven ecosystem types. Each section begins with an introduction
that summarizes data on the indicators that appear in the previous
chapters of this report on air, Water, and land. Indicators presented
for the first time then are described in detail. Each section ends with
a summary of what the available indicators, taken together, reveal
about the ecological condition of that ecosystem type.
5.2 What is the tcologica
Condition of Forests \
Forests, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (USDA)
Forest Service (FS), are any lands that are at least 10 percent cov-
ered by trees of any size and at least 1 acre in extent (Smith, et al.,
2001). Some forested ecosystems are rich sources of biodiversity
and recreational opportunities, while others are managed intensive-
ly for timber production. All are important for carbon storage,
hydrologic buffering, and fish and wildlife habitat. Forested ecosys-
tems are under pressure in the U.S. from a number of non-native
insects and pathogens and from deviations from natural fire regimes .
(The Heinz Center, 2002). They also are becoming increasingly
fragmented by urbanization and other human activities (Noss and
Cooperrider, 1994).

Under its statutory programs, EPA has particularly focused on the
effects of air pollution on forest ecosystems, including the effects
of acid rain on forests and forest streams. Such impacts might
affect not only the health and productivity of trees, but also
biodiversity in forest ecosystems (Barker and Tingey, 1992). Under
the Clean Air Act, EPA must promulgate secondary standards for
criteria air pollutants that present unreasonable risks to plants,
animals, and visibility. EPA also has statutory authority to control
the effects of forest management practices on aquatic communi-
ties; safe use of herbicides and pesticides in forest systems; and
significant federal activities in forested ecosystems subject to EPA's
review under NEPA.

Forests are possibly the best monitored of the six ecosystem types
in this report. The Forest Service has long monitored standing tim-
ber volume and production, as well as damage from fire and pests, in
its Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program (Smith, et al., 2001).
This program relies on probability sampling to ensure that the
results are statistically representative, and there is complete long-
term national coverage. This results in two Category 1 indicators
relating to forest extent and one to biotic condition. In the early
1990s, the Forest Service in collaboration with EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) developed the Forest
Health Monitoring (FHM) program to monitor additional indicators
of the ecological condition of forests (see Stolte, etal., 2002), also
using a probability design. Over the course of the 1990s, forests in
a growing number of states were sampled in the FHM program, and
many of the FHM indicators were merged into the FIA program in
1999. Although data on these indicators are now being collected in
47 states, with all 50 expected to be covered by 2005, at the time
this report was being prepared, coverage was not yet sufficiently
complete for these to reach Category 1 status.
6The concept of an ecosystem, while extremely useful and relevant, is a
somewhat vague classification for purposes of environmental monitoring. See
O'Neill, et al. (1986); Turner (1989); Suter (1993), pp. 275-308; and Knight
and Landres (1998) for highly relevant discussions.
Chapter 5 - tcological C-ondition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests?
5-9
-------
EfAs Draft feport ofi the Environment 2005 • "Tetkrjiejal Doctimirtt
i I • , i •. , i ' "! •• ;• • '•'••• r :• 'H! i
i
r
Exhibit 5-U: Forest ndicatoC
Essential Ecological 'Attribute
i „
|[f
= j Extent of Ecological System/
I Habitat Types
r
Landscape Composition
I Landscape Pattern/Structure
fe!e|icj:oiid!tion _ '
] Ecosystems and Communities
Species and Populations
Organism Condition
.Ecological Processes
i Energy Flow
Material Flow
[Chemical & Physical Characteristics
, Nutrient Concentrations
Other Chemical Parameters
Trace Organic and Inorganic Chemicals
Physical Parameters
Hydrology and Geomorphology
h 11 •"•• .««" Si! ' i"" ,11
Surface and Ground Water Flows
* Dynamic Structural Conditions
] Sediment and Material Transport
Natura ! Disturbance Regimes
I Frequency
] Extent
Duration
jr
Extent of forest area,;ownership, and rmmagement
Extent of area by forest type
Forest age class
Forest pattern and fragmentation
IE
At-risk native forest species
Populations of representative forest species
Forest disturbance: fire, insects, and disease
Tree condition
Ozone injury to trees
• ' 'W^JS

Carbon storage
IE' V.
Nitrate in farmlands, forested, and urban
streams and ground water
Wet sulfate deposition
Wet nitrogen deposition

Soil compaction
f"" '•":•'.
Ifc::-, : :-
Changing streamflows

Soil erosion
| fit"' ~ ' " '"
- - , --„-, •:•. iM ,„ i.!,'
Processes beyond the range of historic variation

1
•
•

•

• ,
•

•
•
j
• :
•

•
•
• ;
• •
!
m

m
m

L 1 , , „,„.,..

USDA
USDA
USDA
USDA
; ,:!;,:,_
NatureServe
NatureServe
USDA
USDA
USDA

USDA

DOI
EPA
EPA

' USDA

! DOI

USDA

Many of the indicators monitored by the FIA and FHM (Smith, et al.,
2001) were included in the Heinz report (2002) and formed the
original core of this chapter. As this chapter was being completed,,
however, the Forest Service published its Final Draft National Report
on Sustainable Forests-2003 (USDA, FS, 2002) under the Montreal
Process. Several of the indicators contained in this 2002 report (all
Category 2) were included in this chapter to demonstrate the kinds
of data that will be available nationwide for a range of the forest
EEAs as the FIA achieves data collection a id analysis on a national
basis. Data for several of these indicators [e.g., air quality, atmos-
pheric deposition, and the chemistry and biology of forest streams)
are contributed by national monitoring prbgrams operated by other
government amd private sector organizations.
The forest indicators used in this report a
grouped according to the EEAs. Some ind cators
•e displayed in Exhibit 5-4,
relating to the EEAs
5-10
5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? C_napter 5 - tcological C-onaition
-------

of forest landscape condition, the chemical and physical attributes of
forest streams, and the hydrology of forest watersheds are discussed
in the chapters on Cleaner Air, Purer Water, and Better Protected
Land, because they also relate to questions about those media. This
section briefly summarizes the data for these indicators as they
relate to the ecological condition of forests. This section then intro-
duces additional indicators that relate to the EEAs of forest land-
scape condition, biotic condition, ecological processes, physical con-
dition of forest soils, and natural disturbances in forests.

The following indicators presented in the previous chapters relate to
the ecological condition of forests:

• The indicator Extent of Forest Area, Ownership, and Management
(Chapter 3, Better Protected Land), is important for assessing
trends in how forests are managed and protected. Forested
ecosystems cover some 749 million acres in the U.S., or about
one-third of the total land area. While approximately 25 percent
lower than the pre-settlement acreage in the 1600s, the total
acreage has held steady for the past century, although regional
and local patterns have changed (USDA, FS, April 2001). Since
the 1950s, forest land has increased by 10 million acres in the
Northeast and North Central 'states, and decreased by 11 million
acres in the Southeast (USDA, FS, April 2001).

About 55 percent of all U.S. forests are in private ownership, with
83 percent of forests in the East being privately held (USDA, FS,
2002). About 9 percent of forest lands are managed by private
industry to produce timber. Although 503 million acres of forests
are classified as "timberland," the rest receive less intensive man-
agement. Harvest on public lands declined nearly 50 percent from
1986 to 2 billion cubic feet per year in 2001, but increased on pri-
vate land by 1 billion cubic feet per year, to 14 billion cubic feet
per year during the same period (USDA, FS, 2002). About 38 per-
cent of harvesting is by clearcut, mostly in the South (USDA, FS,
2002). About 76 million acres of forests are "reserved" and man-
aged as national parks or wilderness areas, an almost threefold
increase since 1953 (USDA, FS, 2002). Much of the protected for-
est in the West is in stands more than 100 years old.
H The indicator Nitrate in Farmland, Forested, and Urban Streams and
Ground Water (Chapter 2, Purer Water) is important for tracking
the loss of nitrate from forested watersheds, which often indicates
the effects of acid rain or insect infestation. In 36 forested
streams monitored by the National .Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program, almost 50 percent had concentrations of
nitrate less than 0.1 parts per million; 75 percent had concentra-
tion of less than 0.5 ppm; and only one had a concentration of
more than 1.0 ppm. By comparison, of 107 agricultural water-
sheds, almost half of the streams had nitrate concentrations
greater than 2.0 ppm.

• According to the indicator Deposition-Wet Sulfate and Wet Nitrogen
(Chapter 1, Cleaner Air), wet sulfate deposition decreased sub-
stantially throughout the Midwest and Northeast between 1989-
1991 and 1999-2001 (Chapter 1, Cleaner Air). By 2001, wet sul-
fate deposition had decreased by more than 8 kilograms per
hectare per year (kg/ha/yr) from 30-40 kg/ha/yr in 1990 in
much of the Ohio River Valley and northeastern U.S. The greatest
reductions occurred in the mid-Appalachian region. Wet nitrate
deposition levels remained relatively unchanged in most areas dur-
ing the same period and even increased up to 3 kg/ha in the
Plains, eastern North Carolina, and southern California.

Using National Atmospheric Deposition Program data, a USDA
report on sustainable forests observed that annual wet sulfate
deposition decreased significantly between 1994 and 2000, espe-
cially in the North and South Resource Planning Act (RPA)
regions, where deposition was the highest. Nitrate deposition
rates were lowest in the Pacific and Rocky Mountain RPAs, where
approximately 84 percent of the regions experienced deposition
rates of less than 4.7 kg/ha/yr (4.2 pounds per acre per year).
Only 2 percent of the sites in the eastern U.S. received less than
that amount (USDA, FS, 2002).

I The indicator Changing Stream Flows (Chapter 2, Purer Water)
addresses altered stream flow and timing, which are critical
aspects of hydrology in forest streams. Low flows define the small-
est area available to stream biota during the year, and high flows
shape the stream channel and clear silt and debris from the
stream. Some fish depend on high flows for spawning, and the tim-
ing of the high and low flows also can influence many ecological
processes. Changes in flow can be caused by dams, water with-
drawal, and changes in land use and climate. This indicator reveals
that 10 percent of predominantly forested watersheds showed
decreased minimum flow rates during the period 1940 through
2000 compared to the period before 1940, while 25 percent had
increased minimum flow rates (USDA, FS, 2002). Five percent of
the watersheds had lower maximum flow rates, and 25 percent had
higher maximum flow rates compared to the earlier period. There
were no obvious trends in maximum flow rates in the decades
since 1940, but minimum flow rates increased over the period.
Increased flows were generally found in the East, but decreased
flows were found in the West.

The other 12 forest indicators in Exhibit 5-4, described on the
following pages, appear for the first time in this report in this
chapter. Most of these indicators are from the Final Draft National
Report on Sustainable Forests-2003 (USDA, FS,2002) which
became available after The Heinz Center report went to press. All
are Category 2 indicators because the data are not yet available
for the entire country.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests?
5-11
-------

of area oy forest type - Category i
Trends in the distribution of forest types ultimately control the
different types of communities that they support. The data for
this indicator were collected by the FIA program, which currently
updates the assessment data every 5 years. This indicator com-
pares current conditions to those in 1977.

What the Data Show

Oak-hickory forest is the most common forest type in the U.S.,
covering 132 million acres—an increase of 18 percent since 1977
(Exhibit 5-5). Maple-beech-birch forest covers 55 million acres and
has increased 42 percent since 1977. Pine forest of various types
covers 115 million acres; spruce-birch forests cover 61 million acres
(mostly in Alaska); and Douglas fir covers 40 million acres, mostly
in the Pacific Northwest. Mixed forests (e.g., oak-pine and oak-
gum-cypress) cover 64 million acres, mostly in the South (USDA,
FS, 2002).

In the East, longleaf-slash pine and lowland hardwoods (elm-ash-
cottonwood and oak-gum-cypress) had the largest decreases in
acreage (12 million and 17 million acres, respectively). In the
West, hemlock-sitka spruce, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine
decreased the most (by 9 million, 8 million, and 6 million acres,
respectively). In both regions, "non-stocked" land, on which trees
have been cut but that has not yet regrown as forest, has declined
steadily.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following:
• Since the late 1940s, field data on species composition have
been collected on a probability sample of 450,000 sites,
nationwide (Smith, et al., 2001). The resulting estimates of area
by forest type have an uncertainty of 3 to 10 percent per
million acres of area sampled (The Heinz Center, 2002).
m The data do not include information on private lands that are
legally reserved from harvest, such as lands held by private
groups for conservation purposes. Other forest lands are at
times reserved from harvest because of administrative or other
restrictions. Data on these lands would provide a more com-
plete picture of U.S. forest lands.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was Forest Resources of the
United States, 1997, Smith, et al., 2001. (See Appendix B,
page B-36, for more information.)
the United States, 1963-1997

• Maple-Beech-

j fej^ ! "" V '",
p^^'iii^i^v^^lhortl.eafPine/- /^
iiii»^J Other Types!' : ' 'I

'^^'^^^^^^^^^^ ^^i^:™, ^^rfekl
5 ."••r^if-."- *M""" ;""":" •"- "1
sSource- The Heir|
CData from the US,
=ftw.^ _j _-_ -«..1J^,%
5-12
5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? Chapter 5 -| Ecological Condition
-------

Forest age class - Category 2
Maintaining forest cover with a wide age range and a variety of
successional stages sustains habitats for a variety of forest-
dependent species and provides for the sustainable yield of a
range of forest products. This indicator reports the percentage of
forest area, with stands in each of several age classes.7

What the Data Show

In the eastern U.S., 35 percent of forests classified as "timber-
lands" are more than 60 years old, and 10 percent are more than
100 years old; in the West, the corresponding numbers are
70 percent and 35 percent, respectively (Exhibit 5-6). Softwood
age distributions are skewed slightly toward younger age classes
due to their management for timber. Hardwoods have a more
normal distribution, with a peak in the 40 to 79 year age class,
reflecting maturing second and third growth forests in the East.
Stands averaging 0 to 5 inches and those over 11 inches are
increasing, while intermediate stands in the 6 to 10 inch range
are decreasing, indicating a rise in selective harvesting in the U.S.
(USDA, FS, 2002).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Data for national parks and wilderness areas and other forested
land are not available at this time, but will be in the future (The
Heinz Center, 2002).

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was Forest Resources of the
United States, 7997, Smith, et al., 2001. (See Appendix B,
page B-36, for more information.)
7 Age class is defined by the mean age of the dominant or codomi-
nant crowns in the upper layer of the tree canopy.
txnioit 5-6: Forest age class, 1997

pt Partial Indicator Data: West (Timberlands Only)
Age of Stand (yrs) *
II 1-19
& 20-59
• 60-99
Si 00-199
^ • 200+

3
Future
j|r. Partial Indicator Data: East (Timberlands Only)
SQ " Age of Stand (yrs)
IT 1-19
3 4C( H g| 20-59
• 60-99
IS 100-199
• 200+
HJ Uneven-Aged
1
7f
10
Future
UPTCoverage all 50 states (timberlands only)
j>te "Timberlands^js^a USDA Forest Service designation for lands
_ hat grow at least 20 cubic feet of wood per acre per year, which is
fpufeonsidered be sufficient to support commercial harvest under current
t: ^economic conditions Lands on which harvest is prohibited by statute
g"' are nqt^mcluded asj^timberlands " Note also that the term
™L^ 'uneven-age" is being phased out; such stands are composed of
Ji^intermmgled trees that differ considerably in age
£*£" Source The Heinz Center The State of the Nation's Ecosystems 2002
Data from the USDA, Forest Service
Chapter 5 -. Ecological Condition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests?
5-13
-------
•. ' " • ' - . ' J_ , II
EFAs Draft {Uport oh the Environment 2bd)^ • Technical Document
r 1 ' i . ! ! ' ! • ' '. . t ! j • I

Forest pattern and fragmentation - Category 2
^1,—i.Ji
Forest pattern and fragmentation affect the plant and animal
species that live in forests. Large blocks of contiguous forest sup-
port interior forest species. Partial forest cover creates forest edge
habitat, which supports birds and other animals that nest in
forests but forage in nearby fields (Ritters, et al., 2002).
Fragmentation also creates areas that concentrate airborne nutri-
ents and pollutants by increasing the amount of unprotected for-
est edge (Weathers, et al., 2001). This indicator captures some of
these features.

What the Data Show

Fragmentation in forests in the U.S. is significant. Based on 1992
data (The Heinz Center, 2002), two-thirds of all points within
forests were surrounded by land that was at least 90 percent
forest in their "immediate neighborhood" (i.e., a radius of
250 feet) (Exhibit 5-7). However, only one-fourth of the points
within forests were surrounded by land that was at least
90 percent forest within their "larger neighborhood" (i.e., to a
radius of 2.5 miles) (The Heinz Center, 2002). Approximately half
of the fragmentation consists of "holes" in otherwise continuous
forest cover. About three-quarters of all forest land is found in or
near the boundaries of these large (greater than 5,000 hectares),
but heavily fragmented, forest patches (Ritters, et al., 2002). In
short, most forest is near other forest, and "holes" in forest cover
caused by development, agriculture, harvesting, etc., tend to be
isolated from each other. ' j

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Although this indicator was calculated for the conterminous .U.S.,
it has been categorized as a Category 2 indicator because it is
only one of many potentially important fragmentation indicators.
The exact impact of the amount and type of fragmentation on
biotic structure and ecological processes |is poorly known, and is
likely to vary from one species and process to another (Ritters, et
al., 2002). The FHM program is developing additional landscape
fragmentation indicators, but the data haye not been fully evaluat-
ed as this report was being finalized.
Data Sources
The data source for this indicator was Forest Health Monitoring
National Technical Report, 1991 to 1999, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2002; and
Fragmentation of Continental United States Forests, Ritters, et al.,
2002. (See Appendix B, page B-37, for rnore information.)
• Exhibit 5-7: Forest cover and neighborhqbq size, 1
-------

At-risR native forest species - Category 2
Species richness is considered to be an important indicator of
ecological condition by both the National Research Council
(2000) and the Science Advisory Board (2002). Although the
role of species richness in maintaining a stable ecosystem is
debated, greater species richness (i.e., greater number of species)
is generally accepted as desirable. Species richness could be
altered by air pollution, fragmentation, and forest disturbance by
fire, insects, or disease.

What the Data Show

Based on an assessment of 12 factors, NatureServe and its mem-
ber programs in the Natural Heritage program determined that
5 percent of forest animal species are imperiled, 3.5 percent are
critically imperiled, and 1.5 percent are or might be extinct (The
Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-8). This indicator includes reports
on mammals, amphibians, grasshoppers, and butterflies; too little is
known about other groups, including plants, to assign risk cate-
gories. NatureServe data reveal that of the 1,642 species of ter-
restrial animals associated with forests, 88 percent still occupy
their full historical geographic range on a state-by-state basis
(USDA, FS, 2002).

The Natural Heritage Program uses standard ranking criteria and
definitions, making the ranks comparable across groups. This
means that "imperiled" has the same basic meaning whether
applied to a salamander, a moss, or a forest community. Ranking is
a qualitative process, however, taking into
account several factors that function as guide-
lines rather than arithmetic rules. The ranker's
overall knowledge of the element allows him
or her to weigh each factor in relation to the
others and to consider all pertinent informa-
tion for a particular element. The factors con-
sidered in ranking species include population
size, range extent and area of occupancy,
short- and long-term trends in the foregoing
factors, threats, and fragility (Stein, 2002).
The information gathered by Natural Heritage data centers also
provides support for official designations of endangered or threat-
ened species. However, because Natural Heritage lists of vulnera-
ble species and official lists of endangered or threatened species
have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes, and taxo-
nomic coverage, they normally do not coincide completely with
the official designations of "rare and endangered" species.

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The data for this indicator are not from a site-based monitoring
program, but rather from a census approach that focuses on the
location and distribution of at-risk species. Determining whether
species are naturally rare or have been depleted is currently not
possible. It is not clear that trends can be quantified with any
precision.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the
NatureServe Explorer Database. (See Appendix B, page B-37, for
more information.)
8: f\t-risR native Forest species, by risk category, 2000
-m, i«J- -***, W -SI Ififti *** fS~Snf -a-^&lf H&ISBBBJil, sh 1*1 £ *A J*i SiK, fc&i.. it* f '"cmff
Extinct
Critically
Imperiled
Imperiled
Vulnerable
All'Rare/At Risk
e: TJie Heinz Center The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002 Data from NatureServe
-arid ils Natural Heritage member programs
v;^.-,™-.Hi,-_ ^ 5 r ° T ^
Chapter 5 - tcological Condition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests?
5-15
-------
EDA' FY il'Tr rn^^;pii«!UTiM.p«^ ^pfg3^s^'^p
t_JAsUratt KeportSTT.me'':1invitronmenfc!'2Q.Q5
1 -I ' "' ' " ' ' ' J ; !! ! 1 I '

Topulations of representative species - Category 2
The abundance of species representative of particular forest types
is a more sensitive and less dramatic measure of ecological
condition than species richness alone. Species richness reflects
the net number of species invading an area and species going
extinct, whereas species abundance also includes the numbers of
individuals in each species (USDA, FS, 2002). The FHM program
has collected abundance data on bird and tree species.

What the Data Show

Between 1966 and 1979, 21 percent of bird species associated
with forests experienced population declines. This figure rose to
26 percent between 1980 and 2000 (USDA, FS, 2002). Areas
with the greatest population declines were along the coasts and in
the Appalachians. Between 1966 and 2000, 26 percent of bird
species associated with forests showed population increases.

In the majority of tree species groups, the number of trees with
trunk diameters greater than 1 foot increased by more than
50 percent between 1970 and 2002, indicating a more abundant
community of older trees (USDA, FS, 2002) (Exhibit 5-9).
Indicator Caps and Limitations

Several limitations are associated with thi^ indicator:

• Population data are available only for b rds and trees. Data for
big game ;ire reported by the states, ,bilt generally very few
systematic measures of animal population density exist.

• The data from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) are based on a
volunteer observer program and might jiot be statistically,
reliable. j
Data Sources |

The data sources for this indicator were the Breeding Bird
Survey, U.S. Geologic Survey (1966-2000); and U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Seryick Draft Resource •
Planning and Assessment Tables, 2002; anp National Report on
Sustainable Fprests-2003, Final Draft, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. (See Appendix B, page B-38,
for more information.) . ,
I Exhibit 5-Q: Populations of representative fore
-50% H-50 to 0% n 0 to[±50%','jg >+50%;'' {
|species, i970-2C)C)2 '

iag^ :--
8 10 12 14 1J5 l§.,2
,
Coverage: 3 7 states.
( Source: USDA, Forest Service. Draft Respur.ce Planning A<
j! May 3,2002 (updated August 12,2002). (Septemberg)02;
ll http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801/FIADB/ipaJabler/Draft RPA '
• •' ••'••-
5-16
5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests? CJiapter 5 - Ecological C-onditiori
-------

Forest disturbance: fire, insects, and disease - Category 1
Fires, insects, and disease often occur naturally in forests. Their
impact on forest ecosystems can be influenced by their interac-
tion with other variables such as management decisions, air
pollutants, and variations in climate. For example, trees weakened
by pollutants might be more susceptible to attack by pathogens.
When ecological processes are altered beyond a critical thresh-
old, significant changes to forest conditions might result.

What the Data Show

Wildfire acreage has declined from a peak of more than 50 million
acres per year in the 1930s to 2 to 7 million acres per year,
largely due to fire suppression policies (The Heinz Center,
2002).8 However, there has been a slight increase in fires in
national forests in recent decades, with -8.4 million acres burned
in 2000 (Exhibit 5-10).
Insect damage fluctuates from year to year, mostly as a result of.
population cycles of the gypsy moth and southern pine beetle,
affecting between 8 and 46 million acres per year. Data for two
major parasites, fusiform rust and mistletoe, are available only for
the past several years, but the total acreage affected is 43 to 44
million acres (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator Caps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the following:

• This indicator does not distinguish between forest fires, other
wildfires, and prescribed burns. It also does not track the
intensity of the fires.
• Data are not available on forests affected by diseases other
than those listed above.
• Some insects can cause widespread damage before it is
apparent from aerial surveys.
-10: Forest disturbance: Fire, insects, and disease, I979-2OOO
-
Insects
Fire
(including
grasslands/
shrublands)
Disease
Data Sources

The data sources for this indicator were The State
of the Nation's Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002,
using data from Western National Forests: Nearby
communities are increasingly threatened by catastrophic
wildfires, U.S. General Accounting Office, 1999;
Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report,
1991-1999, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Southern Research Station, 2002;
and National Fire Statistics, the National
Interagency Fire Center, (See Appendix B,
page B-38, for more information.)
1975 1980 1985 1990 T995 2000 2005
Insects gypsy moth, spruce budworm, southern pine beetle, mountain pine
beetle, western spruce budworm (alf but the gypsy moth are native to the
United States)
Diseases:. .fusiform rust, dwarf mistletoe
Coverage, all 50 states
Note: Data are not limited to nationaLforests.
Source. The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002
Data from the USDA, Forest Service Health Protection/Forest Health
Monitoring Program (insects, disease) and the National Forest System (fire).
8These data include wildfires in grasslands and shrublands.
(_napter 5 - tcological C-Ondition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests?
5-17
-------

|i;: riz^^jjB
ndicaKr
Tree condition - Category 2
Changes in tree condition reflect the sum total of factors acting
on the tree, including stress due to pollutants, climate, nutrient
status, soil condition, and disease. This indicator (called "dimin-
ished biological components" in USDA, FS, 2002), reports on the
percentage of trees in each region of the conterminous U.S. states
that exhibit significant changes in three measures: mortality vol-
ume, crown condition, and the area in fire Current Condition Class
Z. A Resource Planning Act region (shown in Exhibit 5-11) was
considered to have poor tree condition (designated as diminished
biological components in the exhibit) if (1) average annual mortal-
ity volume was more than 60 percent of gross annual growth vol-
ume, or (2) the ZB-index, an indicator of crown condition, was
increasing at a rate of 0.015 or more per year, or (5) more than
half of the forest area was in fire Current Condition Class 3. Fire
condition Class 3 represents a major deviation from the ecological
conditions compatible with historic fire regimes and might require
management activities such as harvesting and replanting to
restore the historic fire regime.

What the Data Show

According to the data for this indicator, 20 percent of forests in
the U.S. were observed to exhibit poor tree condition, 40.9 per-
cent were in fair or good condition, and 38.8 percent had no or
insufficient data (USDA, FS, 2002) (Exhibjit 5-11). Mortality was
highest in the Pacific Northwest and northern Minnesota, and a
large portion of these forests was in fire uurrent Condition Class
3, indicating that mortality might be producing a high fuel load.
The South and Rocky Mountain regions hjad the smallest areas of
poor tree condition, but more than half of those areas had insuffi-
cient data or no data at all. ;
I .

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The data used to calculate this indicator \jrere available at the time
for only 32 states; more than half of the South and Rocky
Mountain regions had insufficient or no1 data at all.
i ,,,,,,, ; ^ „ ,

Data Sources i
The data sources for this indicator were Forest Health Monitoring
National Technical Report, 1991 -1999, U.SJ. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 2002, and
National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003, Final Draft, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,; 2002. (See Appendix
B, page B-39, for more information.)
Exhibit 5-11: Tree condition, 1990-1099
^^^Im^L
U Forest area having; diminished biological components that may indicate changes In fundamental ecj
i::,,Pircentages baser! on forest area in conterminus 48 States. ' " 1
ij, i Source: Conklma B., et al. Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report' 1991-1999. 2002.11
ET '' ' " ^ ':::':,:;','T "'!",ii ::„?*' aa:/: !',c '^'MicwKii1""'"":'!! p
5-18
5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests?
lapter 5 - tcological Condition
-------

Ozone injury to trees - Category 2
Ozone injury to trees can be diagnosed by examination of plant
leaves (Skelly, et al., 1987; Bennet, et al., 1994). Foliar injury is the
first visible sign of injury of plants from ozone exposure and
indicates impairment of physiological processes in the leaves.

What the Data Show

Little or no ozone injury was reported at 97 percent of Pacific Coast
sites and 100 percent of Rocky Mountain sites (Exhibit 5-12). In
the North and South regions, however, 23 percent of biompnitoring
sites showed at least low levels of injury, with severe levels observed
at about 5 percent of the plots (USDA, FS, 2002).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations
• Any further injury to the plant (beyond injury to the leaves)
requires that ozone penetrate through the stomata into the leaf
interior, which is regulated by a variety of environmental
processes; some plants that show foliar damage show no
further damage, and some plants show damage without
concurrent signs of leaf damage (EPA, ORD, July 1996).

• Biomonitoring site data were available for only 32 states at the
time the data for this indicator were analyzed.

Data Sources

The data sources for this indicator were the Forest Health
Monitoring Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1991 -
2000) and National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003, Final
Draft, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002.
(See Appendix B, page B-39, for more information.)
Ixkkit 5-12: Ozone injury to trees, 1994-2000
i -~t~ » i. &
100-
North
Pacific Coast
Rocky Mt
South
little or no
injury
low moderate severe
injury injury "fnjury
* ' i •**,'>
" Biosite Index
" Coverage: 32 states.
jtSource: USDA, Forest Service. National Report on Sustainable Forests -
pO'03. Final Draft. 2002.
CJiapter 5 - tcological C-onciition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests?
5-19
-------

Carbon storage - Category 2

M»gaB««iB CT»»ililgsiUfl
As a result of photosynthesis, carbon is stored in forests
for a period of time in a variety of forms before it is ultimately
returned to the atmosphere through the respiration and decom-
position of plants and animals. A substantial pool of carbon is
stored in woody biomass (roots, trunks, and branches). Another
portion eventually ends up as dead organic matter in the upper
soil horizons. Carbon storage in forest biomass and forest soils
is essential for stable forest ecosystems, and it reduces atmos-
pheric concentrations of a carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas
(see Chapter 1, Cleaner Air).

What the Data Show

For the period 1953 to 1996, the average annual net storage of
non-soil forest carbon pools was 175 million tonnes of carbon per
year (MtC/yr). The rate of storage for the last period of record
(1987-1996) declined to 135 MtC/yr (Exhibit 5-13). The
decrease in sequestration in the last period is thought to be due
to more accurate data, increased harvests relative to growth, and
better accounting of emissions from dead wood. The Northern
region is sequestering the greatest amount of carbon, followed by
the Rocky Mountain region. The trend of decreasing sequestration
in the South is due to the increase in harvesting relative to
growth. Some of the harvested carbon is sequestered in wood
products (USDA, FS, 2002).
Indicator Caps and Limitations

Limitations of this indicator include the fc (lowing:
• The data only cover forest classified as "timberland," which
excludes about one-third of U.S. forest >.
• Carbon stored in soil is not included, •
• Several of the carbon pools are not measured, but are estimated
based on inventory-to-carbon relationships developed with
information from ecological studies. ;
Data Sources
The data sources for this indicator were the Forest Inventory and
Analysis, U.S; Department of Agriculture (1979-1995); and
National Report on Sustainable Forests, 2003, Final Draft, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Servicel 2002.
(See Appendix B, page B-39, for more information.)
Exhibit 5-13: Contribution of forest ecosystems to the totalqlobal carbon budget, 1953-1996
j|fu«» 4
- 5 <&
j> •£ 250.0
C3 Abovegrd live
Z e 200.0
41 "-*
e | 150.0
•3 fe
§ 2" 1°°-°
1 r
5 a so.o
e §
0.0
Abovegrd
standing dead
*v *\^ *s
^^^
H Understory

• Down dead

D Forest floor

D Blw grd live

• Blw grnd dead
Years of Period
Average annual net forest carbon change
(Mt/yr), 1953-1996 '

Coverage: lower 4 8 states.
Source: USDA, Forest Service. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 200.
1953 1963- 1977- 1987-
1962 1976 1986. .1996

. Year
iNorth BSouth DRocky Mtn DF'acific Coast

jage annual net forest carbon change
' r) by region, 1953-1996
A WV"«««f h it + 4 » ^" -,
}nal Draft. 2002.
5-20
5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests;? Chapter 5 >•'. Icological Condition
-------
fflca
•1>',M""r:i!'r,;-"'"'v .."•s ,:-r :.•:,•.;•,•!,:'*,•:;:: .'-;;*• •-''"-i---; -'tf-1'^'- ."-'--':liliLL ^ -''-.^1: --^i-s' . • --'.-"-.- -"-'•' '^i*''-:,->''" '••' •?--•• -L'.:^.';
joil compaction - (Category 2
This indicator measures the extent of changes to the physical
properties of forested soils resulting from forest harvesting, road
construction, or other human impacts that are of sufficient magni-
tude to lower soil fertility or cause significant reductions in site
productivity. Compaction can have a variety of negative effects on
soil fertility by causing changes in both physical and chemical
properties (Sutton, 1991; Fisher and Binkley, 2000). Reduction in
pore space makes the soil more dense and difficult to penetrate
and thus can constrain the size,, reach, and extent of root systems.
Reduction in soil aeration and water movement can reduce the
ability of roots to absorb water, nutrients, and oxygen, resulting in
shallow rooting and stunted trees. Destruction of soil structure
can limit water infiltration and increase rates of runoff and soil loss
from erosion.

What the Data Show

Soil compaction is primarily a local phenomenon. More than 86
percent of the plots measured showed less than 5 percent of the
plot area exhibitng of soil compaction (Exhibit 5-14) (USDA, FS,
2003). Only a small fraction of plots (1.6 percent) showed com-
paction on more than 50 percent of the plot
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Soil physical properties (e.g., bulk density) are not conventionally
monitored in a way that facilitates national reporting, and the
current approach relies heavily on visual inspection and the State
Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO)' state soil maps (USDA, FS,
2003). No measurements were made of the degree or intensity of
compaction. Physical disturbances that are not readily visible from
the surface might be under-reported. Therefore the national maps
thus far are only indicative of the potential for soil compaction on
a regional basis. The FIA program has begun monitoring actual soil
physical properties at the FIA sites, to be used in conjunction with
the current method, but the data were not available nationally for
development of the indicator in 2002 (USDA, FS, 2003).

Data Source

The data sources for this indicator were the Forest Health
Monitoring Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1999-
2000); and State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) state soil
maps. (See Appendix B, page B-40, for more information.)
Exhibit 5-14: Frequency distribution of percent of plot area
exhibiting evidence of surface compaction reported on
^ Forest f-lealth Monitoring (FH?V9 frogram plots, 1999-2OOO
-- 100%
3
CT
1311 Frequency
"•'Cumulative percent
5 10 20 30 40
Percent Compaction
50 More
Coverage: 37 states.
|;3_Source: USDA, Forest Service. National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003. 2003.
CJiapter 5 - tcological (Condition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests?
5-21
-------
EFAs Draft ReJDort on trie Environment StSiCpji • Tebriflidal Document
Indiclior
Soil
oil erosion
-Cab
egory.
Erosion is a term used to describe various mechanisms that wear
away the land surface. Soil erosion is caused naturally by running
water, wind, ice, and other geologic processes, but forest harvest-
ing and road construction can increase erosion beyond natural
levels. Erosion in excess of soil formation decreases the long-term
productivity of forest systems and contributes to siltation of
streams, lakes, and reservoirs. The Water Erosion Prediction Project
(WEPP) model is commonly used in conjunction with the STATSGO
state soil maps to estimate and predict the amount of soil loss
based on several factors influencing erosion (Liu, et al., 1997).

What the Data Show

Modeled erosion rates on undisturbed forest lands were less than
0.05 ton per acre per year, on nearly 90 percent of the measured
plots, compared to 3.1 tons per acre per year in agricultural
ecosystems (USDA, FS, 2003) (Exhibit 5-15). Exposed mineral
soil is a substantial contributor to erosion in the regions of the
country sampled, and about 65 percent of the measured
forest plots showed bare soil on less than five percent of the plot.
Indicator Gaps and Limitations
i \
Limitations of this indicator include the following:
• The modeling approach (WEPP) was. originally designed for
agricultural systems. It might overestimate erosion from well-
managed forest plots and underestimate erosion on plots
that have been harvested and mechanically prepared. (USDA,
FS, 2003). i
• The erosicm indicator was calculated for! only 37 states by 2002.
Data Sources
I
The data sources for this indicator were the Forest Health
Monitoring Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1991-
2000); and State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) state soil
maps. (See Appendix B, page B-40, for more information.)
exhibit 5-15: frequency distribution for modeled erosion ralif on Tbrest Health
* r "* * 4fct^'W*W^'<** ^^f*
Monitoring (FHM) Program plots (l999-.!c500>
Following a 2-year (average) and 100-year s
050 1 0

Modeled Erosion Rate (tons acre
. t
: Coverage: 23 states, excluding Alaska and Hawaii
Note: As an initial step in this analysis, model runs assume an un<
1 Source: USDA, Forest Service. 'National Report on Sustainable Foresi
5-22
5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forest;;? C-napter 5 ;- tcological C^ondition
-------
Processes beyond the range of historic variation - Category 2
The Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) program (USDA, FS, 2002)
provided one of the few examples of an indicator that considers the
essential ecological attribute of natural disturbance. The FHM pro-
gram analyzed Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data on climatic
events, fire frequency, and insect and disease outbreaks between
1996 and 2000. These data were compared to anecdotal data from
1800 to 1850 to determine whether recent patterns in such inci-
dents were beyond the range of historic variation. The FIA data were
also compared to data from between 1978 and 1995 to determine if
they were beyond the range of "recent" variation.

What the Data Show

A number of incidents were determined to be outside the range of
recent variation in natural disturbance:
• El Nino during 1997 to 2000.

• A 1998 ice storm in the Northeast.

• Total area burned in the West during 1996, 1998, and 2000,
and the total area burned nationwide in 2000.

• Outbreaks of spruce beetle in 1996, spruce budworm in 1997,
and southern pine beetle in 2000.
Indicator Caps and Limitations

Several limitations are associated with this indicator:
11 This analysis was limited by the lack of metric data
(actual measurements) available to describe conditions from
1800 to 1850.

• A relatively complete data set for major forest insects and
diseases exists for the period 1979 to 2000, but these data are
too recent for establishing a historical baseline.

Data Sources

The data sources for this indicator were the Forest Inventory and
Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1979-1995); and
National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003-Final Draft,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002.
(See Appendix B, page B-41, for more information.)
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.2 What is the Ecological Condition of Forests?
5-23
-------
_^_—~~,——. n..i nu-.T,- —r-riTTirri i^t\as •:i.?,;!.!.•..*• s . •• •: «.•,:<• /.i' /,; • > i:' c"i: „••!I ,,i:, I':».L• •:••»!.! •::••: •;;: •:!•:w i; * ••:::«< fti'..i-MMi
Summary: Tne Ecological Condition of Forests

The available data are not, at this point, sufficient to track the
progress of EPA's programs as they relate to the ecological condition
of forest ecosystems. When the FHM/FIA program indicators are
measured nationwide and repeatedly, they will form an important
baseline against which to monitor the response of forests and their
associated fauna to air pollutants, climate change, and management
practices that impact forest ecosystems. At this point, the results of
the leaf injury indicator suggest that research and assessment of the
actual effects of ozone on forest ecosystems should be continued.
The increasing acreage of older forests stands and changes in forest
stream hydrology might bear watching inasmuch as these factors
alter responses of forest systems to air and water pollutants.

Landscape condition
The total acreage of forests has remained steady over the past
century and, although the acreage of some of the types of forests
have changed, none are currently at risk of being lost. Over the past
SO years, the amount of non-stocked forest has decreased, while the
amount of forest with older trees has increased. Forests are highly
fragmented, but most forest land exists in or near the boundaries of
large tracts of forest land.

Biotic condition
Most forest-related species continue to occupy a large portion of
their original range. Eleven percent of species dependent on forest
land are imperiled (5.7 percent are mammals, 2.3 percent are
amphibians, and 1.4 percent are birds). Twenty-five percent of forest
bird species have declined since 1975 (mostly in the Southeast),
25 percent have increased (mostly in the North), and 50 percent
have stayed approximately the same. These results indicate that
some forest habitats may not be supporting all the species they did.
historically. Currently no reliable data exist on the condition of biota
in forest streams nationally or regionally. Our understanding of the
relationship between indicators and biological conservation strate-
gies remains weak (Lindenmeyer, et al., 2000).

According to available data, 20 percent of forests monitored in the
U.S. were observed to exhibit poor tree condition, and 23 percent of
biomonitoring plots in the eastern U.S. showed more than a small
amount of ozone impact on plant leaves. Severe ozone damage to
leaves was observed at 5 percent of the plots.

Ecological Processes
Annual rates of carbon storage in timberland increased over the
three decades between 1953 and 1986 due to increasing age of tim-
ber stands and growth of woodlots on what was once farmland.
However, annual storage declined in the decade 1987 to 1996, in
part because of harvesting in Southeastern forests.
Chemical and physical characteristics

Nitrate loss from most forests does not af
ipear to be resulting in
high nitrate concentrations in forest strea ns, but few streams are
monitored in .areas where nitrate deposition is high (the. East), and
the baseline Is too short to determine whether there are trends in
the data.
Hydrology and geomorphology

With respect to forest streams, there has
been a tendency toward
VVILIl ICOWtv-i. *•" iwi.-—». —— 1 •
decreased minimum flow rates in 10 percent of forest streams during
the period 1940 through 2000 comparejd to pre-1940, while
25 percent of forest streams had increased minimum flow rates.
Five percent of the watersheds had lower! maximum flow rates and |
25 percent had higher maximum flow ratjs. There were no obvious ,
trends in maximum flow rates in the decades since 1940, but there
was an increase in the minimum flow rate; during that period- ;
Increased flows were generally found in tie East, and decreased flows
were found in the West. Soil compactibn is a problem on more than
10 percent af the plots in only 10 perce it of monitored forest land.
Natural disturbance regimes

A number of events were determined tc
recent variation in natural disturbance,
events, a seivere ice storm in the North
be outside the rahge of
including two El Nino
;ast, total area burned in
the West during three years and the total area burned nationwide
in 2000, and several tree pest outbreaks. The ecological conse- .
quences of these events are undoubtedly significant, but have not
been systematically analyzed. j ":
• i • !
Many indicators currently being evaluated by the FlA and FHM
programs are not included in this seciioln because the results were;
not included in the Forest Service's rrtos}t recent report on'sustain-
able forests (USDA, FS, 2002). Becai!is
-------

5.3 What Is the Ecological
Condition of farmlands:
Agricultural practices using high-yielding crop varieties, fertilization,
irrigation, and pesticides have contributed substantially to increased
food production over the past 50 years (Matson, et al., 1997).
These same practices also have altered the biotic interactions in
farmlands, with local, regional, and global ecological consequences
(Matson, et al., 1997). This report (following The Heinz Center,
2002) defines a farmland as consisting of not only of the lands used
to grow crops, but also the field borders, windbreaks, small woodlots,
grassland and shrubland areas, wetlands, farmsteads, small villages,
and other built-up areas within or adjacent to croplands. These land
covers/uses both support agricultural production and provide habi-
tat for a variety of wildlife species. Farmlands include lands that grow
perennial and annual crops as well as lands that are used to produce
forage for livestock. This definition overlaps with other ecosystems;
most notably, pastures are considered croplands, but are also con-
sidered part of grassland/shrubland ecosystems.

Among ecologists concerned with ecological condition, farmlands
are often referred to as "agroecosystems." EPA is interested not only
in the ecological condition of farmlands, but also in their effects on
adjacent ecosystems. Developing and implementing agricultural prac-
tices that integrate crop and livestock production with ecologically

pj EsseStiaTEc^logrcaiAMKiK'^lE":3L
Landscape Condition
1 - - - -'•- • ~ . . - -- -:;:-
; Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Types
^ Landscape Composition
| Landscape Structure/Pattern
Biotic Condition
• Ecosystems and Communities
j Species and Populations
•\ Organism Condition
I Ecological Processes
1 Energy Flow
3 Material Flow
Chemical and Physical Characteristics
1 Nutrient Concentrations .
! •
? Other Chemjcal Parameters
^ Trace Organics and Inorganics
1 •
f •

E Physical Parameters
f .Hydrology and Ceomorphology
^ Surface and Ground Water Flows
| Dynamic Structural Conditions
S Sediment and Material Transport
F
. Natural Disturbance Regimes
8 Frequency
1 Extent
1 Duration

^i%^;i ExhjbitS^

Extent of agricultural land uses
The farmland landscape

Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water
Phosphorus in farmlands, forested and urban streams

Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water.
Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields
Pesticide leaching potential
Soil qualify index

Soil erosion
Sediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelands

_ ^ _ ^^^^ _w ^u, tv_ 2^.

JiBiBiS
1
•
•

SUfii
2

a
•

•
•
a
•

•-/: •••'.. : :; ;'-:-.

USDA
DOI

DOI
DOI

DOI
USDA
USDA
EPA

EPA
USDA

Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands?
5-25
-------
EPAs Draft Import on the Environment 20C|| • Technical Dpcumlijjt

based management practices has become the key for sustainable
agriculture (NRC, 1999).

Some of the data on farmlands are available through the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Over the past 80 years, NASS
has administered the USDA's program of collecting and publishing
national and state agricultural statistics. NASS currently publishes
more than 400 reports a year covering virtually every facet of U.S.
agriculture—production and supplies of food and fiber, prices paid
and received by farmers, farm labor and .wages, and farm aspects of
the industry. These estimates are based on a statistical area sampling
frame that represents the entire land mass of the U.S. The biological
indicators currently measured by NASS are primarily related to crop
or animal production. However, NASS does not report on indicators
of ecological condition. Physical or chemical indicators usually pro-
vide information relevant for agronomic production, but also can
provide limited information on potential stressors to adjacent terres-
trial and aquatic ecosystems such as soil erosion; nitrogen, phospho-
rus and pesticide runoff; and phosphorus and nitrate concentrations
in farmland streams.

In 1990, EPA and the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
undertook an interagency effort to assess the ecological condition of
agroecosystems as part of the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP). In 1994 and 1995, EMAP piloted a
regional-scale assessment in the mid-Atlantic region (Hellkamp, et
al., 2000). Some of the resulting indicators used in that pilot are
included as Category 2 indicators in this report. These indicators
could be measured in other regions and eventually across the nation
in conjunction with the NASS annual surveys.

The farmland indicators used in this report are displayed in
Exhibit 5-16, grouped according to the essential ecological attrib-
utes (EEAs). Some indicators relating to the EEAs of farmland
landscape condition, the chemical and physical attributes of farm-
land streams, and the hydrology of farmland watersheds have
been presented in the previous chapters on Better Protected Land
and Purer Water, because these indicators also relate to questions
about those media. Below, this section briefly summarizes the
data for these indicators as they relate to the ecological condition
of farmlands. The section then introduces additional indicators
that relate to the EEAs of physical and chemical properties of
farmland soils and the hydrology and geomorphology contribut-
ing to loss of soil from farmlands. Data are insufficient for nation-
al reporting on indicators in three of the six categories of EEAs:
biotic condition, ecological processes, and natural disturbance
regimes (The Heinz Center, 2002).

The following indicators presented in previous chapters relate to the
ecological condition of farmlands:
• According to the indicator Extent of Agricultural Land Uses
(Chapter 3, Better Protected Land), croplands total 377 million
acres. As of 1997, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands
totaled 32;million acres, excluding Alaska (USDA, NRCS, 2000).
Between 1982 and 1997, cropland decreased 10.4 percent, from
about 4211 million acres to nearly 377 million acres. Of this
44-million 'acre decrease, however, 32.7 million acres are now
enrolled in,the CRP, leaving an 11.3 mil(ion acre loss as a result
of conversion of croplands to other land uses (USDA, NRCS,
2000).
Unfortunately, there is no single, definitive, accurate estimate of ;
the extent of cropland. Cropland is a flexible resource that is
constantly.being taken in and out of production. In addition,
estimates of the amount of land devoted to farming differ because
different programs use different methoqs to acquire, define, and
analyze their data. For example, The Heiinz Center report assesses;
total cropland (including pasture and hayland) as covering
between 430 and 500 million acres in [1997, or about a quarter of
the total liind area in the U.S. (excluding Alaska). This report does
not reconcile these differences, but does acknowledge that there
are different estimates. \ !
I The Farmland Landscape indicator (Cha 3ter 3, Better Protected
Land) describes the degree to which croplands dominate the
landscape and the extent to which oth£r land uses are
intermingled (The Heinz Center, 2002). Croplands comprise
about half of the larger farmland ecosystems in the East and
Southeast and almost three-quarters of the farmland ecosystems ;
in the Midwest (The Heinz Center, 20Q2). The remainder of the
farmland Ecosystems are forests in the;East, wetlands in the
Southeast, and both forests and wetlands in the Midwest. In the j
West, about 60 percent of farmland ecosystems are cropland, with
grasslands and shrublands dominating the remainder in the
western arid northern Plains areas. Forests and
grasslands/shrublands are about equal1 in the farmland landscape;
for the non-cropland area of the Soutr) Central region. In many
areas of the U.S., other land cover typ£s are almost as prevalent as
croplands land can provide habitat for non-agronomic species. !

I The indicator Nitrate in Farmland, Forested, and Urban Streams and
Ground Water (Chapter 2, Purer Water) shows the loss of nitrate
from agricultural watersheds, usually indicating the extent to which
nitrogen fertilizer is lost or animal manure reaches streams via runoff
or ground water. Sampling in areas where agriculture is the primary
land use found that about 50 percent of the 52 stream sites
sampled and 45 percent of the ground yater wells sampled had
nitrate concentrations greater than 2 p|W About 20 percent of the
ground waiter sites and 10 percent of^tne stream sites sampled had
nitrate concentrations exceeding the drinking water nitrate standard
of 10 ppm. These figures are much higher than the nitrate
concentrations in forest streams (The hjeinz Center, 2002).

n The indicator Phosphorus in Farmland, Forested, and Urban Streams'
(Chapter 2, Purer Water), shows the Icjss of phosphorus from
agricultural watersheds, again usually indicating losses from
fertilizer Jind animal manures. Total phosphorus concentrations in
farmland .streams were reported in foui" classes in the Heinz report:
< 0.1 ppm, 0.1 -0.3 ppm, 0.3-0.5 ppm, and > 0.5 pprn (The Heinz
5-26
5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? Chapter 5 -
Icologica
.1 Condition
-------

Center, 2002). EPA has set new regional criteria for phosphorous
concentration, ranging from 0.023 to 0.076 ppm, to protect
streams in agricultural ecosystems from eutrophication. The
criteria vary according to differences in ecoregions, soil types,
climate, and land use. The Heinz Center (2002) reports that
about 75 percent of farmland streams had phosphorous
concentrations greater than 0.1 ppm, thus exceeding any of EPA's
criteria for eutrophication. Fifteen percent had phosphorous
concentrations equal to or exceeding 0.5 ppm (The Heinz Center,
2002). Average phosphorous concentrations in farmland streams
were similar to phosphorous concentrations .measured in urban
streams. As with nitrate concentrations, forest streams had lower
phosphorous concentrations than farmland or urban streams.
I The indicator Pesticides in Farmland Streams and Ground Water
(Chapter 2, Purer Water), captures the extent to which chemical
conditions in streams may exceed the tolerance limits for aquatic
communities. All streams monitored by the National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program in farmland areas had at least one
pesticide at detectable 'levels throughout the year (The Heinz
Center, 2002). About 75 percent of these streams had an average
of five or more pesticides at detectable levels, and more than 80
percent of the streams had at least one pesticide whose
concentration exceeded the applicable aquatic life guideline.
About 60 percent of ground water wells sampled in agricultural
areas had at least one pesticide at detectable levels. A relatively .
small number of these chemicals—specifically the herbicides
atrazine (and its breakdown product desethylatrazine),
metalachlor, cyanazine, and alachlor—accounted for most
detections.

I The Potential Pesticide Runoff from Farm Fields indicator (Chapter 3,
Better Protected Land) identifies the potential for movement of
agricultural pesticides by surface water runoff in watersheds
nationwide, based on factors known to be important determinants
of pesticide loss. These factors include: 1) soil characteristics,
2) historical pesticide use, 3) chemical properties of the
pesticides used, 4) annual rainfall and its relationship to runoff,
and 5) major field crops grown. The indicator uses 1992 as a
baseline. Watersheds with high scores (i.e., the 4th quartile of
runoff estimates) have a greater risk of pesticide contamination of
surface water than do those with low scores (i.e., the 1 st quartile
of runoff estimates). The highest potential for pesticide runoff is
projected for the central U.S., primarily in the upper and lower
Mississippi River valley and the Ohio River valley. These areas are
part of the "breadbasket" of the U.S., where pesticide application
is highest. Many of the western watersheds have not been
assessed.

The hydrologic attribute indicator Sediment Runoff Potential from
Croplands and Pasturelands (Chapter 3, Better Protected Land),
captures the loss of valuable soil from the farmland, sediment
impacts to the physical habitat of farmland streams, and transport
of many pollutants to downstream lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries.
This indicator combines land cover, weather patterns, and soils
information in a process model thatjncorporates hydrologic
cycling, weather, sedimentation, crop growth, and agricultural
management to estimate the amount of sediment that could
potentially be delivered to rivers and streams in each watershed.
The highest potential for sediment runoff is concentrated in the
central U.S., predominately associated with the upper Mississippi
River valley and the Ohio River valley. Most of the western U.S.
region is characterized by low runoff potential.

The other three indicators in Exhibit 5-16, described on the following
pages, appear for the first time in this chapter.
Chapter 5 - tcological Condition 5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands?
5-27
-------

Pesticide leaching potential - Category 2
Retention of pesticides in their target areas maximizes pesticide
efficiency and minimizes off-site contamination (Hellkamp, et al.,
2000). Pesticide leaching not only can contaminate surface and
ground water, but also can have both chronic and acute toxic
effects on non-target organisms, such as fish, birds, and other
wildlife. This leaching potential is affected by soil properties, rain-
fall and runoff, pesticide chemistry, and other factors. The indica-
tor was used as part of the NASS survey approach, so it has the
potential for national application.

What the Data Show

During the 1994-1995 period, there were about 13.5 million
acres of cropland in the Mid-Atlantic region (Hellkamp et al,
2000). Although a large proportion of these 13.5 million acres
had soils with properties conducive to pesticide leaching, the
authors estimate that 50 percent (6.75 million acres) of the
cropland received no pesticide application. Also, pesticides with
moderately high to high leaching potentials were seldom applied
to croplands with highly to very highly leachable soils.
Consequently, only about 1 million acres (less than 10 percent of
the total cropland acreage) was at moderately high to high risk for
loss of pesticides from the on-farm target area (Hellkamp, et al.,
2000).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The limitations of this indicator include the following:
• The pesticide leaching potential indicator has only been applied
in the mid^Atlantic region and has not been tested or applied in
other regions. It has the potential to be applied in other areas,
but it will have to be adjusted for regional differences.
• Data collection occurred only during 1994 and 1995.
Data Source ;
: ; i • , -
The data source for this indicator was the Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(1994-1995). (See Appendix B, page B|-fl, for more information.)
5-28
5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? Chapter 5 -
Ecological Condition
-------
Soil quality index - Category 2
A Soil Quality Index (SQI) was developed and measured for
agroecosystems in the mid-Atlantic region in 1994 and 1995
(Hess, et al., 2000; Hellkamp, et al., 2000). The SQI includes
indicators of soil attributes, including physical (i.e., clay content,
cation exchange capacity, base saturation), chemical (i.e., PH,
sodium adsorption ratio, total nitrogen, total carbon, organic car-
bon/clay), and biological (i.e., microbial biomass). The SQI score
is an average of eight numerical ratings (McQuaid and Olson,
1998) (Hellkamp, et al., 2000). The high soil quality range
begins at SQI scores of 2.4, while the range of low SQI scores is
from 0.0 to 1.6. While the SQI is an indicator of the capacity of
the soil to support plant growth and is related primarily to agri-
cultural productivity, it can also provide information on the
capacity of the site to support non-agronomic plants.

This indicator was used as part of the MASS survey approach, so
it has the potential for national application.

What the Data Show
SQI scores were obtained for the
five-state mid-Atlantic region in
1994 and 1995 (Hellkamp, et al.,
2000) (Exhibit 5-17). In 1994, the
mean SQI score was 2.23 (CI9 =
2.17 to 2.29); in 1995, the mean
SQI was 1.98 (CI = 1.73 to 2.23).
The difference in SQI scores
between 1994 and 1995 was due
to different index calculation pro-
cedures and sampling variability.
SQI scores were lower in tilled soils
compared with unfilled soils, such
as hay fields, in both 1994 and
1995. Unfilled sites had higher
microbial biomass values than con-
ventional or reduced tillage sites in
both years
Evaluation of the individual factors
related to the moderate SQI scores
indicated that cation exchange
capacity (1994), carbon (total
1994, organic 1995), and microbial
biomass (1995) had the lowest val-
ues (Hellkamp, et al., 2000).

9The confidence interval (CI) of the mean is a range of values (interval)
with a known probability (confidence, in this case ,95 percent) of containing
the true population mean. The 1994 measured SQI scores are only a sample
Increasing the carbon content of soils might increase their capac-
ity to support plant growth. Retaining or adding crop residues to
the soils could increase both the carbon content and substrate
for microbial activity. Crop residues can also reduce soil erosion
and associated transport of nutrients and pesticides off the field.
Nutrients and pesticides contribute to negative effects on aquatic
receiving systems.

Indicator Caps and Limitations

Data are available only for the mid-Atlantic region for 2 years.
The indicator has the potential to be applied in other areas, but
it will have to be adjusted for regional differences.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was the Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994-
1995). (See Appendix B, page B-41 for more information.)
"'«1
I?I,9ji?^ri-t!lage systems
Anligilai^iqQ^anfJ }$95_. ;
1.5
r» nj

-------
_-,-_.
EFAs Draft Report gn the Environmen
Inaicafell
Soil
oil erosion
-Qb
JSV
:egory.
7
Sediment resulting from soil erosion and transport is the greatest
pollutant in aquatic ecosystems, both by mass and volume (EPA,
OW, August 2002). Soil particles also can transport sorbed nutri-
ents and pesticides and carry these into aquatic systems where
these constituents contribute to water quality problems.
Agricultural soil erosion decreases soil quality and can reduce soil
fertility, and soil movement can make normal cropping practices
difficult (The Heinz Center, 2002). Soil erosion and transport can
occur both by wind and by water.

Soil erosion estimates were calculated using the U.S. Geological
Survey hydrologic unit codes watersheds (8-digit HUCs), National
Resources Inventory soils data, the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(Renard, etal., 1997), and the Wind Erosion Equation (Bondy, et
al., 1980; Skidmore and Woodruff, 1968). Soil parameters were
obtained from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
database.
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

This indicator provides estimates for the initiation of soil move-
ment, not sediment transport or delivery 'off farmlands, which
would require additional measurements and calculations. The dis-
tance the soil particles are moved might lie considerable or mini-
mal and cannot be determined from soil erosion estimates.
Data Sources
The data sources for this indicator were the National Resources
Inventory, U.S. Department of Agriculturj (1982-1997); and the
State Soil Geographic Database (STATSCO), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (1982-1997). (See Appendix) B, page B-42, for more
information.)
What the Data Show

The acreage of U.S. farmland with the greatest
potential for wind erosion decreased by almost
33 percent to about 63 million acres from 1982
to 1997 (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit
5-18). This acreage represents about IS per-
cent of the total cropland in the U.S. The
acreage with the greatest potential for water
erosion also decreased by about 33 percent to
89 million acres, which represents about 22
percent of U.S. cropland (The Heinz Center,
2002). Reductions in erosion can occur through
improved tilling or management practices, taking
marginal land out of production, participation in
the Conservation Reserve Program, or similar
activities. These reductions not only can
contribute to increased soil quality, but also
improved water quality in adjacent and
downstream aquatic ecosystems.
• ..lyyrKB^ft.
Exhibit 5-18: Crop ands most prone to erosion, IQ97 ;.
:"":; : :; Croplands ijj gsi prone to wind erosion , l"§97 ;/. '} . ^
"l^Ssf
Each dot ec|uals
20,000 acres of
cropland that is
,most prone to
erosion.
X' i>

_\_if
UlCrpplands Kst prone to water erosion, KJK
:": Coverage: lower 48 stages. "j
;, "I'S;:.™; «:3E ;w'3S irarann v
Note: data coyer cropland.
Each dot equals
20,000 acres of
cropland that is
most prone to
;:w_ajer;erosipn.^,£

;raffi:;1an<3s,"'l:iut'hot pasture'; - ;:'
mJP!BSJWlWMww^m^lltD«j4^«to»^r^i4^'-^v-v? V.1 .^-''iL'!'' " ' ^
Notion s Ecosystems. 2002. Data from the
5-30
5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? Ckapter 5 - Ecological Condition
-------
Summary: The Ecological Condition of Farmlands

Farmlands represent a significant portion of the landscape, but their
ecological condition nationally, or even for most regions, is unknown.
In a limited number of watersheds in which agricultural lands are the
predominant land use, data indicate that concentrations of nitrate,
phosphorus, and many contaminants are above levels of concern, but
these data are not available for a representative sample of streams
that could serve as a baseline for water quality management deci-
sions for the entire U.S. No data for national indicators are available
for three of the six essential ecological attributes, and many of the
indicators for the other EEAs relate primarily to crop or livestock
production. Habitat alteration and constituent loading from farm-
lands represent some of the major stressors on other ecosystems
(see Chapter'2, Purer Water, and Chapter 3, Better Protected Land,
for discussion of specific stressors.)

Landscape condition

While there is no single, definitive, accurate estimate of the extent of
cropland, it has been estimated to have decreased by 10.4 percent
between 1982 and 199? from about 421 million acres to nearly
377 million acres. Of this 44-million acre decrease, 32.7 million
acres are now enrolled in the CRP, leaving an 11.3 million acre loss as
a result of conversion of croplands to other land uses. The Heinz
report assesses total cropland (including pasture and hayland) as
covering between 430 and 500 million acres in 1997, or about a
quarter of the total land area in the U.S. (excluding Alaska). In many
areas of the U.S., other land cover types within croplands are almost
as prevalent as croplands themselves and can provide habitat for
non-agronomic species. For example, croplands comprise only half of
the larger farmland ecosystems in the East and Southeast and about
three-quarters of the farmland ecosystems in the Midwest. This situ-
ation suggests that much of the farmland in the country supports
more biodiversity and associated ecological processes than if it were
more completely monoculture. Indicators for fragmentation of farm-
land landscapes by development and the shape of "natural" patches
in farmland landscapes would be helpful additional indicators of
landscape condition (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Chemical and physical characteristics

The physical and chemical characteristics of farmlands could provide
information to measure national progress in controlling and manag-
ing non-point source pollutant transport to receiving waters under
EPA's clean water Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
goal. Unfortunately, many of the indicators for physical and chemical
characteristics are estimated based on land use, rather than on
measurements of water quality. The National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program provides consistent and comparable
information on nutrient and pesticide concentrations in streams in
agricultural areas. The data show that nitrate and phosphorus con-
centrations in farmland streams are generally higher than in urban
and suburban streams, and that more than 80 percent of the
streams sampled had at least one pesticide whose concentration
exceeded guidelines for protection of aquatic life. The sites sampled
do not represent a probability sample and are too few to ensure that
these data are representative of farmlands nationwide. Additional
stream monitoring networks are required to assess the physical and
chemical characteristics of streams in agricultural areas and the
effectiveness of agricultural management practices for protecting or
improving stream quality. A pesticide leaching potential indicator and a
so/7 quality index indicate that only 10 percent of the soils in the mid-
Atlantic region were highly leachable with respect to pesticides, and
that soil quality was in the "moderate" range, but the indicator has
not been widely applied elsewhere.
Hydrology and geomorphology
Sediment Runoff results in loss of valuable soil from the farmland, sed-
iment impacts to the physical habitat of farmland streams, and trans-
port of many pollutants to downstream lakes, reservoirs, and estuar-
ies. The highest potential for sediment runoff is concentrated in
upper Mississippi River valley and the Ohio River valley. Most of the
western U.S. region is characterized by low runoff potential. Between
1982 and 1997, the acreage with the greatest potential for water
erosion decreased by about 33 percent to 89 million acres, which
represents about 22 percent of U.S. cropland. Wind can also erode
soil. The acreage of U.S. farmland with the greatest potential for
wind erosion decreased by almost 33 percent to about 63 million
acres from 1982 to 1997, about 15 percent of the total cropland in
the U.S. There were no indicators of hydrology available for either
surface or ground water associated with agricultural ecosystems.
Modification or elimination of wetlands and riparian areas con-
tributes to hydrologic alteration of farmlands, as does agricultural
irrigation, primarily in the western states. This consumption affects
not only surface water through irrigation return flows, but also
ground water through depletion of aquifers. Both water quantity and
quality can be affected in farmlands. No national, representative
monitoring programs exist for either the quantity or quality of water
in farmlands.

No Category 1 or 2 indicators were available for this report for biot-
ic condition, ecological processes, or natural disturbance regimes. The
Heinz Center (2002) suggested that several indicators could be
promising: soil biological condition, status of animal species in farm-
land areas, native vegetation in areas dominated by cropland, and
stream habitat quality. An indicator of ant diversity and wildlife habi-
tat also was developed and tested in the mid-Atlantic region by the
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Program (MAIA). Data are insuf-
ficient, however, to report on agroecosystems nationally for any of
these indicators (Hellkamp, et al., 2000; The Heinz Center, 2002). A
particular problem in farmlands is establishing appropriate reference
conditions for biological structure and ecosystem function measures
(The Heinz Center, 2002). Agricultural systems are highly managed
ecosystems, so no natural reference exists. It would be unrealistic to
expect fish and invertebrate communities in farmlands to be compa-
rable to relatively undisturbed forest or grassland ecosystems.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands?
5-31
-------
5.U What Is the

Ecological Condition or

Grasslands and Scrublands f

Grasslands and shrublands include lands in which the dominant veg-
etation is grasses or other non-woody vegetation, or where shrubs
and scattered trees are typical (The Heinz Center, 2002). This
ecosystem type includes chaparral, deserts, mountain shrublands,
range lands, Florida grasslands, and non-cultivated pastures.
Grasslands and shrublands also can be used for grazing, so some
land use summaries may include them in estimates of farmlands.
Grasslands and shrublands include lands revegetated naturally or
artificially to provide a non-crop plant cover that is managed like
native vegetation. The vast majority of grasslands and shrublands
occur in the western U.S. Collectively, these ecosystems constitute
over one-third of the area in the conterminous U.S.

Environmental issues associated with grassland and shrubland
ecosystems include introduction of non-native and invasive species,
desertification, ground water depletion, and overgrazing. Several fed-
eral agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service,
National Park Service) have responsibility for the majority of publicly
owned grasslands and shrublands.

Ecological indicators used in this report for grassland and shrubland
ecosystems are listed in Exhibit 5-19. The Heinz report serves as the
primary source of information for this ecological resource (The Heinz
Center, 2002). The following indicators presented in previous chap-
ters relate to the ecological condition of grasslands and shrublands:

• The Extent of Grasslands and Shrublands indicator (Chapter 3,
Better Protected Land) reveals that grasslands and shrublands
occupy about 861 million acres or just over one-third of the land
area in the conterminous U.S. states. Alaska contains about 205
million acres of grasslands and shrublands.
• Number/Duration of Dry Stream Flow Periods in Grasslands and
Shrublands (Chapter 2, Purer Water) is ajn important indicator of
the hydrology of grasslands and shrublahds. This indicator shows
that the percentage of no-flow periods jias decreased in all
grassland and shrubland regions of the West (The Heinz Center,
2002). The percentage of no-flow periods was similar in 1950 and
1960 and then decreased in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The
1980s was- a relatively wet period and experienced some of the
smallest percentages of no-flow period^ over the 50-year period
on record. W duration of zero-flow periods also decreased
during the'period from the 1970s throijgh the 1990s, compared
to the 1950s and 1960s (The Heinz Center, 2002).
• ' ! \

The two biotic structure indicators in Exhibit 5-19, described on the
following pages, appear for the first time jn this chapter: At-Risk
Native Species and Population Trends of Invasive and Native, Non-inva-

sive Birds. I
5-32
5.3 What Is the Ecological Condition of Farmlands? Chapter! 4 - Ecological Condition
-------
lecnn
nrca
b/oGuraent

- Exhibit 5-19= Grasslands and snruDiands indicators
Landscape Composition
Landscape Structure/Pattern
Biotic Condition
Ecosystems and Communities
At-risk native grassland and shrubland species
Population trends in invasive and native non-invasive bird species
NatureServe
DOI
Species and Populations
Organism Condition
Ecological Processes

Energy Flow
Material Flow
1— Chemical and Physical Characteristics
Nutrient Concentrations
Other Chemical Parameters
Trace Organics and Inorganics
Physical Parameters
t Hydrology and Geomorphology
Surface and Ground Water Flows
Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in
grasslands/shrublands
DOI
Dynamic Structural Conditions
Sediment and Material Transport
Natural Disturbance Regimes
Frequency
Extent
Duration
Chapter 5 - tcological (Condition 5.4 What Is the Ecological Condition of Grasslands and Shrublands?
5-33
-------
£^^
^isten^^ife
At-risR native grassland and snrubland species - C-ategpry 2
i
Native species contribute substantially to the goods and services
provided by grasslands and shrublands. These species have
evolved in and adapted to the reange of environmental conditions
that has occurred in grassland and shrubland ecosystems over
thousands of years. While species extinction is a natural geologic
phenomenon, the extinction of species has increased over the
past 100 years (Vitousek, et al., 1997), and many ecologists
believe that ecosystem function and resilience is related to biodi-
versity (Naeem, et al,, 1999), so that preserving biodiversity is
critical for sustainable ecosystems. Whether or not this is always
the case10 many people believe that more species is preferable to
fewer species.

What the Data Show

About 3.5 percent of native grassland and shrubland animal
species are critically imperiled, 6 percent are imperiled, and
0.5 percent are or might be extinct (The Heinz Center, 2002)
(Exhibit 5-20). When vulnerable species (7 percent) are counted,
I:
I1!
I •
txnibit 5-2O: 7\t-risk native grassland e nd snrubland
species, by risk category, 20f)0
about 17 percent of grassland and shrubland animal species are
considered "at risk." •
: i
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The data for this indicator are not from aisije-based monitoring pro-
gram, but rather from a census approach that focuses on the loca-
tion and distribution of at-risk species. Determining whether species
are naturally rare or have been depleted is currently not possible. It
is not clear that trends can be quantified with any precision.

Data Source |
i
The data source for this indicator was Thk State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from
NatureServe Explorer database. (See Appendix B, page Ei-42, for
more information.) '
™j->lt { iff

1 "I

i
1 Partial Indicator Data: Grassland and
"D
;; c
25
,=!i
::: (j O.
•F :1|IOI!!&'
20-
= ' "' 1C.
^S -T-I I -J
c
ro
10-
H
tftj
2000
Extinct
Critically
Imperiled
Imperiled
Vulnerable
All At-Risk
\ J
Future
'" j.
Coverage: all 50 states.
| Source: The Heinz Center. The State dfthe Nation's E&jsystems. 2002.
Is Data from NatureServe and its Natural Heritage member
' ' '•'
ams.
f t t
,, f I *

,1 J
a

\j* ft L A4tu«lK
'"An ongoing debate exists within the scientific community on the importance of species diversity in sustaining ecosystem function (Tilman and Downing.
1994; Crime, 1997; Hodgson, et al., 1998; Wardle, et al., 2000)
5-34
5.4 What Is the Ecological Condition of Grasslands and Shrublands?
Chapter 5 - Ecological Conditi
dition
-------

topulation trends of invasive and native, non-invasive birds - Category 1

Bird species are mobile and can respond quickly to environmental
change (The Heinz Center, 2002). The Heinz report uses an indi-
cator of population trends in invasive and non-invasive birds to
determine if invasive bird species are increasing more than other
bird populations (The Heinz Center, 2002). Invasive species are
defined as non-native species (species that are not native to
North America or that are now found outside their historic range)
that spread aggressively. Some invasive bird species increase when
the landscape becomes more fragmented or stress on the ecologi-
cal system increases. The invasive species considered for grassland
and shrublands are believed to be indicative of agricultural conver-
sion, landscape fragmentation due to suburban and rural develop-
ment, and the spread of exotic vegetation (The Heinz Center,
2002). Native, non-invasive species are considered to reflect rela-
tively intact, high-quality native grasslands and shrublands (The
Heinz Center, 2002).

What the Data Show

Since the late 1960s, invasive and non-invasive bird species
increased in similar proportions until the period 1996 to 2000,
when invasive species increased significantly (The Heinz Center,
2002) (Exhibit 5-21). This increase might represent a short-term
fluctuation in bird populations, or it could be a sign of changing
ecosystem condition. Continued monitoring of bird populations
and indicators in other essential ecological attributes is required
to evaluate these changes.

Indicator Caps and Limitations

The limitations of this indicator include the following:
• The calculation method could mask increases or decreases in
particular species. The two groups of birds contain species that
differ in their habitats, relative abundance, and range, and bird
populations normally fluctuate from year to year. If half the
species in one of the groups were to increase and the other half
to decrease over a given period, no consistent change would
appear for that group (The Heinz Center, 2002).
• The recent period of change is too short to provide an
indication of a possible increasing trend in invasive bird species.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was the Breeding Bird Survey,
U.S. Geological Service (1966-2000). (See Appendix B,
page B-42, for more information.)
If"
txnibit 5-21: Topulation tiends of invasive and
native, non-invasive birds, 1966-2OOO
TOO
80
feo 60
40
20
O
Tl

«
rilli i
Native,
non-invasive
Invasive
t1966- 1971- 1976- 1981- 1986- 1991- 1996-
1970 1975 1980 1985, 1990 1995" 2000

|g5verage:^elected grassland and shrubland areas.
gpoprce: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. Data from the
', Breeding Bird Survey; analysis by W. Mark Roberts.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.4 What Is the Ecological Condition of Grasslands and Shrublands?
5-35
-------
'! fr irrs ;ni^^^^^^^^^^^ ill" mftsil
Urait Report ;Q^^
BlimlMllillillllllBlllilllilllllllllliiiBllillllllillli BilBBBIBB ••••liilllllliilftiliilliliii •••••••iMiiiBiiii""'i"»^i»«ii«iiiBlliiil'HPiiHEmm"m"i"Lffili"™i

Summary: The Ecological Condition of Grasslands and

jnrublanas

Grassland and shrubland ecosystems are at risk from the introduc-
tion of non-native and invasive species, desertification, ground water
depletion, and overgrazing. Few ecological indicators are currently
being measured at a national or regional scale, and this situation is
unlikely to change in the near future, so the overall ecological condi-
tion of the nation's grasslands and shrublands is and will remain
effectively unknown.

Landscape condition
The extent of grasslands and shrublands can be estimated from
National Land Cover Database (NLCD) information. Grasslands
and shrublands occupy about 861 million acres or just over one-
third of the land area in the conterminous U.S. Alaska contains about
205 million acres of grasslands and shrublands. This is a diverse
group of ecosystems, however, ranging from Florida grasslands to the
Mohave desert, and land use information is not readily available for
all of them.
Biotic condition
At-risk native species and population trends in invasive and non-inva-
sive birds are two indicators that can provide information on the sta-
tus of, and change in, biotic condition. About 3.5 percent of native
grassland and shrubland animal species are critically imperiled,
6 percent are imperiled, and 0.5 percent are or might be extinct.
When vulnerable species (7 percent) are counted, about 17 percent
of grassland and shrubland animal species are considered "at risk."
However, there is no context in which to interpret the at-risk native
species data. The proportion of species that would naturally be rare
is unknown. Invasive species are believed to be indicative of agricul-
tural conversion, landscape fragmentation due to suburban and rural
development, and the spread of exotic vegetation, whereas native,
non-invasive species are considered to reflect relatively intact, high-
quality native grasslands and shrublands. Until recently, invasive and
non-invasive bird species have changed in similar proportions, but
from 1996 to 2000, invasive species increased significantly. This
might be a short-term fluctuation in bird populations, or it could be
a sign of changing ecosystem condition. Information on stream biota
in grasslands and shrublands are needed to be able to assess the
condition of grassland and shrubland streams, especially as it may be
affected by grazing.
Hydrology and geomorphology

Periods of no !flow can certainly be stressfiil to aquatic communities
of grasslands and shrublands, and may ind cate harm to the vegeta-
tion during drought periods. The Number/Duration of Dry Stream Flow
Periods indicator has decreased in all grassland and shrubtand regions!
of the West. The percentage of no-flow periods was similar in 1950 >
and 1960 and then decreased in the 19^0s, 1980s, and 1990s. The |
duration of zero-flow periods also decreased during the period from
the 1970s through the 1990s, compared to the 1950s and 1960s. ',
Currently, dry stream flow periods are nbtj monitored nationally.
i • '.
There were no Category 1 or 2 indicators available for this report for
ecological processes, physical and chemical c laracteristics, or natural
disturbance regimes for grasslands and shrublands.
5-36
5.4 What Is the Ecological Condition of Grasslands and Shrublands? Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
-------
5.5 What Is the Ecological
Condition of Urban and
juouroan Areas?
Urban and suburban ecosystems are areas where the majority of the
land is devoted to or dominated by buildings, houses, roads, con-
crete, grassy lawns, or other elements of human use and construc-
tion (The Heinz Center, 2002). Urban ecosystems are highly built-up
and paved over, resulting in more rapid changes in temperature,
runoff, and other variables than in more natural ecosystems. Plant
and animal life is heavily influenced by species introduced in horti-
culture and as pets, and native plant species might be more or less
completely removed from large areas and replaced by lawns, gardens,
and ornamentals (WRI, 2000). These areas generally show high lev-
els of many air and water pollutants because of the concentration of
pollutant sources in small areas. Nonetheless, substantial biodiversity
Exhibit 5-22: Urban and suburban ind
*•

essential ecological AttriDute . ~+~-^=~-
j Landscape Condition
f . — •• • ' -nrr,,. ,.nnrlf»rT . .,
S Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Type
Landscape Composition
Landscape Structure/Pattern
f Biotic Condition
s: Ecosystems and Communities
E Species and Populations
I Organism Condition
S Ecological Processes
m -
E: Energy flow
£ Material Flow
: Chemical and Physical Characteristics
i: Nutrient Concentrations
i!
| Other Chemical Parameters
| Trace Organics and Inorganics
*
. Physical Parameters
1 Hydrology and Geomorphology
t Surface and Ground Water Flows'
1 Dynamic Structural Conditions
: Sediment and Material Transport
Natural Disturbance Regimes
A Frequency
? Extent
5 Duration

•••••••••••••ill i ,., ,„,,,„,,, ,_„.,..„.
•feiiiiiiiiiiiSiS^ 'H " i"

Extent of urban and suburban lands
Patches of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland in
urban/suburban areas

Nitrate in farmland, forested and urban streams and ground water
Phosphorus in farmland, forested and urban streams

Chemical contamination in urban streams and ground water
Ambient concentrations of ozone, 8-hour and 1 -hour

1
•

'J:ijj»!jfc*
2

•

•
•

•

|^M|E^W^liHg

USDA
DOI

DOI
DOI

DOI
EPA

Giapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.5 What Is the Ecological Condition of Urban and Suburban Areas?
5-37
-------
EiVKs Draft feJDbrt dri the Envirofjrrfent 2^^g
can remain in these systems; for example, a 1993 survey identified
115 bird species in Washington, DC (Hadidian, et al., 1997).

There is substantial interest in understanding urban and suburban
ecosystems, as evidenced by two urban National Science Foundation
long-term ecological research sites (Phoenix and Baltimore), a pro-
fessional journal, Urban Ecosystems and a number of recent writings
on the subject (Pickett, et al., 2001; Kinzig and Grove, 2001; Grimm,
et al., 2002). Much of urban ecosystems research is aimed not at
preserving natural ecosystems, but at "smart growth" and under-
standing how to enhance ecosystem services in a highly built envi-
ronment Despite the growing amount of research, the entire science
of urban ecosystem ecology is not sufficiently developed to have a
substantial number of ecological indicators. In addition, there may be
a lack of understanding regarding what to expect when applying indi-
cators typically used in less built-up land cover classes to urban and
suburban ecosystems. The Heinz report lists eight indicators for
urban and suburban ecosystems, only two of which have adequate
data for national reporting.

Indicators for urban and suburban ecosystems used in this report are
listed in Exhibit S-22, grouped according to essential ecological
attributes. Extent and chemical and physical condition data are the
most widely available. There were no indicators for biotic condition,
ecological processes, hydrology and geomorphology, or natural dis-
turbance regimes for urban and suburban ecosystems suitable for
national or even regional reporting (The Heinz Center, 2002).

This section summarizes data related to urban and suburban ecosys-
tems for five indicators, most of them relating to pollutant concen-
trations, that appear in earlier chapters. The section then introduces
one indicator that appears for the first time in this report—Patches
of Forest, Grassland, Shrubland, and Wetland in Urban/Suburban
Areas—which relates to the landscape essential ecological attribute.

The following indicators presented in previous chapters relate to the
ecological condition of urban and suburban areas:
m The indicator Extent of Urban and Suburban Lands (Chapter 3,
Better Protected Land) was assessed using the National Land
Cover Database and estimating the proportion of the area in
1,000 foot pixels that fell into one of four developed land cover
types: low-intensity residential; high-intensity residential;
commercial-industrial-transportation; or urban and recreational
grasses (The Heinz Center, 2002). In 1992, urban and suburban
areas occupied about 32 million acres in the conterminous U.S. or
about 1.7 percent of the total land area (The Heinz Center,
2002). As with the estimate of the extent of farmlands, urban and
suburban areas are defined differently by different organizations,
sometimes using different data sources, thus affecting the area
estimates. For example, the Extent of Developed Lands indicator in
Chapter 3, Better Protected Land is based on USDA National
Resources Inventory delineation of developed lands, which is
about 98 million acres in the conterminous U.S., or about 4.3
percent of the total land area of the li.si, not including Alaska
(see Chapter 3, Better Protected Land).;

The indicator Ambient Concentrations ofQzone, 8-hour and 1-hour
(Chapter 1J Cleaner Air) revealed that irj 1999, about 55 percent
of the urban and suburban monitoring stations had high ozone
concentrations on 4 or more days, and jhat the percentage
fluctuated between 35 percent and 60 percent during the 1990s
(The Heinz'Center, 2002). The number|of sites with 10 days or-
more of high ozone fluctuated between J20 and 30 percent of the
sites, with no apparent trend, but the njimber of sites v/ith high ,
ozone on 25 days or more decreased from about 10 percent to
around 5 percent over the decade. Fluctuations are caused in part
by changes in the weather. As noted in {he section on forests,
biomonitoring plots frequently reveal at least some ozone damage
to tree leaves. j

I The indicator Nitrate in Farmland, Forested, and Urban Streams and
Ground Water (Chapter 2, Purer Water),
21 streams in which the predominant \i
shows that 40 percent of
nd use was urban and
suburban had nitrate concentrations above 1.0 ppm; 25 percent
had concentrations below 0.5 ppm; and 3 percent had
concentrations below 0.1 ppm (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Concentrations of nitrate in these urban streams were generally
lower than those of agricultural watersheds, but higher than those
in forested watersheds.

I The indicator Phosphorus in Farmland, Forested, and Urban Streams
(Chapter 2, Purer Water) showed that two-thirds of 21 urban ;
streams sampled had phosphorus concentrations of at least
0.1 ppm, a level usually associated with excess algal growth (The
Heinz Center, 2002). About 10 percent of the urban streams had
concentrations of at least 0.5 ppm. ,

I According to the indicator Chemical Contamination in Streams and •
Ground Water (Chapter 2, Purer Water}, 85 percent of 21 urban
streams sampled had an average of ab(j>ut five detectable
contaminants throughout the year (Th|e Heinz Center, 2002). All
of the streams had at least one chemicjal that exceeded guidelines
'for the protection of aquatic life. For rtjany urban and suburban
streams, the nutrient and contaminant signature is similar to the
signatures; from agroecosystems (The Heinz Center, 2002;
Wickhanvetal., 2002). '
The following indicator, Patches of Forest, ^Grassland, Shrubland, and .
Wetland in Urban/Suburban Areas, provides data on landscape condi-
tion in urbaii and suburban areas. . .
5-38
5.5 What Is the Ecological Condition of Urban and Suburban Areas? Chapter 5 • Ecological Condition
-------

Fatcnes of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland in urban /suburban areas - Category 2
Patches of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland in urban/sub-
urban areas provide habitat for birds, amphibians, and small mam-
mals. They also increase water infiltration and reduce temperature
by evapotranspiration. Patches of urban and suburban vegetation
generally reduce particulate matter, and they can increase or
decrease ozone concentrations, relative to built surfaces (Nowak,
et al., 2000). According to The Heinz Center (2002), the size of
patches of undeveloped land in urban and suburban areas is
important, with smaller patches generally considered to provide
poorer quality habitat. Recent studies have indicated a significant
loss of forest patch coverage in Atlanta and Baltimore in the last
several decades (American Forests, 2001, 2002).

What the Data Show

Around half of the undeveloped land in urban and suburban areas
occurs in patches smaller than 10 acres (Exhibit 5-23). Urban and
suburban areas in the Northeast have the largest percentage of
large (1,000 to 10,000 acres) patches of undeveloped land.
Patches of undeveloped land larger than 10,000 acres occur only
in urban and suburban areas of the West.
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Several limitations are associated with this indicator:

• Natural patches may extend beyond the boundary of the
"urban and suburban area" land use class, which would cause
the size of the patches to be undere'stimated.
• Very small patches are difficult to distinguish if they are mixed
with developed classes, which also leads to underestimates.
• Remote sensing cannot distinguish between land that has
always been "non-urban" and patches, such as landfills, that
have reverted to grasslands or forest.

• Patch size is not the only factor that contributes to habitat
quality (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was the National Land Cover
Database, Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium
(1990s). (See Appendix B, page B-43, for more information.)
txnibit 5-23: Fatcnes of forest, grassland, snrubland, and
wetland in urban and suburban areas, 1992
fct-o.
100

^20

0
, „ _ Northeast South Midwest

Coverage: lower 48 states
Less than 10
acres

10 to 100 acres
100 to 1,000
acres ;

1,000 to 10,000
acres : .

Greater than
10,000 acres
West
Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. Data from
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, and the USCS Earth Resources
Observations Systems Data Center.
Cnapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.5 What Is the Ecological Condition of Urban and Suburban Areas?
5-39
-------
Summary: The Ecological Condition of Urban and Suburban
Ecosysten
ems
Urban and suburban systems have been the subject of increasing
ecological interest, but their overall condition, nationally or even
regionally, is virtually unknown.

Landscape condition
Within the technical limitations of using remote sensing data to
define urban and suburban ecosystems and the landscape patches
they contain, The Heinz Center (2002) has established a baseline
against which to judge current trends in urbanization. In 1992, urban
and suburban areas occupied about 32 million acres in the contermi-
nous U.S. or about 1.7 percent of the total land area, but different
organizations, sometimes using different data sources, produce dif-
ferent estimates. For example, USDA National Resources Inventory
delineation of developed lands, estimates there to be about
98 million acres in the conterminous U.S., or about 4.3 percent of
the total land area of the U.S., not including Alaska (see Chapter 3,
Better Protected Land), However, there is currently no firm plan in
place to collect the remote sensing data in the future to allow trends
to be calculated. Although the land use indicators identified provide
some useful information on extent, they do not address the actual
condition of those lands. Given the concentration of the human
population in developed areas of the country, a better understanding
of the interaction among humans and their developed environment
could help improve human health and the effects of developed lands
on ecological condition.

Chemical and physical characteristics
Chemical data from the NAWQA program used to develop the
stream quality indicator in this report and the Heinz report (2002)
include only 21 urban streams across the entire U.S. Nitrate and
phosphorus concentrations in these streams were intermediate
between farmlands and forest streams, but all of them had at least
one chemical that exceeded guidelines for the protection of aquatic
life. Given the numerous factors that can affect these systems,
21 streams are not likely to be an adequate baseline against which
to track the progress of environmental protection activities, including
stormwater management, controls on non-point source pollution
from lawns, golf courses, and septic systems, with any statistical cer-
tainty. An indicator of the extent of impervious surfaces might be
useful for inferring non-point source pollution impacts.

There were no Category 1 or 2 indicators available for this for biotic
condition, ecological processes, or natural disturbance regimes. The
Heinz Center (2002) identified several indicators that could be
promising but for which there are not even regional data:
• An indicator that would report on the percentage of urban and
suburban areas in which <25 percent, 25 to 50 percent, 50 to
75 percent, and >75 percent of the original species had been
lost or displaced.
i An indicator that would report on the nbmber of nuisance species
in urban and suburban areas (e.g., white-tailed deer, kudzu).

• Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and N/ acroinvertebrate Biotic
Integrity Index (MBII) indicators in urba i/suburban streams.
• An indicator that would report on the c average of stream bank-
vegetation. i

The lack of mational biotic indicators for uhban fresh water systems
makes it particularly difficult to measure national progress in main-
taining balanced communities in urban streams.
: I
A particular problem in urban and suburban systems is establishing
appropriate reference conditions for biplo'gical structure and ecosys-
tem function measures (The Heinz Centen 2002). For example,
expecting fish and invertebrate communities in urban streams to be
typical of relatively undisturbed forest or grassland ecosystems
would be unrealistic. Data are insufficient bn both the current status
of species and the original species presenj: to calculate the number
of native species lost. As another example! an indicator tracking
national trends in urban stream buffers would be particularly helpful
to states tracking the effectiveness of watershed management pro-
grams. However, a decision would be needed on a threshold for
buffer strips of adequate width to protect stream channels, and fur- •
ther development of satellite measurements would be needed before
such an indicator could be used for national reporting.

A potentially'useful hydrology/geomorph
-------

5.6 What Is the

Ecological Condition of

Fresh Waters?
Fresh waters include wetlands, lakes.and-reservoirs, and streams and
rivers. Wetlands are areas where saturation with water is the domi-
nant factor determining the types of plant and animal communities.
Wetlands vary widely because of differences in soils, topography, cli-
mate, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and other factors. Two
general categories of wetlands are recognized: coastal (tidal) wet-
lands and inland (non-tidal) wetlands. Wetlands have been threat-
ened by outright loss and conversion from one type to another, but
programs.designed to restore or enhance wetlands, such as the'
Wetlands Reserve Program, as well as state, local, and private initia-
tives on agricultural lands, have resulted in reduced losses
(see Chapter 2, Purer Water).
The U.S. contains more than 3.7 million miles of streams and rivers
||^----:--^^^ of a" these strea"i mites are found in small, head-
S^ivV^^V,^^
licators
^Landscape Condition
Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Types
Wetland extent and change
Landscape Composition
Altered fresh water ecosystems
Landscape Structure/Pattern
Biotic Condition
Ecosystems and Communities
Non-native fresh water fish species
Animal deaths and deformities
water plant communities
Fish Index of Biotic Integrity in streams
oinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index for streams
Species and Populations
At-risk native fresh water species
|j Organism Condition
=
Contaminants in fresh water fish
cologicaf Processes
ar and Physical Characteristics
3 Nutrient Concentrations
Phosphorus in large rivers
Lake Trophic State Index
Trace Organic and Inorganic Chemicals
Chemical contamination in streams
Other Chemical Parameters
Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams
Physical Parameters
nd Ground Wate
Structural C
Oiapter 5- Ecological Condition S.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?
5-4T
-------An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
J?^
11,076 Northeast lakes sampled as part of the EPA EMAP during
summers from 1991 to 1994 using the Lake Trophic State Index. It
was found that 37.9 percent (±8.4 percent)12 of the lakes were
oligotrophic (TP<10 ppb), 40.1 percent (±. 9.7 percent) were
mesotrophic (1060 ppb) (Peterson, et al., 1998).
i The indicator Chemical Contamination in Streams and Ground Water
(Chapter 2, Purer Water), revealed that all the streams sampled by
the NAWQA program had one or more contaminants at detectable
levels throughout the year, and 85 percent had five or more (The
Heinz Center, 2002).13 Three-fourths of the streams tested had one
or more contaminants that exceeded aquatic life guidelines. One- .
fourth of the streams exceeded the standards for four or more
contaminants. Nearly all of the stream sediments tested had an
average of five or more contaminants (PCBs, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons [PAHs], other industrial chemicals and trace elements)
at detectable levels, and half had one or more contaminants that
exceeded aquatic life guidelines. Half of the fish tested had at least
five contaminants (PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, and trace
elements) at detectable levels, and approximately the same number
had one or more contaminants at levels that exceeded the aquatic
life guidelines (The Heinz Center, 2002).14

The indicator Acid Sensitivity in Lakes and Streams (Chapter 2,
Purer Water) is affected by the natural buffering capacity of the
soil and the rate of acid deposition from the atmosphere. The
National Surface Water Survey (NSWS) (Landers, et al., 1988;
Linthurst, et al., 1986; Messer, et al., 1986, 1988) determined that
4.2 percent of the NSWS lakes and 2.7 percent of NSWS streams
were acidic (Acid Neutralizing Capacity <0 u,eq/L) (Baker, et al.,
1991). Almost 20 percent (19.1 percent) of NSWS lakes and
11.8 percent of NSWS streams were susceptible to acidic
deposition (ANC< SO jieq/L) (Baker, et al., 1991 ).ls Of the acidic
NSWS lakes, 75 percent were classified as acidic from acid
deposition, 22 percent were organic acid dominated, and
3 percent were acidic from watershed sulfur sources. Of the acidic
stream reaches, 70 percentjvere acidic from acid deposition,
29 percent were organic acid dominated, and 1 percent were
acidic from watershed sulfur sources (Baker, et al., 1991).

These surveys have been repeated periodically for smaller
probability samples of lakes in the Northeast, the Adirondacks,
and streams in the Appalachians (Stoddard, et al., 1996). More
intensive monitoring also has been conducted on lakes in the
Northeast, the Appalachians, and the Midwest, and on streams in
the Appalachian Plateau and Blue Ridge to assess long-term
acidification trends (Stoddard, et al., 1998). Based on these
and wildlife habitat, disrupt patterns and timing of water flows, act
as barriers to animal movement, or reduce or increase natural
filtering of sediment and pollutants. The indicator Altered Fresh
Water Ecosystems (Chapter 2, Purer Water), reveals that 23 percent
of the banks of both rivers and streams (riparian areas) and lakes
and reservoirs have either croplands or urban development in the
narrow area immediately adjacent to the stream. Data on the
degree to which streams and rivers are channelized, leveed, or
impounded are not available. According to Dahl (2000),
78,100 acres (31,600 hectares) of forested wetlands were
converted to fresh water ponds. Conversions of forested wetlands
to deep water lakes, resulted from human activities by either
creating new impoundments or raising the water levels on existing
impoundments, thus killing the trees.

The indicator Contaminants in Fresh Water Fish (Chapter 2, Purer
Water) reported on contaminants in fish tissue for the entire U.S.,
including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine
pesticides, and trace elements (The Heinz Center, 2002). The
presence of contaminants can be harmful to the organisms
themselves, or can affect reproduction, and they can make fish
unsuitable for consumption. Half of the fish tested had at least
five contaminants at detectable levels, and approximately the same
number had one or more contaminants at levels that exceeded the
aquatic life guidelines.

For Mid-Atlantic Highland streams with sufficient fish tissue for
analysis (44 percent of stream miles did not have sufficient
quantities offish tissue), about 4 percent of the stream miles had
fish tissue mercury concentrations that exceeded wildlife criteria
(EPA, ORD, Region 3, August 2000). -
l For the the indicator Phosphorus in Large Rivers (Chapter 2, Purer
Water), The Heinz Center (2002) reports that half of the rivers
tested had total phosphorus concentrations of 100 ppb or higher.
This concentration (100 ppb) is EPA's recommended goal for
preventing excess algal growth in streams that do not flow directly
into lakes. None of the rivers had concentrations below 20 ppb, a
level generally held to be free of negative effects (EPA, OW,
November 1986). Data were insufficient to report on lakes and
reservoirs nationally.
I The indicator Lake Jmphic State Index (Chapter 2, Purer Water)
assessed the nutrient or total phosphorus (TP) concentrations in
northeast lakes (Peterson, et al., 1998). Once phosphorus enters
lakes, it frequently serves as the nutrient that limits the growth of
nuisance blooms of phytoplankton (algae). National data on lake
trophic condition are not available. However, regional patterns of
lake trophic condition were assessed for a target population of
12 Concentrations in parentheses represent the 95 percent confidence
interval.

13 Nitrate, ammonium, and trace metals were not'included in the occur-
rence analysis, because they occur naturally (Heinz(The HeinzCenterHeinz
Center, 2002, p.50).
14Additional information on chemical contamination in all waters of the
U.S. is provided in the technical notes, pp. 210-214, of the Heinz report
(2002).

15There were regional differences in these percentages: only 0.1 per-
cent of NSWS lakes in the West and Florida were sensitive, but 22.7 percent
of Northern Appalachian streams were sensitive.
CJiapter 5 - tcological C_ondition 5.6 What .is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?
5-43
-------
affitSiWSHKiJB %^&JIF&*
'cnflica
'QcuiTK
programs, EPA estimated that in three regions, one-quarter to
one-third of lakes and streams previously affected by acid rain
were no longer acidic, although they were still highly sensitive to
future changes in deposition (EPA, ORD, January 2003).
Specifically:
• Eight percent of lakes in the Adirondacks are currently acidic,
down from 13 percent in the early 1990s.
m Less than 2 percent of lakes in the Upper Midwest are
currently acidic, down from 3 percent in the early 1980s.
• Nine percent of the stream length in the Northern
Appalachian Plateau region is currently acidic, down from
12 percent in the early 1990s.
Lakes in New England registered insignificant decreases in acidity,
and streams in the Ridge and Blue Ridge regions of Virginia were
unchanged. The Ridge and Blue Ridge regions are expected to
show a lag time in their recovery due to the nature of their soils,
and immediate responses to decreasing deposition were neither
seen nor expected. The NSWS has not been repeated nationwide,
so no data exist to assess trends in surface water acidification in
other sensitive areas of the country.
I The indicator Changing Stream Flows is one of two indicators
presented in Chapter 2, Purer Water that are associated with fresh
water hydrology and geomorphology and relate to the ecological
condition of fresh water. Changes in stream flow can result in
significant effects on fish habitat and chemical concentrations in
streams. According to The Heinz Center (2002), the percentage
of streams and rivers with major changes in the high or low flows
or timing of those flows increased slightly from the 1970s to the
1990s, but the number with high flows well above the high flows
between 1930 and 1949 increased by approximately 30 percent
in the 1990s. The earlier 1930 through 1949 period included
some droughts, but much of it also preqeded widespread dam-
building and irrigation projects. |

• The greatest stressor to mid-Atlantic streams, and many other
streams throughout the U.S., is altered instream habitat (EPA,
ORD, Region 3, August 2000). A Sedimentation Index (Chapter 2, [
Purer Water) was developed for Mid-Atl antic Highland streams to '
assess the quality of instream habitat fc r supporting aquatic ;
communities (Kaufmann, et al., 1999). The amount of fine
sediments pn the bottom of each strearp was compared with
expectations based on each stream's ab'ility to transport fine
sediments downstream (a function of the slope, depth and
complexity of the stream). When the amount of fine sediments
exceeds expectations, it suggests that the supply of sediments
from the watershed to the stream is greater than what the stream
can naturally process. Streams with levels of fine particles at least
10 percent below the predicted value Were rated to be in "good"
condition relative to the sedimentation Icriteria. Those with levels
from 10 percent below to 20 percent above the predicted value
were rated "fair." Those with levels more than 20 percent above
regional mean expectations were rated fpoor." Based on the
Sedimentation Index, about 35 percent of the stream miles had
good instream habitat, 40 percent had [fair instream habitat, and
25 percent of the stream miles had popr instream habitat (EPA,
ORD, Region 3, August 2000). i
! •
j
Several indicators presented for the first time in this report are
described below. They include a Category 1 indicator related to ]
landscape condition and six Category 2 indicators relating to biotic ;
condition. There were no indicators for ecological processes or natu-
ral disturbance regimes.
5-44
5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?
Chapter 5 -
Ecological Condition
-------

Indicator!
txtent of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs - Category I
This indicator reports the area of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs in
the conterminous U.S., excluding the Great Lakes. Over the long
term, changes in this indicator reflect the effects of climate on
water levels in existing lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, and of reser-
voir construction, destruction, and management..

What the Data Show

The Heinz Center (2002) reports that, excluding the Great
Lakes, the conterminous U.S. contains 21 million acres of lakes,
ponds, and reservoirs. The number of ponds (small water bodies
usually less than 20 acres and 6 feet deep) increased by 100
percent'since the 1950s (Exhibit 5-25). For unknown reasons,
the rate of lake and reservoir creation declined 43 percent from
the 1970s to 1980s; deep water lakes and reservoirs showed a
modest but statistically unreliable increase between the 1980s
and 1990s (Dahl, 2000).
Indicator Caps and Limitations
The USGS National Hydrography Dataset identifies a considerably
larger area of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds at least 6 acres in size
(26.8 million acres), and the cause of the discrepancy is unknown
(The Heinz Center, 2002).

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was the National Wetlands
Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1970-2000).
(See Appendix B, page B-43 for more information.)
ft™ Exhibit 5-25: Extent of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs, 195Os-1990s
*&_ — " • - - *• •
•b 12
Lakes and
Reservoirs
Ponds
'- o
1950 1960 1970 1980 19,90 2000 „
Coverage: lower 48 states.
flMote: Lake area does not include the Great Lakes, which
Jcover about 60.2 million acres within the United States.
"%V ^ f ^ "*" I
lource: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002.
)ata from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?
5-45
-------
Ef!As Draft Report on the Environment 20t);3 • Technical DpcumeM
I r ". " ' , !'l .: I. .. !'• •...'..'. . .; •' '• :,•: '!.:• : ( [:

At-risk fresh water native species - C-ategory 2
The U.S. was sufficiently concerned about preserving species to
enact the Endangered Species Act in 1973 to provide legal pro-
tection for species that were endangered or threatened. Many of
these species depend on lakes, streams, and adjoining wetlands
for their continued existence. It is impossible to monitor all fresh-
water species, but this indicator reports on species offish,
amphibians, reptiles, aquatic mammals, butterflies, mussels, snails,
crayfish, fresh water shrimp, dragonflies, damselflies, mayflies,
stoneflies, and caddisflies that are at various degrees of risk of
extinction (The Heinz Center, 2002).

What the Data Show

According to The Heinz Center (2002), approximately 13 per-
cent of native fresh water species are critically imperiled, 8 per-
cent are imperiled, 11 percent are vulnerable, and 4 percent are
or might be extinct (Exhibit 5-26). Critically imperiled species
are typically found at no more than five places, and may have
suffered steep declines or very high risk. Vulnerable species may
be found in 20 to 80 locations and shown widespread declines
or moderate levels of risk (Stein, 2002). Mussels and fish are
particularly at risk. Hawaii and the Southeast have significantly
higher percentages of at-risk species than other regions, but this
condition may be partially the result of Hawaii and parts of the
Southeast having a higher number of naturally rare species (The
Heinz Center, 2002). '•

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The data underlying this indicator are notifrom a site-based moni-
toring program, but rather from a census approach that focuses
on the location and distribution of at-risk species. The data do
not distinguish species that are naturally rare from species that
have becomelrare because of human actiohs, making it difficult to
distinguish actual trends in this indicator, i
Data Source
The data source for this indicator was The
Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, usjnj
State of the Nation's
; data from
NatureServe Explorer database. (See Appendix B, page B-43, for
more information.)
i • Tssx '^--"^^TS
Exnioit 5-26: At-risk native fresn water speciesLpy risk factor, 2000
H iKfe**HY^^Ms«^,fe««!ii» m .=r*i "nn H
100,
Partial Indicator Data: Fresh water Aniir
c
5
Extinct
• Critically
' Imperiled
Imperiled
Vulnerable
AllAt-Risk
^Coverage: all 50 states.
"H 111 in'i«" F"rw iimn i n*l Tli <, T^fctj. ft i ^s t slJEWfc^ *% s( Uaif*." *v t
-Source: The Heinz Center. Tne State of the Nationis Ecosystems. 2002.
Data from NatureServe and its Natural Heritage member programs.
I iBtem *, 1% i ^A*iVf i, I
5-46
5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?
C_napter 5 - (ecological (Condition
-------
^
indicator
INon-native Fresh water fish species - Category 2
This indicator reports on the percentage of watersheds with dif-
ferent numbers of non-native species with established breeding
populations (The Heinz Center, 2002). Non-native species
include species not native to North America and species that are
native to this continent but are now found outside their historic
range. Such species, once introduced from some other location,
often lack predators or parasites that kept them in check in their
native habitats, and expand to cause a degree of ecological and
economic disruption. Some non-native species are introduced
intentionally (e.g., rainbow trout).

What the Data Show

Data are currently available nationally only for fish: of 350 water-
sheds (6-digit HUCs) in the U.S., only five have no non-native fish
(The Heinz Center, 2002). Sixty percent have 1 to 10 non-native
species, and two watersheds have 41 to SO non-native fish species
(Exhibit 5-27).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The data are not from a site-based monitoring program; they
rely for the most part (90 percent) on the published literature
and (10 percent) direct reporting by governmental and private
biologists. New discoveries are not always reported (The Heinz
Center, 2002).

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the
Non-indigenous Aquatic Species, database. (See Appendix B,
page B-44, for more information.)
txnioit 5-27: i^lon-native fresn water fisn species, 2OOO
^Coverage: lower 48 states.
*
Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002.
JData frqrn the U.S. Geological Survey.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?
5-47
-------
icnn ca
InaicritoT
Animal deaths and deformities - Category 2
Unusual mortality events (e.g., fish kills) or deformities (e.g., frog
deformities) can have economic consequences, and they are also
seen as evidence that something is wrong (e.g., a contaminant is
present, or the oiganisms are under stress from some other
source). Although data are collected on die-offs of mammals, fish,
and amphibians, and on amphibian deformities, data are insuffi-
cient for national reporting (The Heinz Center, 2002). This indi-
cator reports on unusual mortality events for waterfowl only.

What the Data Show

From 1995 to 1999, approximately 500 incidents of unusual
waterfowl mortality were reported (The Heinz Center, 2002)
(Exhibit 5-28). In slightly more than 20 percent of the incidents,
more than 1,000 birds died, and in 15 of the incidents, more than
10,000 birds died. The total number of die-offs reported from
1995 to 1999 was 20 percent lower than the numbers reported in
two earlier periods (1985 to 1989 and 1990 to 1994) (The
Heinz Center, 2002). A larger number of events were reported in
the Pacific and Midwest regions; fewer were reported in the
Southwest and Southeast.
Indicator Caps and Limitations
: i
The data are not from a defined site-basec) monitoring program,
but are provided by various sources such as state and federal per-
sonnel, diagnostic laboratories, wildlife refuges, and published
reports, as they are discovered or reported (The Heinz Center,
2002). This makes it hard to distinguish r£al trends from trends in
reporting.

Data Source
The data sou-ce for this indicator was The^State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the
National Wildlife Health Center database, i
(See Appendix B, page B-44, for more information.)
Exhibit 5-28: Animal deaths and defornrfeties, 1985-1999
Partial Indicator Data: Waterfowl Morta
<100
100 to 1,000
1,000 to 10,000
>10,000
1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999
i ' ^ ite&
Coverage: all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
Source: The Heinz Center. The State o^the Nation's EJOTsysfems? 20*02.
Data from the U.S. Geological Survey.
5-48
5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?
Chapter 5 - 'Icological Condition
-------

/\t-risR Fresh water plant communities - C-ategory 2
The Heinz report employs an indicator of the threat of elimination
of wetland and riparian area plant communities. This indicator
uses an expert assessment conducted by NatureServe (Stein,
2002) of factors such as the remaining number and condition of
the community, the remaining acreage, and the severity of threats
to the community type.

What the Data Show

According to this indicator, 12 percent of the 1,560 wet|and com-
munities ranked are critically imperiled, 24 percent are imperiled,
and 25 percent are vulnerable (The Heinz Center, 2002)
(Exhibit 5-29).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The Heinz report states that data are not adequate for national
reporting (The Heinz Center, 2002). The report concludes that
technical challenges in classifying riparian communities prevent
national estimates for stream bank plant communities. In addition,
interpreting the data is complicated because some species are
naturally rare, and the total number of species for any ecosystem
is unknown.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from
NatureServe Explorer database. (See Appendix B, page B-44, for
more information.)
hxniDit 5-29: /\t-risk Fresh water plant communities, 200O

; on Riparian Communities
Partial Indicator Data: Wetlands
r- -
Critically
Imperiled
Imperiled
Vulnerable
Total At-Risk
. 2000
Future
Coverage: excludes Alaska.
— - " ~ -
Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002.
Data from NatureServe and jts Natural Heritage member programs.
CJiapter 5 - tcological C-ondition 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?
5-49
-------
EFAs Draft "Report on trie Environment 20(}$ • Technical Docum^hp
risn Index or Diotic Integrity in streams - Category 2
Rsh communities integrate the effects of the physical, chemical,
and biological stressors in the environment. The Heinz Center
(2002) listed the status of fresh water animal communities as an
indicator in need of development. Karr, et al. (1986,1997) devel-
oped a Rsh Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) that incorporates
species richness, trophic composition, reproductive composition,
and abundance and individual health offish communities in
streams. This index, modified by McCormick, et al. (2001), was
applied to a regional survey of streams in the mid-Atlantic states,
and provides an example of an indicator that could be applied
nationally.

A sample of reference sites that represented the best conditions
observable today in the mid-Atlantic region (e.g., sites free of
influences from mine drainage, nutrients, habitat degradation)
provided a frame of reference for ranking the condition of streams
overall. The IBI scores calculated for the reference sites ranged
from 57 to 98. The 25th percentile of this distribution (IBI=72)
was used to distinguish sites that were in good condition from
those in fair condition. The first percentile value (IBI=57) separat-
ed sites in fair condition from those in poor condition. A statisti-
cal way to describe this setting of thresholds is to say that
any IBI score of less than 57 in a sampled stream is 99 per-
cent certain to be below the range of values seen in refer-
ence sites (McCormick, et al., 2001).

What the Data Show

Rsh were collected at probability sites that represent about
90,000 miles of streams in the mid-Atlantic. The fish IBI
indicated that 27 percent of the streams were in good con-
dition and 14 percent were in poor condition in the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands (see Exhibit 5-30). About 38 percent of
the streams were scored in fair condition. No fish were
caught in about 21 percent of the streams. The estimates
of stream condition have a confidence interval of about
±.8 percent (McCormick, et al., 2001).
Indicator Caps and Limitations
i
The limitations of this indicator include the following:
• Condition cannot be assessed in stream|s where no fish were
caught. Poor condition cannot be inferred from no fish caught,
because some streams were likely too srfiall to support a fishery.
Data were insufficient to indicate if the stream had poor quality
or simply no fish (EPA, ORD, Region 3, August 2000).
The data are available only for a limited [geographic region, and
no repeated sampling is available to estimate trends.
Data Source
The data source for this indicator was the Mid-Atlantic Highlands
Streams Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency, August
2000, using data from the Mid-Atlantic .Integrated Assessment.
(See Appendix B, page B-45, for more information.)

lsSSs1i^i:¥S;!;J:!i)SS!
-.--,••- - •',-•*
^
t floes ' npj; indicate; poor condition. Sptrje streams ''' "
em of an InaexajBiow Integrity fa?
*1
^i'*-i' ,,''^^'1''^ .^-PP.t f?^'
S::;:T,>
*;:- Mitt-Atlantic HiMa,
Upn-;!- •' .u't?1™;1!! ;u;.i'l.i7'"-i;finii» ir;."»«i ,N' "-'w-?",t\
5-50
5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?
Cnapter 5 - Ecological Condition
-------

AAacroinverteorate Diotic Integrity Index for streams - Category 2
Like fish, macroinvertebrate communities integrate physical, chemi-
cal, and biological stressors, but because many of them are more
sedentary than fish and occupy different ecological niches, they
provide a complementary picture of ecological condition.

A Macroinvertebrate,Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) was developed
for mid-Atlantic streams by Klemm, et al. (2002, 2003). The MBII
incorporates taxa richness, assemblage composition, pollution tol-
erance (includes all maroinvertebrates, not just insects), and func-
tional feeding groups (Klemm, et al., 2002). Similar to the
approach used to separate the Rsh IBI scores (McCormick, et al.,
2001), the 25th percentile of the reference site MBII scores was
used to distinguish sites in good condition-from those in fair con-
dition. The first percentile was used to separate sites in fair condi-
tion from those in poor condition (McCormick, et al., 2001).
What the Data Show

The MBII scores indicated that 17 percent of the streams in the
mid-Atlantic were in good condition, 57 percent were in fair con-
dition, and 26 percent were in poor condition (Exhibit 5-31).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The data are available only for a limited geographic region, and no
repeated sampling is available to estimate trends.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was Development and Evaluation
of a Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) for Regionally
Assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams. 2003, Klemm, et al.,
using data from the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment. (See
Appendix B, page B-45, for more information.)
£-~ Exhibit 5-31:
JSS--* 4 " * * ki ~ "
I AAacroinvertetrate Diotic Integrity Index (AAfill),
5?I Mid-Atlantic Highlands, 1993-1996
tCoverage: Mid-Atlantic Highlands
jjp>ource: Klemm, D.J., et al. Development and Evaluation of a Macroinvertebrate Biotic
if integrity Index (MBII) for Regionally Assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams. 2003.
*vj&+-m
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?
5-51
-------
'
Summary: me Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters

Fresh water systems are under pressure from point and non-point
pollution, atmospheric deposition, altered habitat, and invasive
species. A review of Exhibit 5-24, however, indicates that there are
virtually no Category 1 indicators or monitoring programs that pro-
vide a national picture of the ecological condition of fresh waters.
No national condition data are available on ecological processes, not
are there any nationally or regionally reported indicators of natural
disturbance regimes.

Landscape condition
The National Wetlands Inventory provides unbiased statistical esti-
mates of the extent of wetlands, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs in the
conterminous U.S. at decadal scales since the 1970s. There is no
similar effort for the extent of streams (losses can occur because of
mining, damming, water withdrawal, or climate change). Chapter 2,
Purer Water, estimates that the U.S. has more than 3.7 million miles
of streams and rivers (EPA, OW, June 2000a, 2000b). About
60 percent of all these stream miles are found in small, headwater
streams. The Heinz Center reports, however, that because there is no
agreed-upon system to classify streams (e.g., by discharge, drainage
area, or stream order), there are no national data sets for reporting
on stream size.

Blotlc condition
At this time, no national condition data are available on lake, wet-
land, or stream biota. The USGS National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program has collected data on the biota in rivers and
streams in the network, but no analysis has been performed on the
data at a national level (USGS, 2002; ). Surveys of stream benthos arid fish communities have
been conducted for the mid-Atlantic region that provide unbiased
estimates of the condition of 90 percent of the streams in the
region. Both surveys showed only 17 percent (±8 percent) of the
streams to be in good condition, but there is no indication of
whether they are the same streams or of the likely cause(s) of
impairment. No fish were caught in 16 percent of the streams, so
their condition could not be judged based on this criterion. Similar
regional studies have been conducted in the western states, but the
data have not yet been reported. There are no nationally or
regionally representative data on the aquatic communities of lakes.
Based on NatureServe data, 36 percent of aquatic biota in several
categories are either extinct or at some risk of extinction, but
because this database relies on voluntary reporting, future trends
might not be discernable with statistical reliability. NAWQA collected
contaminant data from fish tissue in 223 streams, and almost half
showed concentrations that exceeded aquatic life guidelines for at
least one contaminant. However, these data have not been related to
the condition of the fish communities in the corresponding streams,
so ecological condition cannot be determined. There are no specific
plans to re-sample in any of these programs, and so there is no
assurance that trend data will be available in the future.
Chemical ami physical characteristics

Better data are available for chemical and physical characteristics of
streams, less for lakes, and none for wetlarjds. The NAWQA program
reports data on total phosphorus concentrations in more than l
140 large rivers nationwide, but there are no corresponding national
data on either lake or reservoir concentrations (where algal blooms
are likely to develop), nor on the correspo iding biological communi-
ties. Reliable regional estimates have been made of total phosphorus
concentrators in 11,076 lakes in the Northeast states. These esti- ',
mates showed with a high degree of confic ence that fewer than 22
percent of the lakes were estimated to be sutrophic or hypertrophic.
While a relationship exists between totalpiosphorus concentrations ;
and algal biotnass or productivity (Carlson, 1977), lake-to-lake varia-
tion is considerable, so none .of these datz truly express the known
ecological condition of these lakes or riyets with respect to eutrophi-
cation. Nitrate is not often a limiting nutrient in fresh waters, so it
provides little ecological information on'fnbsh waters themselves
(although it does provide useful informatipn on the watershed, as
discussed in 1:he sections on forests and farmlands).
! ,
• • • •••• i 4
The NAWQA program reports on contaminants in stream waters '•
from 109 streams, and sediments from 55:8 stream sites across the ;
U.S. At least half of the streams had concentrations that exceeded
wildlife criteria, but there are as yet no an alyses relating these to the
condition of fish or invertebrate communities in the streams natural-
ly. Incorporation of water quality data monitored by the states could
improve the coverage, if care is given to' representative sampling and
comparable methods and indicators. ' [
\
A national survey in the 1980s provided estimates of the sensitivity
of all lakes arid all streams in the eastern U.S. to acidic deposition
(Landers, et al., 1988; Kaufmann, et al., 1?91). Periodic resurveys
and intensive sampling of representative lakes and streams have
allowed EPA to conclude that, because of Deductions in sulfate emis-
sions under its acid rain regulations, one-quarter to one-third of
lakes and streams in three regions affected by acid rain are no longer
acidic (EPA, ORD, Region 3, August 2000). Corresponding biologi-
cal community data exist only for streams; in the Mid-Atlantic
Highlands. I • "

; '!
Hydrology and geomorphology !

There are nationally reported data on onjy one hydrologic/geomor-:
phological indicator: changing stream flo\j/. This indicator is reported
on all rivers and streams for which the retord of data is adequate,
and it shows that high flows have increased during the past decade.
There are nci corresponding data to indidate why, however, nor are
there data on any accompanying change iin the fish communities, so
ecological condition cannot be assessed ^vith any reliability.
I
5-52
5.6 What is the Ecological Condition of Fresh Waters?
C-napter 5 -
Zoological
Condition
-------
There were no Category 1 or 2 indicators available for ecological
processes or natural disturbance regimes for fresh waters. Limnologists
have long measured primary productivity in lakes, and nutrient spiral-
ing and leaf-pack decomposition in streams, but no systematic data
were available in the form of an indicator for this report. Phenomena
involved in natural disturbance regimes in fresh waters include
hydrology (e.g., low-flow frequencies, floods), time of ice-out in
lakes, and fires and other factors that affect watersheds.
5,7 What Is the
tcological (Condition of
C^oasts and Oceans:
The coasts and oceans of the United States extend from the
shoreline out approximately 200 miles into the open ocean. The
indicators in this report, however, focus on estuaries and coastal
waters within 25 miles of the coast. Coastal ecosystems are pro-
ductive and diverse, and include estuaries, coastal wetlands, coral
reefs, mangrove forests, and upwelling areas. Critical coastal habi-
tats provide spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food for
finfish, shellfish, birds, and other wildlife. Coastal areas are also
sinks for pollutants transported through surface water, ground
water, and atmospheric deposition.

Coastal areas are among the most developed areas in the nation.
Coastal areas comprise 17 percent of total conterminous U.S. land
area, yet these areas are home to 53 percent of the U.S. human
population. The coastal population is increasing by about 3,600
people per day, giving rise to a projected total increase of 27 million
people between 2000 and 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002).

Coastal areas also contribute significantly to the U.S. economy.
Almost 31 percent of the Gross National Product is produced in
coastal counties (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). Almost
85 percent of commercially harvested fish depend on estuaries and
adjacent coastal waters at some stage in their life cycle (NRC, 1997).
About 180 million people use coastal beaches each year
(Cunningham and Walker, 1996). Estuaries supply water, receive dis-
charge from municipal and industrial sources, and support agricul-
ture, commercial and sport fisheries, and recreational uses such as
swimming, and boating.

National estuarine and coastal monitoring programs have been in
place for 15 to 20 years. A number of agencies and programs pro-
vide information on the condition of coastal waters and wetlands,
including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) National Status and Trends Program, National Estuarine
Research Reserve System, and National Marine Fisheries Service
National Habitat Program; EPA's National Estuary Program and
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; and the Fish and
Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory and Coastal Program.

In 2000, EPA, NOAA and USGS, in cooperation with all 24 U.S.
coastal states, initiated the National Coastal Assessment (also known
as Coastal 2000 or C2000). Using a compatible, probabilistic
design and a common set of survey indicators, each state conducted
Chapter 5 - tcological Condition 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans?
5-53
-------
F~n A' I~>v r ::il'ri!il: t'1**1' I .p-.:'.;. i'i'^Y-:,ww:''^^nym&i\'
tlr\s [Draft -Report on the tnvirdnmepit 2QQI
1" • • ; : ,<• . :• . IVV : 1 :,
MHIMMMMM
1 '"
Exnioit 5-32: Coasts and oceans indicators
f
1
i::
;
1
fe-
i
I-
r
8"
I"
•=
5"
i>.
|:r
1" f
F
r
*.

;„;
i
illl.
!

,.
:,
i-
;„
-.
f:
':'
g__g_j IgjUjg,^ j SBijBl^'il^^^^S
\ Landscape Condition
Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Types
Landscape Composition

Landscape Structure/Pattern
Biotlc Condition
Ecosystems and Communities

Species and Populations
Organism Condition

Ecological Processes
Enenjy Flow
Material Flow
^.Stmical aod^Physical Characteristics
Nutrient Concentrations

Other Chemical Parameters

Trace Organics and Inorganics

Physical Parameters
Hydrology and Gconioi phology
Surface and Ground Water Flows
Dynamic Structural Conditions
Sediment and Material Transport
Natural Disturbance Regimes
Frequency
Extent
Duration
iiii^^
' V *. ~if
; . lL , ,..
Extent of estuaries and coastline
Coastal living habitats
Shoreline types

M ' ' ' -"
ii 1. ,.
Benthic Community Index
Fish diversity
Submerged aquatic vegetation
Chlorophyll concentrations
Rsh abnormalities
Unusual marine mortalities :
ji i

lla-^ '. r, f .-.
Total nitrogen in coastal waters
Total phosphorous in coastal waters
Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters ;
Total organic carbon in sediments
Sediment contamination of coastal waters
Sediment toxicity in estuaries
Water clarity in coastal waters
,; ;,.,.... .»,,..

' If ' -^"
Jj. , .. _ , __^ ,

I
•

S||
a

•
n

H
M
H
n
H
n

a
n
•
H
•
H
•
.,- ;-,.-',

IBiiRIII

EPA
DOI
DOC

EPA .
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
DOC

EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA

Note; MAlA indicators included pending completion of peer review
i
5-54
5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? • Chapter 5 -' Icological Condition
-------
^P^
the survey and independently assessed the condition of their coastal
resources. These estimates currently are being aggregated to assess
the condition of the nation's coastal waters. While the first complete
assessment of the nation's coastal waters will be available in 2003, a
preliminary assessment of selected estuarine systems was published
in 2001 (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001).

Exhibit 5-32 lists the ecological indicators of coastal condition used
in this report. Eight indicators are discussed in Chapter 2, Purer
Water. The indicator Chlorophyll Concentrations deals with biotic
structure of phytoplankton communities, and the rest are associated
with the chemical and physical characteristics of coastal ecosystems.
These eight indicators are summarized below. The section then pres-
ents nine indicators that appear for the first time in this report. Two
involve the coastal landscape, and the rest involve the biotic struc-
ture of coastal ecosystems. There are no indicators of ecological
processes, hydrology and geomorphology, or natural disturbance
regimes with data suitable for national or regional reporting.

The following indicators presented in previous chapters relate to the
ecological condition of coasts and oceans:

• The indicator Chlorophyll Concentrations is a measure of the
abundance of phytoplankton. Excessive growth of
phytoplankton, as measured by chlorophyll concentrations, can
' lead to degraded water quality, such as noxious odors,
decreased water clarity, andoxygen depletion. Excess
phytoplankton growth is usually associated with increased
nutrient inputs (e.g., watershed or atmospheric transport,
upwelling) or a decline in filtering organisms such as clams,
mussels, or oysters (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Average seasonal ocean chlorophyll concentrations (within 25 miles
of the coast) ranged from 0.1 to 6.5 ppb (The Heinz Center,
2002). The highest ocean chlorophyll concentrations (4.8 to 6.5
ppb) were in the Gulf of Mexico with the lowest concentrations in
Hawaiian waters (0.1 ppb). Southern California had the next lowest
chlorophyll concentrations, between 1.1 and 1.5 ppb. Other ocean
waters (e.g., north, mid-, and south Atlantic, and Pacific Northwest)
had chlorophyll concentrations ranging from 2 to 4.5 ppb.
Estuarine chlorophyll concentrations were not available for
national reporting in the Heinz report, but chlorophyll
concentrations in the mid-Atlantic estuaries ranged from 0.7 to
95 ppb in 1997 and 1998 (EPA, ORD, May 2003). EPA
established three categories: good <15 ppb; fair 15-30 ppb; and
poor >30 ppb. The lower threshold of 15 ppb chlorophyll is equal
to the restoration goal recommended for the survival of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the Chesapeake Bay
(Batiuk, et al., 2000). About 33 percent of the mid-Atlantic
estuarine area had chlorophyll concentrations, exceeding 15 ppb.
The Delaware Estuary showed a wide range of chlorophyll
concentrations, from low in the Delaware Bay (<15 ppb) to
intermediate in the Delaware River (15 to 30 ppb) to very high
(>80 ppb) in the Salem River. The western tributaries to the
Chesapeake Bay were consistently high in chlorophyll, with more
than 25 percent of the area showing >30 ppb chlorophyll
•concentrations. Chlorophyll concentrations in the coastal bays
were generally low (< 15 ppb), even though nutrients were
elevated, because of increased turbidity and low light penetration.
• The Water Clarity in Coastal Waters (Chapter 2, Purer Water)
indicator is important for maintaining productive systems in good
condition and is affected by chlorophyll concentrations. Light
penetration is important for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV),
which serves as food, nursery, shelter, and refugia habitat (areas
that provide protection from predators) for aquatic organisms.
EMAP measured water clarity using a light penetrometer, which
recorded the amount of surface light that penetrated to a depth
of 1 meter (EPA, ORD, OW, September 2001). Water clarity was
considered poor if less than 10 percent of surface radiation
penetrated to 1 meter. Water clarity was considered fair if there
was between 10 and 25 percent penetration, and clarity was
considered good if there was greater than 25 percent penetration.
Data were collected for all conterminous estuaries in the U.S. The
10 percent light penetration at 1 meter is required to support
SAV, which is an ecological endpoint in several estuarine
ecosystems. Overall, 64 percent of the nation's estuarine area had
light penetration of at least 25 percent at 1 meter (EPA, ORD,
OW, September 2001). Only 4 percent of the nation's estuarine
area had poor light penetration (less than 10 percent).
• Nitrogen, and less often phosphorus, control the chlorophyll
concentrations in coastal ecosystems. The indicator Total Nitrogen
in Coastal Waters (Chapter 2, Purer Water), was calculated for the
mid-Atlantic estuaries by summing the concentrations of total
dissolved nitrogen and particulate organic nitrogen (EPA, ORD,
May 2003). Assessment categories were determined based on the
25th and 75th percentiles because there are no total nitrogen
(TN) criteria for estuaries. The categories are: low < 0.5 ppm N;
intermediate 0.5 to 1.0 ppm N; and high > 1.0 ppm N. About
35 percent of the mid-Atlantic estuarine area had low TN
concentrations, 47 percent had intermediate TN concentrations,
and 18 percent had high TN concentrations. About 50 percent of
the mainstem area of the Chesapeake Bay had low TN
concentrations, with only about 5 percent having high TN
concentrations. The coastal bays, in contrast, had about 5 percent
of their area with low TN concentrations and about 35 percent
with high TN concentrations. The Delaware River estuary portion
of Delaware Bay had 100 percent of its area with high TN
concentrations.
H The indicator Total Phosphorus in Coastal Waters (Chapter 2, Purer
Water) assessment categories were based on the 25th and
75th percentile concentrations measured throughout the mid-
Atlantic. These categories are: low < 0.05 mg P/L; intermediate
0.05 to 0.1 mg P/L; and high > 0.1 mg P/L. Total phosphorus
(TP) concentrations ranged from 0 to 0.34 mg P/L. About
58 percent of the mid-Atlantic estuarine area had low TP
concentrations, 30 percent had intermediate, and 12 percent had
high TP concentrations (EPA, ORD, May 2003). About 85 percent
of the mainstem area of the Chesapeake Bay had low TP
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans?
5-55
-------
....... ilf ............ i^S*8S^B^^Wi!*i|^if*

concentrations, with no areas having high TP concentrations. The
coastal bays, in contrast, had no areas with low TP concentrations
and about 35 percent with high TP concentrations. The Delaware
River estuary portion of Delaware Bay had TOO percent of its area
with high TP concentrations.
Dissolved oxygen is depleted when phytoplankton in estuaries die
and decompose. Data on the Dissolved Oxygen in Coastal Waters
indicator (Chapter 2, Purer Water) were reported primarily for
estuaries in the Virginian, Carolinian, and Louisianian Provinces16.
Dissolved oxygen in these estuaries was reported as good because
80 percent of estuarine waters assessed were estimated to exhibit
dissolved oxygen at concentrations greater than 5 ppm (EPA,
ORD, OW, September 2001). Hypoxia resulting from
anthropogenic activities is a relatively local occurrence in Gulf of
Mexico estuaries; only 4 percent of the combined bottom areas in
these estuaries is hypoxic. The occurrence of hypoxia in the shelf
waters of the Gulf of Mexico is more significant. The Gulf of
Mexico hypoxic zone is the largest area of anthropogenic coastal
hypoxia in the western hemisphere (CAST, 1999). Since 1993,
mid-summer bottom water hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
has been larger than 3,860 square miles and in 1999, it reached
over 7,700 square miles (CENR, 2000).

Total Organic Carbon in Sediments (Chapter 2, Purer Water) is often
an indicator of organic pollution (e.g., from decomposing
phytoplankton blooms or waste disposal). Total organic carbon
(TOC) values are calculated as percent carbon in dried sediments.
Values ranged from 0.02 to 13 percent carbon (Paul, et al. 1999).
Assessment categories for the mid-Atlantic estuaries were
tentatively set at: low 1 percent; intermediate 1 to 3 percent, and
high >3 percent, but they are still under evaluation. For the mid-
Atlantic region, about 60 percent of the sediments had low TOC
values, about 24 percent had intermediate TOC values, and
16 percent had high sediment TOC values (EPA, ORD, May
2003). Values ranged from those of Delaware Bay, with about
9S percent of its sediments having low TOC values, to those of
the Chowan River in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary with
65 percent of its sediments having high TOC values (EPA, ORD,
May 2003). The Chesapeake Bay mainstem had about 65 percent
of its sediments with low TOC values and about 15 percent with
high TOC values.
The Sediment Contamination of Coastal Waters indicator (Chapter
2, Purer Water) was analyzed in estuaries primarily along the
Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico as 'part of the EPA EMAP
Estuaries Program. Results from these a lalyses indicated that
40 percent of estuarine sediments in th ese areas were enriched in
metals frorh human sources, 45 percent were enriched in PCBs,
and 75 percent were enriched in pesticides (EPA, ORD, OW, ;
September 2001). The highest concentrations of all three
constituents were found in South Florida sediments with
53 percent, 99 percent, and 93 percent of the sediment area
enriched in metals, PCBs, and pesticidels, respectively.

I The EPA EMAP Estuaries Program, in conjunction with the NOAA
Status and Trends Program, developed the indicator Sediment
Toxicity in Estuaries (Chapter 2, Purer Water). The EMAP Estuaries
Program found that about 10 percent of the sediments in the
Virginian, Carolinian, Louisianian, West
ndian, and Californian
Province estuaries were toxic to the marine amphipod Ampelisca
abdita over a 10-day period (EPA, ORE, OW, September 2001).
The NOAA Status and Trends Program also used a sea urchin
fertility test and a microbial test to evaluate chronic toxicity in
selected estuaries. NOAA found that 4|5 to 62 percent of the
sediment samples from the selected estuaries showed chronic
toxicity (EPA, ORD, OW, September 20!01).
On the following pages, several indicators are introduced for the first
time in this report that relate to the essehtial ecological attributes of
landscape condition and biotic condition! of estuaries.
16 Provinces are biogeographical regions with distinct faunas.
5-56
5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? CJnapter 5 - tcological '^.ondition
-------

txtent of estuaries and coastline - Category 1
Estuarine areas provide habitat for organisms which contribute.
significantly to the national economy. These areas also are under
pressure from the S3 percent of the U.S. population that lives
within 75 miles of the coast. Estuarine areas and coastline include
brackish water bays and tidal rivers, which are influenced by the
mixing of fresh water and ocean salt water in these areas. Extent
estimates were provided by the coastal states as part of the EPA
National Water Quality Inventory - 2000 Report (EPA, OW,
August. 2000).

What the Data Show

EPA estimates that the U.S. and its territories have 95.9 million
acres of estuarine surface area and about 58,618 miles of coast-
line (EPA, OW, August 2002).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

These data were compiled from inventories performed by the
states. Differences in how each state defines estuaries are likely, so
the consistency of the inventory is unknown.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was the 2000 National Water
Quality Inventory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August
2002. (See Appendix B, page B-45, for more information.)

Coastal living habitats - Category 2
This indicator provides the acreage of vegetative habitat such as
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), mangrove forests, and
coastal 'wetlands. Vegetation not only stabilizes the habitat, but
also provides food, shelter, nursery areas, and refugia for other
aquatic organisms. Loss of coastal habitat is a major contributor
to the loss of both economic and non-marketable aquatic species
(The Heinz Center, 2002).

What the Data Show
The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NW!) estimates
more than 5 million acres of coastal wetlands contribute to
the diversity of coastal habitat (Exhibit 5-33). Wetland
acreage declined about 8 percent from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1990s (The Heinz Center, 2002). Out of 5 million
total acres, 400,000 acres of coastal wetland were lost over
this period, although the loss rate declined in the 1990s
(The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Data for coral reefs and seagrasses and other SAV are avail-
able for many areas, but these data have not been integrat-
ed to produce a national estimate. Different approaches
have been used to estimate some of these coastal habitats
which make make integration difficult. For example, esti-
mates of the extent of SAV are noted in some regions only
as presence/absence, while the area is estimated quantita-
tively in other regions. Data for vegetated wetlands are
available for only the East and Gulf Coasts.
Data Source

The data source for this indicator was Status and Trends of
Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997, Dahl,
2000, utilizing data from the National Wetlands Inventory.
(See Appendix B, page B-45, for more information.)
Exhibit 5-33 Coastal living habitats, IQ5Os-l990s
.,, Partial Indicator Data: Coastal Vegetated Wetlands
-1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Coverage Atlantic and Gulf Coasts Only
prce: The Heinz Center The State of the Nation's Ecosystems 2002
ta from the U S Fish and Wildlife Service
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans?
5-57
-------
I I .
Indicator
Shoreline types - Category 2
This indicator includes the miles of coastline in different categories,
such as beaches, mud or sand flats, rock or clay cliffs, and wetlands.
It also includes coastline that is protected with engineered structures
such as armoring or riprap. Loss or conversion of shoreline habitat to
armoring or riprap can eliminate the habitat required by various
organisms for spawning, gestation, nursery area, feeding, or refugia.

What the Data Show

Over two-thirds of the mapped shoreline in the south Atlantic,
southern California, and Pacific Northwest is coastal wetlands,
with most of the coastal wetlands occurring in the South Atlantic
(The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-34). Three-quarters of the
south Atlantic shoreline is wetlands (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Beaches account for about 33 percent of the shoreline in both
southern California and the Pacific Northwest. Southern
California, however, has a much lower percentage of wetlands and
mud or sand flats than the Pacific Northwest. Steep shorelines,
mud flats, and sand flats each make up the smallest portion of the
.i:_L.
total in all three regions. Armored shorelines, which inclde bulk-
heads and rip rap, account for about 11 percent of miles of the
total coastline. :
i : ! •
Indicator Gaps and Limitcitions

Estimates of shoreline types are not available for the entire U.S.,
including much of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast areas. Some of the
atlases used to compile this information a -e more than 15 years
old. Coastal areas are dynamic and change over time, so the accu-
racy of available estimates is unknown. !
i
Data Source
i
The data source for this indicator was the Environmental
Sensitivity Index Atlases, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (1984-2001). (See Appendix B, page B-46, for
more information.)
Exhibit 5-34: Coastal shoreline types, 2000
ipmrf"i"J""-JT -fT«"jg
Partial Indicator Data: Shoreline Typ as by Region
r
: South Atlantic
Southern
California
Pacific
Northwest
20
::- Percent of Total Regional Shoreline
Steep Sand,
Rock, Clay
Mud or Sand
Flats
Beaches
Wetlands,
mangroves, etc.
Armored
(bulkheads
or riprap)
I* * r
M Coverage: Pacific Northwest, Southern California, and ScCth Atlantic Regions only
is • ., ., , , |Lps t „ M j
is Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems 2002
>t Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
i
i !
5-58
5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? . Chapter 5 -
Zoological
I Condition
-------

Benthic Community Index - Category 2
EMAP Estuaries Program has developed indices of benthic condi-
tion for estuaries in the conterminous U.S. (Engle and Summers,
1999; Engle, et al., 1994; Van Dolah, et al., 1999; Weisberg, et al.,
1997). Benthic macroinvertebrates include annelids, mollusks, and
crustaceans that inhabit the bottom substrates of estuaries. These
organisms play a vital role in maintaining sediment and water qual-
ity, and are an important food source for bottom-feeding fish,
invertebrates, ducks, and marsh birds. Measures of biodiversity
and species richness, species composition, and relative abundance
or productivity of functional groups are among the assemblage
attributes that can be used to characterize benthic community
composition and abundance. The Heinz report refers to this indi-
cator as Condition of Bottom-Dwelling Organisms (The Heinz
Center, 2002).

Assemblages of benthic organisms are sensitive to pollutant expo-
sure (Holland, et al., 1987, 1988; Rhoads, et al., 1978; Pearson
and Rosenberg, 1978; Sanders, et al., 1980; Boesch and
Rosenberg, 1981), and they integrate responses to disturbance
and exposure over relatively long periods of time (months to
years). Their sensitivity to pollutant stress is, in part, because
they live in sediment that accumulates environmental contami-
nants over time (Nixon, et al., 1986), and because they are rela-
tively immobile.

Reference sites were used to calibrate the indices similar to the
approach used to calibrate fish IBI scores in fresh water ecosys-
tems. The references cited above describe the approaches used
for calibration and scoring in various estuarine provinces. These
indices were calibrated for the respective estuarine province in
which they were developed. While the development and calibra-
tion process was similar among provinces, the specific thresholds
reflect the estuarine conditions within that province. In general,
good condition means that less than 10 percent of the coastal
waters have low benthic index scores. Fair condition means that
between 10 and 20 percent of the coastal waters have low benthic
index scores. Poor condition means that greater than 20 percent
of the coastal waters have low benthic index scores.

What the Data Show

Benthic community index scores have been assessed for the
Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf Coastal Areas. For the Northeast,
Southeast, and Gulf Coastal areas, 56 percent of the coastal
waters were assessed in good condition, 22 percent in fair condi-
tion, and 22 percent in poor condition based on benthic index
scores (Exhibit S-3S).
Associations of biological condition with specific stressors indi-
cate that, of the 22 percent of coastal areas with poor benthic
condition, 62 percent had sediment contamination, 11 percent
had low dissolved oxygen concentrations, 7 percent had low light
penetration, and 2 percent showed sediment toxicity (EPA, ORD,
OW, September 2001).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

Benthic community index scores have been assessed only for the
Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf Coastal areas. Samples have been
collected in all coastal areas, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Island
Territories, but these data have not been assessed. A complete
assessment of coastal condition is anticipated in 2003.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was National Coastal Condition
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 2001,
using data from the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, Estuaries Program. (See Appendix B, page B-46, for
more information.)
!%~ Exhibit 5-35: Benthic Community Index (BCD
fe*-# scores for coastal waters in good, fair,
or poor condition, 2000
fe-
18% No Sediment
or Water Contamination
62% Sediment
Contamination
11% Low
Dissolved^
Oxygen
Concentrations
7% Light
Penetration
2%
Sediment
Toxicity
J^lrage: Northeast Sbutrieast, and Gulf Coastal areas
rlPAj O.fflfe of Rjsearc.ti.and Development and Office of Water
fNational CogsinlffinJKmjtefioft September 2001
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans?
5-59
-------
r~pA' ....... any"! ..... R'lin
tTT^s ...... L/rart ....... l\
MC .......... ffifflil$fflXQ6s$&^W&&9* ........ SjS ..... nr^f -^i^l r\-$$g% ..... lilltfe
IndiciB
risn diversity - Category 2
Fish diversity is considered to be an indicator of ecological condi-
tion because fish integrate effects of environmental stress over
space and time (EPA, ORD, September 1998). For this indicator,
fish collected by trawling are identified, enumerated, and meas-
ured, allowing assessment of native and non-native species, diver-
sity, abundance, pollution-tolerant/intolerant, and size class
(e.g., young-of-year and adults).

This indicator provides data for the mid-Atlantic estuaries.
Because fish catch data are sensitive to different sampling gear, no
critical thresholds were established for the mid-Atlantic estuaries.
High and low diversity were arbitrarily established as: high > 3 fish
species in a standard trawl; low < 3 fish species in
a standard trawl (EPA, ORD, May 2003).
Data Source • ' j
' f
The data source for this indicator was the ^/lid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment, MAIA-Estuaries, 1997-1998 Summary Report,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ma^ 2003.
(See Appendix B, page B-46, for more information.)
i
What the Data Show

In 1998, out of 110 sampling sites selected for
the mid-Atlantic estuaries in 1998, fish trawls
were conducted at 80 sites (the others were too
shallow to trawl). The fish species count ranged
from 0 to 13, with an average of 4.6 species per
site (Exhibit 5-36). For the mid-Atlantic estuaries
in general, more fish species were found in upper
Delaware Bay, the coastal bays, and in the upper
portions of tributaries. Fewer species were evi-
dent in the Chesapeake Bay rnainstem and lower
tributaries.

Indicator Caps and
Limitations

The limitations of this indicator include the fol-
lowing:
• Fish diversity estimates are available only for
the mid-Atlantic estuaries.

• While fish diversity can be determined for each
sampling site, currently no context exists for
interpreting the condition of estuaries from
fish diversity numbers because there are no
criteria or thresholds for relating fish diversity
estimates to estuarine condition.

• Fish populations are highly mobile, so caution
must be used in interpreting low diversity
estimates for measurements observed at any
individual site may not be representative of the
condition of the estuary.
Exhibit 5-36: Fish diversity in mid-Atlantic Lays, 1997-1998
p
Number of Fish Species

O Low Diversity. < 3 species

• High Diversity > 3 species
"Coverage" Ivfictf-Atfanltc oliys ^DelawaTeT Mi
Source. fi>X, Office o| Research ancf Develop]
fstuar/es 1997-98, Summary Report May 20f
i Atlantic Ecology DIVI ion Mid Atlantic Integrated Assessment AM/A
5-60
5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? CJnapter 5 - tcological Condition
-------
i:q^q:a';a.;i

JuDmerged aquatic vegetation -.Category 2
Many estuarine systems contain submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV), which provides habitat and refugia for fish and invertebrates,
helps protect shorelines from erosion, contributes to sediment
accretion, and provides food for aquatic organisms. The vegetation
also stabilizes shifting sediments and adds oxygen to the water. SAV
is sensitive to pollution and shading by turbid water.

In the mid-Atlantic region, Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
(MAIA) field crews noted the presence or absence of SAV at their
sampling stations as an ancillary measurement, but no attempt
was made to estimate the extent of SAV. For the Chesapeake Bay,
however, SAV extent is an ecological endpoint, and restoration of
SAV is one of the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program (Batiuk,
etal., 2000),

What the Data Show

Scientists estimated that historically there were about 600,000
acres of SAV in the Chesapeake Bay. A 1978 aerial survey estimated
that this SAV acreage had decreased to 41,000 acres, but total
acreage had increased to over 69,000 acres by 2000-(Moore, et
al., 2000). Extent measures are not currently available for the rest
of the nation's estuarine systems.
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The limitations of this indicator include the following:

• SAV estimates have been analyzed and reported only for the
mid-Atlantic estuaries but not for the entire U.S.

• These SAV estimates are for presence/absence only and do not
indicate the density or abundance of the vegetation. More
quantitative approaches using remote sensing are being used,
but this information is not currently available for the entire U.S.
coastline.
Data Source

The data sources for these indicators were Chesapeake Bay
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Water Quality and Habitat-Based
Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Second Technical
Synthesis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program, 2000; and Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment, MAIA-
Estuaries, 1997-1998 Summary Report, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, May 2003. (See Appendix B, page B-47, for
more information.)
risn abnormalities - Category 2
External abnormalities in fish can include lumps, growths, ulcers,
fin rot, gill erosion, and gill discoloration. The cause of an abnor-
mality is not always chemical contamination—it could also result
from an injury or disease. A high incidence of such conditions
could, however, indicate an environmental problem.

What the Data Show

The EPA EMAP Estuaries Program examined more than 100,000
fish from estuaries in the Virginian, Carolinian, Lousianian, and
West Indian Province estuaries for evidence of disease, parasites,
tumors and lesions on the skin, malformations of the eyes, gill
abnormalities, and skeletal curvatures. Of all the fish examined,
only 0.5 percent (454 fish) had external abnormalities (EPA,
ORD, OW, September 2001). Of the fish examined, bottom-feed-
ing fish had the highest incidence of disease, but this incidence
was still low. There is no criterion for what constitutes a high or
low number offish abnormalities.
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The limitations of this indicator include the following:
• Fish abnormality estimates are hot available nationally for U.S.
estuaries.
n Fish abnormalities can result from both natural causes such as
injury and from chemical contamination, and the cause cannot
be readily assessed.

Data Source

IndicffQi:!
Unusual marine mortalities - Category 2
—!
Unusual marine mortalities are characterized by an abnormal num-
ber of dead animals in locations or at times of the year that are
not typical for that species. For animals such as turtles, whales,
dolphins, seals, sea lions, or similar vertebrates, where small num-
bers of deaths can be significant, this indicator reports the actual
number of dead animals. For other more abundant animals such as
fish, sea birds, and shellfish, the number of mortality events is
recorded. The cause of these unusual events might include infec-
tious disease, toxic algae, pollutants, or natural events.

What the Data Show

More than 2,500 California sea lions were involved in unusual
marine mortalities in 1992, which is more than 10 times the num-
ber of seals, sea lions, sea otters, or manatees lost in similar
events since 1992 (The Heinz Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-37). The
next two largest events were the deaths of 150 manatees off the
Florida coast in 1996 and the deaths of 185 California sea lions in
1997 (The Heinz Center, 2002). No causes for these events were
cited in the Heinz report (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The limitations of this indicator include the following:
1 i
• This indicator represents only unusual events; it does not
represent cill observed mortalities of marine organisms.
i , ,, 'i M
• Criteria or thresholds do not exist for assessing the importance
of unusual mortalities. i
• It is not pcissible to determine if the ev^nt was caused by
natural phenomena such as El Nino or vjras the result of
anthropogenic influences.
• The data are not available on a national basis.
Data Source

The data source for this indicator was The, State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Odeanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries, Office of Protected
Resources, Marine Mammal Health, Stranding Response Program,
CRC Handbook of Marine Mammal Medicine: Health, Disease, and
Rehabilitatior,, 2nd edition (Dierauf and Culland, eds., 2001).
(See Appendix B, page B-47, for more information.)
Exhibit 5-37: Unusual marine mortaliti<£ 1992-2001
quate tor National Keporungj
Partial Indicator Data: Marine Mammals
2500r
Whales,
Dolphins and
Porpoises
Seals, Sea
Lions, Sea
Otters and
Manatees
0
1990 1995
Coverage: all U.S. waters.
2000
i
Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's EcbsyslemsT2002.
Data from the National Marine Fisheries Service and Dierauf and Culland (2001).
' aiSL_ _- v, _ :>,] -I
5-62
i

5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans? CJiapter 5 -| Ecological Condition
-------
Summary: me Ecological Condition of Coasts and

Oceans

Coasts and oceans are subject to the same pressures as fresh waters,
especially because they represent the endpoint for most fresh water
drainage networks. Problems are exacerbated by the hydrology of
estuaries, which tends to create conditions ideal for concentration of
pollutants entering from upstream.

Landscape condition
The extent of this resource has been described by EPA and NOAA,
and the landscape composition of much of the nation's coastline is
known, providing a baseline against which to monitor future changes.
As an example, 400,000 of 5,000,000 acres of coastal wetland
were lost since the mid-1950s, although the loss rate declined in the
1990s (The Heinz Center, 2002). The baseline information is inade-
quate, however, for coral reefs, shellfish beds, and SAV, although a
survey in Chesapeake Bay indicates that the acreage of SAV there
increased from 41,000 to 69,000 acres since 1978 (Moore, et al.,
2000). The estuarine. landscape structure and pattern, and their
contribution to ecological condition, remain inadequately measured
or understood.

Biotic condition

The National Coastal Assessment, a joint federal and state
interagency national monitoring program implemented to assess
the ecological condition of the nation's estuaries, has developed
regional data on several biotic condition indicators, including fish,
benthic communities, and SAV. The program is also monitoring
abnormalities and tissue contaminants. Results from three regions
(Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf) indicate that, on average,
44 percent of the bottom community was in fair or poor condition,
but this number varies among regions. Chlorophyll concentrations,
which reflect the amount of phytoplankton growing in the water
column, were over the recommended limit of 15 ppm (to protect
SAV beds) over one-third of the estuarine area in the mid-Atlantic
states. No similar estimates are yet available nationwide. Of more
than 100,000 fish in random trawls from Maine to Texas, less than
0.5 percent showed visible evidence of disease, parasites, tumors
or lesions of the skin, malformation of the eyes or gills, or skeletal
curvature..Fish tissue contamination (other than non-toxic arsenic)
was found in about 4 percent offish.
Chemical and physical characteristics
A number of physical and chemical indicators are being monitored in
estuarine systems to help diagnose and interpret biotic condition
information. Data are available only for estuaries on the Atlantic or
Gulf coasts, but 18 percent of mid-Atlantic estuaries were judged to
have high nitrogen concentrations (which can lead to harmful algal
blooms), and 12 percent had high concentrations of phosphorus.
Twenty percent of Atlantic and Gulf estuaries had low dissolved oxy-
gen concentrations (<5 ppm). On average, 75 percent of the sedi-
ments had elevated pesticide concentrations, and 40 percent had
elevated concentrations of heavy metals, again with significant varia-
tion from region to region. Ten percent of the sediments showed a
positive response to toxicity tests using a marine amphipod. Only
4 percent of the estuaries had poor light penetration.

There were no Category 1 or 2 indicators of ecological processes,
hydrology and geomorphology, or natural disturbance regimes available
for this report. The dearth of indicators for ecological processes is
likely due, in part, to the fact that these indicators typically require
repeated visits over several days, which makes systematic sampling in
estuaries time-consuming and expensive. Procedures using remote
sensing to assess ecological processes are being developed, but
these are not ready for national or regional implementation.
Hydrologic indicators may be similar to those for fresh water
systems, but are complicated by the complex flows caused by tides
and other phenomena in estuaries. An indicator of sea level change
also may be useful. Storms, hurricanes, and similar disturbances are
monitored globally, nationally, regionally, and locally, but this
information has not been developed in the form of an indicator.

Information on disturbance regimes could also be used to partition
observed estuarine system responses into portions attributable to
natural versus anthropogenic disturbances.
Chapter 5 - tcological Condition 5.7 What is the Ecological Condition of Coasts and Oceans?
5-63
-------

5.8 What Is the
tcological Condition of
the tntire Nation:
The previous sections asked questions about the ecological condi-
tion of forests, coasts and oceans, fresh water ecosystems, urban
and suburban areas, farmlands, and grasslands and shrublands
nationally. Because ecosystems are hierarchical (O'Neill, et al., 1986)
some important questions about ecological condition cannot be
answered in terms of these land cover classes. Examples of large-
scale issues include the following:
Because EPA's; regulatory programs, both a|lone and in combination,
typically impc.ct many kinds of ecosystems^ such large-scale ques-
tions are an important part of tracking the! overall effectiveness of
these programs in protecting the entire nation.
Exhibit 5-38 shows the indicators for the
;ntire nation used in this
report. All seven of the indicators are take i from the core national '
indicators in Jhe State of the Nation's Ecosystems (The Heinz Center, ';
2002). There are indicators for four of the six essential ecological
attributes with at least regional data, but no indicators on hydrology
and geomorphology or natural disturbance regimes with data avail- ;
able on a national or regional level (The Heinz Center, 2002).
• The relative distribution of
forests, grasslands, farmlands,
and urban/suburban areas
across the entire nation.

• Neotropical migratory birds and
other species do not depend on
one ecosystem type, but many,
often spread over large regions.
• The condition of forest streams,
and of other low-order streams
across regions, was considered in
Section 5.6, but processes in
very large watersheds (e.g., the
Mississippi or Columbia River
basins) reflect the sum total of
contributions from many
ecosystem types.
• Typically, large systems are
slower to change and to respond
to management actions (O'Neill,
etal., 1986; Messer, 1992).
Global climate change and
changes in stratospheric ozone
are examples of stressors of this
type (Rosswall, et al., 1988).
S-64
jEngscape Conaitioti
Landscape Composition
Jj Landscape Pattern/Structure
At-risk native species
Ecosystems and Communities
Bird Community Index
Species and Populations
'_ Organism Condition
1 Ecological Processes
Terrestrial Plant Growth Index
Movement of nitrogen
i! Nutrient Concentrations
Other Chemical Parameters
Chem cal contamination
Trace Organic and Inorganic Chemicals
Physical Parameters
^VHirnh'i • I i ' ^ ' '..h llf, •Hi „ I'; "' ^ ni L
Hvdroloev and Geomoroholoev
Hydrology and
nr "-I!"*''" '• BW. .mr.s
Surface and Ground Water Flows
Dynamic Structural Conditions
Sediment and Material Transport
5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation?
.cological Condition
-------

;.-..; :..,.• K- .--.-.. — • -• •':-•" .--. - : .-... --.. ::. - -• .''- '.••; • • • ,;' •'• '/-!•-;' • -'-' •''•- ; . •"' :."• '- •- • •-':. ".•-='-".-' -•" -:?-'•'•' '-.«• ':• •I-V.* •1L'".t;7'1- .'...'•";-:: ^'-^'J1''-'1"^^';^:;*1'-..-,,;^ I.1-!1;'.-' -'V, ••'?•'••' ••-•'''-/ •' -•.•• '. :
'^fs^t^^if^y^^sssf-- >;^^j'^fei;^>!i"*'^i^^^
tcosystem extent - (Category 2
Extent provides basic information on how much of an ecosystem
exists, where it is, and whether it is changing over time. Changes in
the extent of various cover types in the U.S. have been driven prima-
rily by human land and water uses over the past 400 years. The total
amount and relative distribution of land-cover types at the regional
and national level are important, because ultimately they affect many
of the ecological attributes such as biodiversity. For example, not only
do forest species depend on forests, but many forest species also
depend on adjacent wetlands or grasslands.

What the Data Show

Estimates show that before European settlement, the U.S. had 1
billion acres of forests (USDA, FS, 2002), 900 to 1,000 million
acres of grasslands and shrublands (Klopatek, et al., 1979) and
221 million acres of wetlands (Dahl, 2000). Today, the U.S. has
749 million acres of forests (USDA, FS, 2002), 861 million acres
of grasslands and shrublands (The Heinz Center, 2002), and 106
million acres of wetlands (Dahl, 2000). About 530 million acres
of croplands (USDA, NRCS, 2000) and 90 million acres of urban
and suburban land uses (USDA, NRCS, 2001) have been added.

The acreage of forest and fresh water wetlands have each declined
by about 10 million acres in the decades since the 1950s; the
acreage of croplands has fluctuated, but it is currently about 35
million acres less than in the 1950s; and urban areas have grown
by 40 million acres during the same period (The Heinz Center,
2002); (Exhibit 5-39).

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

According to The Heinz Center (2002.), the National Land Cover
Database (NLCD) produced different estimates of area for forests
and farmlands from those mentioned above, because of differ-
ences in the definitions of these systems in the Forest Inventory
and Analysis (FIA) and the USDA Economic Research Service
(ERS). In addition, current indicators of extent do not provide
information about fragmentation and landscape patterns.

Data Sources

The data.sources for these indicators were Forest Inventory and
Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1979-1995); National
Land Cover Database, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics
Consortium (1990s); National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (1970-2000); and Economic Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture (1982-1997). (See Appendix B,
page B-48, for more information.)
-39 C-hange in ecosystem extent, long-term and
recent trends, I950s-I990s
d*t|al Indicator Data Long-term Changes for For Forests, Croplands,
isslands/Shriiblands, Urban/Suburban
Grasslands and
Shrublands
irttat Indicator Data Recent Trends for Forests, Croplands, Grasstands/Shrubfands,
'"uburSan, Freshwater Wetlands
19^0 1970
leverage lower 48 states
Grassland/
Shrublands
(satellite)
Fdrests
Forests
(satellite)
Croplands
(satellite)
Croplands
Freshwater
W etfands
Urban
Urban/
Suburban
(satellite)
2000,
_..„_ Because these estimates are from different sources, they do not sum to 100% £
tf U S land area Approximately 5% of lands are not accounted for by these data
Dtirces They include some wetfands, some nan suburban developed areas disturbed Jj
!n|jjjis such as mines; ancfquames and the like In addition freshwater wetlands
Ibtjrrentry occupy approximateK/S% of the area of the lower 48 states, a reduction of
labput 50% since presettlement times Because they are found within forests
grasslands and shrublands or croplands, freshwater wetlands from those ecosystems
^efshown as aggregated data on the graph Finally, the urban" trend line in this
;raphj£ based on a different definition from the one in this report and is presented J
gre_to illustrate general trends. Trie definition used in this .report was used to.
jgeneratethe urban/suburban (satellite)" area estimate. . ... , .
^Source 1\]s_HemzCent^.T^ State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002.
fEla^ajTom the USDA Forest Service (forests, current area, recent trends), USDA
^Economic Research Service (croplands trends, urban area trends), Multi-Resolution
rid Characterization Consortium" (MRLC^af) satelite data, including currerit estimate
'grass/shrub anil u^bTn7suEurban area in, top graph). Presettlement estimates,.are
Klopateketal 197S.J,"_, ""^ ". '..-^^..'.'.•', -,',,.," .,,,n.' „ , ^.,',:,,,V:,'.,-,.;' ,
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation?
5-65
-------
El As Draft jNJeport on the Environment 200^3

cnca

At-risR native species - Category 2

Scientists are engaged in considerable discussion about the
importance of rare and at-risk species for the sustainability of
ecosystems (e.g., Grime, 1997; Hodgson, et al., 1998; Naeem, et
al., 1999; Tilman and Downing, 1994; Wardle, et al., 2000). There
are at (east 200,000 native plant, animal, and microbial species in
the U.S., but according to The Heinz Center (2002), "little is
known about the status and distribution of most of these." This
indicator represents what is known about 22 species groups,
including 16,000 plant species and 6,000 animal species. It
includes all higher plants; all terrestrial and fresh water vertebrates
(i.e., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish); select inverte-
brate groups, including fresh water mussels and snails, crayfishes,
butterflies and skippers; and about 2,000 species of grasshop-
pers, moths, beetles, and other invertebrates (The Heinz Center,
2002). The Heinz Center believes that this indicator is a power-
ful—yet manageable—snapshot of the condition of U.S. species.
No data are available for marine species, which led The Heinz
Center to rank this as an indicator equivalent to a
Category 2. Special groupings of these species have
been used as indicators in specific ecosystem cate-
gories. This indicator includes all of them, but The
Heinz Center has not analyzed species dependent on
large or multiple ecosystems.
Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The data are from a census approach that fo.cuses on the location
and distribution of at-risk species. Therefore] distinguishing trends in
the indicator is difficult.
i ; I . . .

Data Source ;
! L- i
! ' '
The data for this indicator was The State pflthe Nation's Ecosystems,
The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the NatureServe Explorer
database. (Sets Appendix B, page B-48, fonmore information.)
What the Data Show

One-third of species native species are at risk, and
1 percent of plant and 3 percent of animal species
might already be extinct (The Heinz Center, 2002)
(Exhibit 5-40). Approximately 19 percent of native
animal species and IS percent of native plant species
are ranked as imperiled or critically imperiled. There
are large differences among plant and animal groups
and among regions. For example, the percentage of at-
risk fresh water species such as mussels and crayfish is
much higher than that for birds or mammals, and more
at-risk species are found in California, Hawaii, the
southern Appalachians, and Florida than elsewhere
(Stein, 2002).
i txnipit S-^tO^/^tris^R landjina Jreikwater^^^^
.MV«I IK;. :sn"'""',. "* ^ ""~ "tr\r\r\"
plant ang animal native species, /OOO
3S
t Land and FresSwater Plants Land and Fresh water Animats
» *
Coverage: all SO
Source: The Heinz
• Critically Imperiled
TV l^^lf^ WV'T^^/T ^ -^^ ^ ^ ^ tf*
^•imperiled
All At-Risk
.2UU4VCV * IWZ 1 Idlt*£. V-dlll-d. I*IC ^tdrte Cg tnC IVflfflOJl S i_s»t^j»js&»nu- JE-VTVI
| j- ^ppntM;L.1*'?!^*1 *Wt ., ^ fr^^'-"«^-«'^*«'**
* Data thorn NatureSente and its Natural Heritage member programs.
* *„ sr n,^ f -^^HSWfWMWWfc'WW *<*##a>•fcm^'^ «f9W*| WiWWnBje
a^jar _
002,
5-66
5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? Chapter 5 - 'Icdlogical Condition
-------

Bird Community Index - (Category 2

The types of birds observed in an area have been shown to serve as
an indicator of the overall characteristics of the landscape. Species
vary in their sensitivity to physical, chemical, and biological threats,
and different species require different habitats for food, shelter, and
reproduction. Some species need extensive areas of interior forest,
others prefer the edges between different types of land cover or
mixed areas, and still others prefer disturbed or highly managed
areas. Consequently, the composition of the bird community reflects
the overall mix, pattern, and condition of the mosaic of forest, agri-
culture, grasslands and shrublands, wetlands, streams, and
urban/suburban areas that makes up most of the U.S. landscape.
The Bird Community Index (BCI) was developed by O'Connell, et al.
(1998, 2000) for songbirds in the mid-Atlantic states. The index
was developed based on data collected at 34 reference sites, with
bird species classified into 16 functional groups according to the
degree to which they specialized in using the native flora and fauna
in an area (high BCI scores) versus being generalists and exotic or '
invasive species (low BCI scores). The BCI then was applied to a
probability sample of bird data from 126 sites across the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands.
txhibit 5-UI: Dird species as characteristics or landscape composition and pattern as an indicator or
landscape condition, 1995-1996
Excellent
Good
Ecological Conditions
Fair
Poor Rural
Poor Urban
S<
arlet Tanager, American Redstart, Black-and-White War >Ier, Black-Throated Green lyarbler, Hairy Woodpecker,
-' ™ • ,".-,".,;',>:M'LV"' '-• r: — ^V^^Uea -—**—•
American Goldfinch, B -own Thrasher, Common Yel
Ovenbird, Cerulean" Wart
House Sparrow, Hojuse Finch,-Rock Dove'(Pigeon), European Starling
iowthroat, Gray Catbird, Re i-Winged Blackbird, Yellow
Shrub Nesters
ler, Worm-Eating Warbler...
tVarbler, Indigo Bunting...
'igein),.!
: 87% Forest Cover
•• 80 ft. Height
= 87% Forest Cover
= 65 ft. Height
= 47%CanopyC|osure
>61 % Non-Woody
Plant/Agriculture
>29% Residential/
Commercial
Coverage' Mid-Atlantic Highlands (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia)
Source • EPA, Office of Research and Development. Birds Indicate Ecological Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands June 2000
Chapter 5 - Tlcological Condition 5.8 What is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation?
5-67
-------

Bird Community Index - Category 2 (continued)
i
L
What the Data Show

Good-to-excellent BCI scores (diverse communities of birds charac-
terized by many specialists and native species) were associated with
at least 87 percent forest cover and a minimum of 47 percent
canopy closure. Poor BCI scores (low diversity communities charac-
terized by generalists and exotic species) were associated with
either rural agricultural or urban areas where almost 30 percent of
the landscape was in residential or commercial land use.

The BCI was calibrated across a range of landscape conditions
from least disturbed to significantly degraded. Based on this
calibration, 43 percent of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands was estimat-
ed to be in good to "excellent" condition (in other words, con-
taining large tracts of interior forest), 36 percent was estimated to
be in "fair" condition, and 21 percent (5 percent urban and 16
percent rural) was estimated to be in "poor" condition (Exhibit 5-
41). Forested sites in good and excellent condition supported dif-
ferent bird communities and ground-level vegetation attributes,
but could not be separated by land cover composition alone. As
the proportion of the landscape in forested areas decreased or
the proportion of canopy closure decreased, so did the BCI
scores (O'Connell, et al., 1998, 2000).
7
Indicator Caps and Limitations

The limitations of this indicator include th£ following:

• This indicator depends on a value judgement common among
ecologists that communities associated [with the native
vegetation of a region are "better" than exotic, generalist
species associated with human modification of the environment.

B The BCI has been calibrated and assessed only for the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands, and may not apply to areas where shoreline
birds or migratory waterfowl are a largef component of the bird
community. ;

a The BCI relates primarily to land cover estimates, and does not
explicitly include the condition of any particular land cover type.

Data Source

The data sources for this indicator were A Bird Community Index of
Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, O'Connell, et al.,
1998; and B'rd Guilds as Indicators of Ecological Condition in the
Central Applachians, O'Connell, et al., 2000, using data from U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Mid-Atlantic Highlands Program
and the National Land Cover Database;. (See Appendix B,
page B-48, for more information.) ;
5-68
5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? C-Kapter 5 • Ecological Condition
-------

lerrestrial riant Curowtn Index - Category I
Both the National Research Council and Science Advisory Board
reports suggest that primary productivity (the amount of solar
energy captured by plants through photosynthesis) is a key
indicator of ecosystem function (NRC, 2000; SAB, 2002).
Generally, ecosystems will maximize their primary productivity
through adaptation (Odum, 1971), so primary productivity can
increase under favorable conditions (e.g., increased nutrients or
rainfall) ;or decrease under unfavorable conditions (e.g., plant stress
caused by toxic substances or disease). Changes in primary produc-
tivity can result in changes in the way ecosystems function, in the
yield of crops or timber, or in the animal species that live in the
ecosystems.

Gross primary productivity is related to the standing crop of the
photosynthetic pigment chlorophyll and can be thought of in
simple terms as plant growth. The Terrestrial Plant Growth Index
indicator is based on the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
(NDVI), which measures the amount of chlorophyll, using satellite
data (The Heinz Center, 2002). While the standing crop of
chlorophyll is not identical to primary productivity, EPAs Science
Advisory Board (EPA, SAB, 2002) lists it as an example of an
indicator under the ecological processes EEA.

What the Data Show

No overall trend in plant growth is observed for the 11 -year period
from 1989 through 2000, for any land cover type or any region of
the U.S., although year-to-year measurements can fluctuate by up
to 40 percent of the 11 -year average (The Heinz Center, 2002)
(Exhibit 5-42). Over a sufficiently long period, regional trends in
NDVI could be an important indicator of increasing or decreasing
plant growth resulting from changing climate, UV-B exposure, air
pollution, or other stressors.

Indicator Caps and Limitations

There were no calculations for phytoplankton or submerged
vegetation growth in fresh water or coastal systems.

Data Source

The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data on visible and
near-infrared wavelengths collected by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Advanced Very High Resolution
Radiometer and converted into a Normalized Difference
Vegetation Index (Reed and Young, 1997). (See Appendix B, page
B-49, for more information.)
;?',^v.Ma£ig
lExkit.it 5-U2: Flant Growth Index, 1989-2000
"I errestriai riant\3rowtn Index for lower U8 states
Forests
Grasslands/
Shrublands
Croplands
All Three
Systems
pTJa.rjt S3ro\«tfl Inaex^squ.thwest, rocky mountain, pacific regions
Southwest
Rocky
Mountain
..... Pacific
—— U.S. (lower 48)
,*:;:;:•, rlartt.tirpwtn Index: northeast, southeast,_rr|iavvest,regions
.... Northeast/
Mid-Atlantic
; Southeast
i.i Midwest
— U.S. (lower 48)
20OP..
;e: .Lower 4g.srtates. _.:- .... ,. •. .. ..... . , ,g
rp^e;~3ecause of .satellite problems, no.datai are. available for 1994. , ^
^,Jfie,^ei(r|zi^ep.tec!j,TlieFiStote of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002. "
a_fro,,H)Mthe U,S,-Gie_QipgicaLSurvey; Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium.'[
J
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation?
5-69
-------

liiiiiiiiiii
*TarrrH!ir
Indicator
AAovement of nitrogen - Category

Nitrogen is a critical nutrient for plants, and "leakage" of nitrogen
from watersheds can signal a decline in ecosystem function
(Vltousek, et al., 2002). It also may signal the failure of watershed
management efforts to control point, non-point, and atmospheric
sources of nitrogen pollutants, and the resulting nitrogen may
have "cascading" harmful effects as it moves downstream to
coastal ecosystems (Galloway and Cowling, 2002). Nitrate
concentration in streams has served as an indicator of chemical
condition in the other ecosystems in this section. This indicator,
however, deals with nitrogen export from large watersheds, and is
an indicator of ecosystem function.

What the Data Show
Nitrate export from the Mississippi River has been monitored
since the mid-1950s and from the Susquehanna, St. Lawrence,
and Columbia Rivers since the 1970s, and is reported in The
State of the Nation's Ecosystems in tons per year. The load in
the Mississippi River has fluctuated from year to year, but it has
increased from approximately 250,000 tons per year in the
early 1960s to approximately 1,000,000 tons per year during
the 1980s and 1990s (The Heinz _ __ _
Center, 2002) (Exhibit 5-43).
The Mississippi River drains the agri-
cultural "breadbasket" of the nation
and contains a large percentage of
the growing population, so the
increases likely reflect failure to
control nitrogen pollution, rather than
a breakdown in ecosystem function
(e.g., Rabalais and Turner, 2001).
Nitrate loads in the other three rivers
have fluctuated around 50,000 tons
per year since the 1970s, although
the Columbia River spiked to
100,000 tons per year in the
late 1990s.
Indicator Caps and Limitations
The indicator does not include data from
numerous coastal water-
sheds whose human populations are rapidly increasing and are
therefore estimated to have high nitrogen
loss rates (e.g., Valigura,
et al., 2000). It also does not include other forms of nitrogen
besides nitrate, which may constitute a substantial portion of the
nitrogen load.

Data Source '

The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data collected by the
U.S. Geological Survey, National Stream Quality Accounting
Network and National Water Quality Assessment Program, and by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (See Appendix B, page B-49,
for more information.) >
_ , , , r- , -
rexhibit 5-43: Nitrate load carried by major rivers, 1970-1999
t l,
fc~o
• +j
o
''•
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
r<*»{j
j-w,fi
Mississippi
• 1 3 "" %
—— Susquehanna
* | 1 -s (i* i
-•-»- St. Lawrence
1 1
Columbia
1950 1960

Coverage: selected major rivers.
I HfcS^^ ^ ^I" *^S ^ I hf w "* «h nu ^ £fe
Source: The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. 2002.
|Data from the U.S. Geological Surve^NatiSnal Stream Quality Metwork (NA'SQAN),
I National Water Quality Assessment fRlAWQA), and Federal-State Cooperative Program/
e ifch- "' -" - ' .) «« 4'te » j,Mt ^
5-70
5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? Chapter 5 -
Icologio
al Condition
-------

CJiemical contamination - Category 2

This indicator has been discussed for the individual ecosystems,
but here it is reported for all media, regardless of land-cover type.
The following is a summary of the key findings; the Heinz report
(2002) should be consulted for further details.

What the Data Show

Three-fourths of all streams in the National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) network had one or more contaminants
that exceeded guidelines for the protection of aquatic life, and
one-fourth had four or more contaminants over those levels. One-
fourth of ground water wells sampled had one or more contami-
nants above human health standards. One-half of all streams had
one or, more contaminants in sediments that exceeded wildlife
protection guidelines (usually more stringent than criteria to pro-
tect human health). One-half of all fish tested had one or more
contaminants that exceeded wildlife protection guidelines.
Approximately 60 percent of estuarine sediments tested had con-
centrations of contaminants expected to lead to "possible effects"
in aquatic life, and 2 percent had concentrations exceeding levels
expected to have "likely effects."

Indicator Gaps and Limitations

The limitations of this indicator include the following:

• While these data represent a comparison of a standard to the
respective contaminant concentration, they do not represent
assessments of risk posed to humans or ecosystems.
• Different standards also reflect different levels of protection, so
these data should be interpreted cautiously.

• Media contamination, such as water or sediment contamination,
does'not necessarily indicate exposure to the contaminant for
either humans or other biological populations.
Data Source

The data source for this indicator was The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, The Heinz Center, 2002, using data from the National
Water Quality Assessment Program and the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program, Estuaries Program.
(See Appendix B, page B-SO, for more information.)
Chapter 5 - £cological Condition 5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation?
5-71
-------

Summary: TKe Ecological Condition of tne Entire Nation Ecological processes

The idea of monitoring indicators that could include the entire
nation, irrespective of the type of land cover, has not been a main
topic of ecological monitoring. The main idea is that pressures acting
over large areas may have effects that transcend a land cover type,
or may depend on the interaction of land cover types. The issue of
scale has not been well-articulated with respect to these indicators
(issues of national scope may not operate at national scales). This is
an area of attention for future reports.

Landscape condition
The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) now provides a consis-
tent national picture of the extent of the various ecosystem types at
30 meter (about 100 foot) resolution (Vogelmann, et al., 2001). A
consortium of federal agencies performs the interpretation of the
satellite data necessary for development of the NLCD. Much of the
data in this indicator come from the Forest Inventory and Analysis
(FIA) or the National Resources Inventory (NRI), which allows trends
to be estimated during periods prior to the first NLCD coverage.
Unfortunately, these data are not comparable to the NLCD, because
of differences in the definitions of the land cover categories (see
Chapter 3, Better Protected Land).

Blotic condition
With respect to the at-risk native species indicator, the NatureServe
database is an invaluable resource for identifying these species.
Because the resulting data are developed without an underlying
statistical design, however, it will be difficult to determine whether
future trends are the result of more thorough field work and report-
ing by researchers and resource managers, or actual trends in the
number of at-risk species. An effort has begun to identify all species
in the Smoky Mountain National Park (Kaiser, 1999), and an
international effort, called Species 2000, is being developed by a
multinational project team associated with the United Nations (U.N.)
Convention of Biological Diversity. Recent research expanding the
bird diversity index to the entire mid-Atlantic region shows that it
has promise as a national indicator (O'Connell, et al., 2002).
Analysis of the biological data from the first 20 National Water
Quality Assessment (NAWQA) study units, and similar analyses of
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) data
from the national estuaries and streams in the West and Midwest,
should shed some light on the feasibility of a national indicator for
estuarine and stream benthic communities. Because the plankton
communities of lakes do not exhibit a high degree of biogeographical
variation (independent of natural factors such as hardness or the
presence of organic color), a national plankton index would seem
feasible if the necessary data were collected.
The Terrestrial Plant Growth Index is probably the best example of the
indicator of primary productivity called for by both the NRC (2000)
and SAB (2002). Comparable data exist orj trends for a decade, with
census coverage (at the resolution of the AjVHRR sensor) for the
conterminous U.S. Examination of the trends data for this indicator
in The Heinz Center (2002) report shows jarge (±40 percent) '
excursions from the 11 -year average in the Southwest, and ±20 per-
cent excursions in the Pacific region. The amount of time necessary
to separate changes caused by air pollutants (e.g., ozone, nitrogen
deposition, carbon dioxide) from those caused by natural climatic
factors and insect and disease outbreaks is unknown.
The Movement .of Nitrogen indicator certainly captures trends in this
important nutrient in the nation's largest river basins. The indicator
would be improved if it included total nitrcigen, including an accurate
estimate of nitrogen carried in the bed loa[d of sediments as it moves
into coastal waters, and if it were extended^ to the many smaller
coastal watersheds that are experiencing large increases in popula-
tion. An indicator of sediment runoff potential would be a useful
large-ecosystem indicator if it were extended to non-farmland
ecosystems (see Chapter 3, Better Protected Land).
' i
Chemical and physical characteristics i

The Chemical Contamination indicator raises a serious question about
how representative the streams in the NAWQA study units are.
There were 119 NAWQA sites with surface water monitoring data,
located in 201 geographically well-dispersed watersheds across the
U.S. Eventually, NAWQA plans to expand to 60 such units, and pre-
sumably all will include water sampling. On a national basis, this
might be an adequate number to represent the range of factors
affecting ecological condition of the streams and watersheds. The
number of streams characterizing forest, farmland, or urban/subur-
ban watersheds seems too small, however, given the very wide range
of nutrient and contaminant concentrations presented in the Heinz
report.

More important, however, is whether the streams sampled are repre-
sentative of the range of streams in the entire nation. The ecological
condition of fresh waters (and their watersheds) reflects the sum
total of natural factors (including disturbances), conscious and
unconscious decisions about land-use management (e.g., what crops
to grow, whether and when to cut timber.j urban planning and zon-
ing), and th« presence and control of pollutants. A particular stream
might be representative of a watershed) with respect to geomorphol-;
ogy and hydrology, and even land use (e.g., corn or tree farming,
urban or suburban). But resource management decisions and the
presence or control of pollutants are particular to a specific water-
shed, and so the streams must be chosen to be representative of the
full range of possibilities, and of their relative frequencies. With
respect to pollution control, assuming that the full set of environ-
mental controls are working as envisioned by EPA is particularly risky.
In fact, this risk is one of the primary reasons for monitoring
5-72
5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation? C_napter 5 -, tcological C-ondition
-------
progress toward national goals under GPRA; to determine if the pro-
grams, as implemented and enforced by the states are really protect-'
. ing and restoring the biological integrity of fresh waters. In this con-
text, identifying representative streams or watersheds is not as rea-
sonable as identifying representative samples of .streams or water-
sheds. Until the NAWQA streams can be compared to a statistically
representative sample of streams, great care must be taken in assum-
ing that the data accurately reflect the national condition of fresh
waters and watersheds.

There were no Category 1 or 2 indicators available for this report
for hydrology and geomorphology or natural disturbance regimes, but
developing them does not seem to be a particularly daunting •
challenge, given the widely available data on geology, flow, and
paleological methods to indicate the regional occurrence of climatic
events and fire.
'Chapter 5 - Ecological Conditi
.ion
5.8 What Is the Ecological Condition of the Entire Nation?
5-73
-------

5.9 CJnallenges and
DataG
aps
The availability of indicators across ecosystem types is summarized in
Exhibit 5-44. Indicators that currently can provide national informa-
tion on ecological condition are available for only 14 of the possible
126 indicator categories in the framework. More than half of the
Category 1 indicators provide information only on ecosystem extent
and landscape composition, with a few exceptions:
• The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) and Forest Health
Monitoring (FHM) programs together have achieved representative
national coverage for both the present status and historical trends
in the occurrence of fire, insect damage, and disease for forests.
• Satellite data provide continent-wide status and trends in the
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), which serves as a
surrogate for primary productivity, or the amount of energy
available at the base of the ecosystems.17
• Historical hydrology data were analyzed for The Heinz Center
report to determine trends in high and low-flows for more than
800 streams with no specified land cover and more than 500
forest streams across the U.S., and the number and duration of
dry periods were calculated for 152 streams in grasslands,
shrublands, and dry areas. These analyses could presumably have
been performed for urban/suburban, agricultural, and very large
watersheds, but they have not been performed to date.
• The current status and historical trends in the potential for
sediment transport from farmland can be calculated from existing
data (though not the amount of sediment actually lost).

For the rest of the essential ecological attributes, only partial data
exist, at best (e.g., regional data or data for only part of the
resource), for one or more indicators. For more than one-half of the
major indicator categories in the seven ecosystem iypes, not even
one indicator was identified for this report. For many more, only one
existed, though several would be necessary. This situation will
improve slightly in the next year or two. A number of active research
programs are collecting and analyzing relevant ecological condition
data at the national or regional level, but the results had not yet met
the criterion for peer review at the time this report was finalized. Two
years from now, research on indicators from the FIA program, FHM
program, the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program,
and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program ( EMAP)
Western Streams Pilot should provide new Category 2, and a few
Category 1 indicators, primarily biotic condition and ecological
process indicators. As of now, the gaps are substantial.

"There is some debate as to whether standing crop chlorophyll can
really be a surrogate for primary productivity, so this might be more appro-
priate as an ecosystem condition indicator.
What the rWailable Indicators Keveal iabout jome

tcological Issues or Tvecent Concern to tr/x
: i :
The introduction to this chapter identifiedjthree reasons to monitor
ecological coridition:
• To establish baselines against which to assess the current and
future condition of ecosystems.
• To provide ia warning that action may be required.
I . -
• To track the outcomes of policies and programs, arid adapt them
as necessary. '• <

This section addresses the question of how well the available
indicators of ecological condition, notwithstanding the gaps evident
in Exhibit 5-44, serve these purposes for some ecological issues that
have been of concern to EPA over the past decade. These do not
reflect all such issues, or signify EPA's priorities, but simply typify a
diverse set of challenges for national ecojogical monitoring:
n Forest dieback

BI Vertebrate deformities !
n Harmful algal blooms
H Eutrophication
n Loss of biodiversity ;
• Non-target organism effects from pesticides and herbicides
• Issues related to ozone, UV-B, mercury, acidic deposition, and
persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBjTs)
For the first five issues listed above, biota were harmed before the
cause was known. For the other two, a perceived risk exists, but the
extent of artual harm or exposure is unknown. In either case, data on
the extent or trends in ecological condition is needed to inform how
research is targeted or regulatory programs adjusted. Identifying indi-
cators of the appropriate essential ecolqgical attribute also should help
to identify'some of the factors that mignt be contributing to the •
extent of and trends in harm to biota and ecosystem function (EPA,
SAB, 2002). I
i i
i
Forest dieback

Forest dieback can be exacerbated, if pot caused, by some combina-
tion of acid deposition, air pollution, LJV-B radiation, disease, insects,
and unusual climate events (USDA, FS; 2002). Currently, the forest '
indicators; provide a baseline for the extent of poor tree condition in i
37 states; soon, these indicators will provide a baseline and future
trends for the conterminous U.S. NDVl data are available as a surro-
gate for primary productivity in forests. FIA program plots are being
examined for indications of harm to ozone-sensitive species. Relevant
soil data (exchangeable base cations) are being measured, even
5-74
5.9 Challenges and Data Gaps
Chapter J5 - tcological Condition
-------

though that indicator cannot yet be reported. A UV-B monitoring
network has been collecting data for less than 2 years, and the data
are currently being evaluated. Data for ozone and acid deposition in
high elevation forests remain poor, as do climate data. Most of these
indicators are being monitored using a probability design, so contin-
ued FIA monitoring can provide a national baseline for assessing the
extent and trends in forest dieback, and some of the EEAs that may
contribute to it. . . -

Vertebrate deformities

The ability of exogenous chemicals to interfere with normal
endocrine functioning and related processes of an organism has
raised increasing concerns for human health and the environment.
Studies have reported that both synthetic and naturally occurring
compounds interfere with normal endocrine function of inverte-
brates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals causing effects
such as birth defects, impaired fertility, masculinization of female
organisms, feminization of male organisms, or organisms with both
male and female reproductive organs. Two recent reports summarize
available data from field and laboratory studies and provide an
assessment of the state of the science (EPA, RAF, 1997; IPCS, 2002).
The existing challenge is to further elucidate the cause-and-effect
relationships for the observed adverse effects, determine which
chemicals are of greatest concern, and the extent to which these
chemicals negatively impact populations of fish and/or wildlife.

The only indicator identified in this chapter that tracks the extent or
trends in animal deformities (irrespective of the cause) is a Category
2 indicator, Fish Deformities, collected by EMAP in coast and ocean
ecosystems. Data are being collected on amphibian deformities by
the USGS, using reports from a wide array of sources. A new national
survey, the Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative, was estab-
lished by USCS in 2000. However, it may be several years before
USCS and EPA can detect national and/or regional trends from this
initiative. Until there is a better understanding of which chemicals are
of greatest concern, there is also some question about which chemi-
:ij*"7i^"'.r^i-"ij ,;-,r — '~ ' ••'-'•- -Llf'- -' .' ' s '• T1 — ' — . , _ - •'.,-•,' -••••'.-'..-" .:'.••.'-'•' - - - • ' " " " " ' ' > • .
ifNbte: Numbers correspond to indicator categories presented in this report. : "----'-. •-;.., -,...*« -»»«««-» "••-'•"-'^S^-IT''"'
Ife-^- "• '"';-±- -'•''.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 55.9 Challenges and Data Caps
5-75
-------
' '''•''''•! ' !':; 11
ET/AS Draft Mport oh the Environinent 2QO3 • Technical Document
' rrr - . • • • M r ;••••'<• . : • •/r HI
cals to monitor in the fish and wildlife habitat. Additional information
on chemicals will become available once EPA has fully implemented
an Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program to test a chemical for its
potential endocrine disruption activity.

Harmful algal blooms
Scientists have also been concerned about the condition of the
nation's estuaries and in particular, about a perceived increase in
harmful algal blooms (HABs); loss of submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV), which serves as habitat for fish; and sediment toxicity, which
might limit the productivity of an important component of the
estuarine food chain (Anderson and Garrison, 2000; Gallagher and
Keay, 1998). EMAP, working with the states, has collected data on the
condition of SAV, estuarine fish communities, estuarine benthic
communities, sediment toxicity, and nutrient concentrations that
should provide representative-status and trends data for these
indicators. The sampling design does not allow tracking of the
frequency and extent of HABs or nutrient levels in estuaries, but USGS
does monitor nutrient loads to coastal systems from four of the largest
U.S. rivers. Continued monitoring of the estuaries is subject to state-
by-state availability of funding.

Eutrophication
EPA has recently focused substantial attention on the listing by the
states of their waters that do not meet their designated uses (usually
expressed in terms of their ability to support aquatic life), and devel-
oping total maximum daily loads of pollutants that would allow the
designated use to be achieved. Concern over eutrophication of lakes
and reservoirs has prompted EPA to begin developing regional stan-
dards for the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus. At present, there is
no indicator monitoring suitable to track progress in reducing the
number of eutrophic lakes and streams or the condition of the biotic
communities in rivers and streams at the national or even regional
level. Indicators monitored by the states are not comparable, the
same waters are not necessarily sampled over time, and their repre-
sentativeness is unknown and questionable. NAWQA uses compara-
ble methods and intends to monitor the same streams over time, but
the number of such streams in the various ecosystem types is too
small to adequately represent all the factors that contribute to water
quality at the national level. While the data are likely to be broadly
representative of certain types of streams, they cannot be expanded
to alt streams with known statistical reliability. This fact is particularly
important if the combination of factors affecting water quality in the
study units (which depend on a variety of factors, including water
quality management by the states, national patterns of air pollution
and acid rain, geology and land use, and climate) is not statistically
representative of these factors nationally. EMAP has demonstrated
regional approaches to statistically representative sampling that
include both biology and chemistry, but has not yet reported on
relationships between them, nor is there any long-term commitment
to repeating the pilot studies or expanding them to other regions.
EPA is currently working with the states to rectify this situation, and
some progress is reported in Chapter 2, Purer Water.
toss of biodiversity

EPA is concerned generally about biodiversity, and this is one of the
primary areas on which EPA comments in Environmental Impact
Statements for significant projects involving federal funding under
NEPA. The NatureServe indicator reported for many of the ecosys-
tems is invaluable in indicating species at risk in the vicinity of such
projects. Becapse the database is not based on a systematic survey
of plots over time, however, it is not clear now to interpret data that
are not reported. For example, the current data cannot distinguish
naturally rare species from species whose numbers have been
reduced. It is ;iot clear how to determine whether future trends are
the result of better (or less) field work or the actual status of the
species in question. The answer likely depends on the species, but at
this point the data seem less than ideal for national reporting.

. Non-target organism effects from pesticides and herbicides

EPA is concerned about non-target organism effects from pesticides
and herbicides. Pesticides and herbicides /including those
incorporated into the genomes of crops) are registered for use by
EPA such thai: their use in accordance with the registration is not
expected to pose unnecessary risks to non-target organisms.
Nonetheless, neither the models nor the compliance are likely to be
perfect, so tracking any residues of such pesticides in non-target
organisms would be useful, as would identifying any harm or
mortality of organisms that might be caused by improper use of
pesticides. There are Category 2 indicators for pesticide application
and leaching pesticides in stream biota, and pesticides in sediment
and fish tissue for fresh waters. There are no indicators in The Heinz
Center report for pesticides in terrestrial' organisms. Another
indicator that might provide presumptive evidence of harm—animal
die-off in fresh waters—is adequate for national reporting only for
waterfowl. :
5-76
5.9 Challenges and Data Gaps
Chapter 5;- Ecological Condition
-------
I^M
Issues related to ozone, UV-B, mercury, acidic deposition, and
persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs)

In air, a number of pollutants travel regionally or even globally (e.g.,
ozone, acid deposition, PBTs [including mercury], ozone-depleting
substances, greenhouse gases). What do the indicators reveal about
baselines and trends in the levels of these pollutants in various
ecosystems, or possible harm to biota as a result of exposure to
these pollutants or their secondary effects? The chemical and physi-
cal characteristic EEA in Exhibit 5-44 contains many Category 2
indicators, but no indicators are available that provide a representa-
tive baseline for the nation.

For water, the NAWQA program samples sediment chemistry in more
than 500 streams for many PBTs. Repeated sampling should provide
an invaluable picture of trends, unless the variability is too high or
there are important local sources that make these streams non-rep-
resentative of streams in general. A smaller number of streams have
been sampled for contaminants in fish tissue. A.national monitoring
network for mercury currently exists, with sampling sites primarily on
the East coast and in the upper Midwest (see Chapter 2, Purer
Water), but it is not adequate for establishing a national baseline for
mercury or other PBTs. Monitoring for UV-B exposure is under devel-
opment by USDA. EMAP has collected fish tissue residues for many
of the PBTs, but there is no commitment to re-sample in the future.

To the extent that these factors affect tree growth, FHM will provide
national trends information in the future, but at this point, there is
no prospect for establishing trends in either exposure or effects for
most of these chemicals.
Future Cnall*
,enges
When the indicators available for this report are arrayed against the
essential attributes in Exhibit 5-44, it is clear that indicators and
adequate data are available to address only a portion of the informa-
tion needed to describe ecological condition for the nation. Data for
a few more indicators have been collected once, or for limited geo-
graphic regions, but the clear message is that more data are needed
to describe and track ecological condition. This situation will improve
over the next few years, but most of the gaps in Exhibit 5-44 are
likely to remain for some time to come.

There are several challenges to developing adequate indicators of
ecological condition for the nation:

• Indicators must be tied to conceptual models that capture how
ecosystems respond to single and multiple stressors at various
scales.

• Federal, state, and local monitoring organizations must find a way
to coordinate and integrate their activities to meet multiple,
potentially conflicting, data needs.
• Mechanisms must be found to ensure long-term commitments to
measuring selected indicators over long periods and in
standardized ways, to establish comparable baselines and trends.
• Indicators must simplify complex data in ways that make them
meaningful and useful to decision-makers and the public.

None of these challenges appear insurmountable, but the gaps in
Exhibit 5-44 indicate the work that remains to allow measurement of
ecological condition at the national scale.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition 5.9 Challenges and Data Caps
5-77
-------
"t
-------
Appendix A:
Databases
and Reports
Clusters of
Indicators Used in
the Report with
Links for Additional
Information
-------
~ ' ' ' •'• • j .; • . t ;:. ; '.•:-.., j . • ' ..::•.'. • • .•.:•,•..'.'.'..•• '-- :.'':'!. j J.J.I. I

EPAs Draft Mpbrt qn the Environrrjent 2.b.6;5 • jlcniiical:'DoC:y:rtil|il|:
I i ' ' ' " • •' ;' "I1 • ':|l ;|"' ' ' • . '•• . I.'.::1!",,;'!;•];: -N:'!;'!.1,!1:''.'';-1"""'.!" " -I'!".1. .-. ', ..:-' .i :"•,."•. ••" :V:H:iU:.:i:Wi'i':. .:'•:• I ."ft ;:•!:.I if:
Appendix A: Databases ana Reports Supporting AAajor

Clusters of Indicators Used in tne Report with Links for

Additional Information

The databases that serve as the underlying datasets and the reports
that provide the majority of indicators used in the Draft Report on the
Environment Technical Document are listed by human health and envi-
ronmental categories in alphabetical order below. In the interests of
providing complete and accurate information, rather than provide sum-
mary descriptions of the databases, links to the primary home pages of
the databases are noted as starting points for further investigation by
interested readers.
Human Health Databases
Database:

Web site:

Database:

Web site:

Database:
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm (NHANES)

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National
Health Interview Survey (NHIS)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development (ORD), National Human Exposure
Assessment Survey (NHEXAS)
Web sites: http://mrw.epa.gov/nerl/research/nhexas/nhexas.httn
(NHEXAS) and http://www.epa.gov/heds/ (NHEXAS data
in EPA's Human Exposure Database System)

Database: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Epidemiology Program Office, National Notifiable
Disease Surveillance System
Web sites: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/ (Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report) http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/
(Summary of Notifiable Diseases)

Database: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National
Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS)
Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm

Database: National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer
Institute (NCI), Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End
Results (SEER) Program
Web site: http://seer.cancer.gov/ ,
Environmental Databases and Reports
!
Database: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
Website: AIRS and the Air Quality System—
http://www.epa.gov/ttnairsl/aifsaqs/index.htm

Database: Environmental Protection Agejicy, Office of Research
aind Development, Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP)
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/emap/ \

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service,
Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/fhm/index.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service,
Forest Inventory and Analysis( (FIA)
http://fia.fs.fed.us I

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, Latest Findings on Rational Air Quality: 2001
Status and Trends , : j
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01/

Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MLRC)
Consortium, National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD)
MRLC: http://www.epa.gov/mrk/
NLCD: http://www.epa.goY/nlrlc/nlcd.html
Database:

Web site:

Database:

Web site:

Report:

Web site:

Database:

Web sites:
Database: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, National Resources Inventory (NRI)
Web site: http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/NRl/1997/

Database: U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Geological Survey, National
Web site:
1 Stream Water Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN)
http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan/
Database: ! .U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey,
i National Water Quality Assessment (NWAQA)
Web site: : http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/

Database: < U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Web site: NWI: http://www.nwi.fws.gov/ -

Database: NatureServe !'
Web site: http://www.natureserve.org "

Report: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous
United States 1986 to 1997\
Website: http://www.nwi.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html
• ! -
Report: ! The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the
Environment, The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the
Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States
Web site: http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems
. \
Database: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information, Toxics Release [inventory (TR1)
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/tri/ ;
A-2
Databases and Reports Supporting Major Clusters of Indicators Used in the Report /Appendix f\
-------
-------
uPAs Draft fciport on the Environment 2003W Technical. Document
« ' i ' '- ' I \ ••'"•'].' ' • -• . - ' '• i M :!;!:!
lerms Used in the

Indicator AAetadata

Appendix
Indicator names are those presented in the text report of this.
Indicator type (status or trend) - Indicators are designated status
if the indicator is supported by a single data point or study, a
snapshot in time. Indicators are designated trends if there are at
least three data points.
Indicator category. Indicators were assigned to one of two
categories:
• Category 1 —The indicator has been peer reviewed and is
supported by national level data coverage for more than one time
period. The supporting data are comparable across the nation and
are characterized by sound collection methodologies, data
management systems, and quality assurance procedures.
• Category 2—The indicator has been peer reviewed, but the
supporting data are available only for part of the nation (e.g.,
multi-state regions or ecoregions), or the indicator has not been
measured for more than one time period, or the not all the
parameters of the indicator have been measured (e.g., data has
been collected for birds, but not for plants or insects). The
supporting data are comparable across the areas covered, and are
characterized by sound collection methodologies, data
management systems, and quality assurance procedures.

All category designations for the indicators and associated data are
relative to the specific associated question.
Spatial coverage is scale and geographic information about where
monitoring and sampling have taken place.
Temporal coverage is the time period in which the data has been
collected and includes information about seasonally of collection •
activity where relevant
Characterization of supporting data set(s) is descriptive
information about the history of the database and its collection
methodologies, data management systems, and quality assurance
procedures.
Indicator source information, including derivation and web sites,
arc provided for readers who want additional information.
Chapter 1: (Cleaner Air
Outdoor Air Quality
Indicator name: Number and percentage of days that metropolitan
statistical areas: (MSAs) have Air Quality Index (AQI) values greater
than 100 ;

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend :

Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 '
r
Associated question: What is the quality of outdoor air in the
United States? \

Spatial coverage: National. Based on the measurements, EPA
designates geographical areas of attainment (meeting standards) and
nonattainment for specific criteria air pollutants.

Temporal coverage: 1988-2001.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Air
Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and the State and Local Air Monitoring
Stations network measures air quality at 5,200 monitors operating at
3,000 sites across the country, mostly in urban areas.
Measurements, taken on both a daily and continuous basis to assess
both peak concentrations and overall trends, are reported in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval Systems (AlRS). Trends are derived
by averaging direct measurements from the£e monitoring stations on
a yearly basis. Not all sites monitor all of the six criteria air
pollutants. The Air Quality System (AQS) database contains
measurements of criteria air pollutant concentrations in the SO
United States,! plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands. >

EPA uses the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean
Air Act (CAA): ground-level ozone, particujate matter, carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. In large metropolitan
areas (more than 350,000 people), state and local agencies are
required to report the AQI to the public daily. In 1976, EPA
developed the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI), a consistent and easy
to understand way of stating air pollutant concentrations and
associated health implications. In June 2000, EPA updated the index
and renamed it AQI. PSI and AQI are similar as they both focus on
health risks of brief exposure to pollutants (a few hours or days);
involve air pollutants regulated by the CAA (criteria pollutants); use
the same method to calculate index valuesj and use an index value of
100 to represent pollutant concentration at the level of the national
ambient standard set by EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). Beginning in 2000, the AQI included new features
including a new health risk category, unhealthy for sensitive groups;
two additional pollutants (ozone averagediover 8 hours and fine
particulate miatter less than 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.s); and a
specific color associated with each of the health risk categories.
B-2
Indicator Metadata
/Appendix D
-------

, Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
For 1988 through 1991, data were drawn from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1997. Table A-1S.
EPA 4S4-R-98-016. Research Triangle Park, NC: EPA. December,
1998. For 1992 through 2001, data were drawn from U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Air trends: Metropolitan area trends, Table A-17. 2001.
(February 25, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/metro.html).

Web sites: AIRS and AQS
http://www.epa.gov/ttnairs1/airsaqs/index.htm;
7997 air quality trends report
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd97/tables.html;
2000 air quality trends tables
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/metro.html/;
AQI background
http://www.epa.gov/airnow/aqibroch/
Indicator name: Number of people living in areas with air quality
levels above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for particulate matter (PM) and ozone

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 and 2): 1

Associated question: How many people are living in areas with
particulate matter and ozone levels above the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS)?

Spatial coverage: National. Based on the measurements, EPA
designates geographical areas of attainment (meeting standards) and
nonattainment for specific criteria air pollutants.

Temporal coverage: 2001

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), the repository of
data collected from the NAMS and the SLAMS is reported in U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air
Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-001, Washington,
DC: EPA., Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002.
Web sites: AIRS and AQS
http://www.epa.gov/ttnairs1 /airsaqs/index.htm;
Air quality trends report http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01/
Indicator name: Ambient concentrations of particulate matter
(PM2.5 and PM10)

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 and 2): 1

Associated question: What are the concentrations of some criteria
air pollutants: PM2 5, PM-|Q> ozone, and lead?

Spatial coverage: National. Based on the measurements, EPA desig-
nates geographical areas of attainment (meeting standards) and
nonattainment for specific criteria air pollutants.

Temporal coverage: 1982-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Air
Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and the State and Local Air Monitoring
Stations (SLAMS) network measure air quality at 5,200 monitors
operating at 3,000 sites across the country, mostly in urban areas.
Measurements, taken on both a daily and continuous basis to assess
both peak concentrations and overall trends, are reported in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval Systems (AIRS). Trends are derived
by averaging direct measurements from these monitoring stations on
a yearly basis. Not all sites monitor all of the six criteria air
pollutants. In 1999, EPA and its state, tribal, and local air pollution
control agency partners deployed a monitoring network to begin
measuring PM2 5 concentrations nationwide. The PM2 5 data
presents was drawn from AIRS as of July 8, 2002. 770 sites have
sufficient PM10 to assess trends from 1992-2001.

Web sites: AIRS and AQS
http://www.epa.gov/ttnairs1/airsaqs/index.htm;
Air quality trends report http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 /
Indicator name: Ambient concentrations of ozone, 8-hour and
1 -hour

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 and 2): 1

Associated question: What are the concentrations of some criteria
air pollutants: PM2 5, PM-jrj, ozone, and lead?
Appendix u
Indicator Metadata
B-3
-------
n p! , ,1 E . i , -)r\^\z ''A Tl 1 • ^1 TV Hi
rart Report on the tnvironrrient 2UUft • technical Uocument
Spatial coverage: National. Based on the measurements, EPA desig-
nates geographical areas of attainment (meeting standards) and
nonattainment for specific criteria air pollutants.

Temporal coverage: 1982-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Air
Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and the State and Local Air Monitoring
Stations (SLAMS) netwqrk measure air quality at 5,200 monitors
operating at 3,000 sites across the country, mostly in urban areas.
Measurements, taken on both a daily and continuous basis to assess
both peak concentrations and overall trends, are reported in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval Systems (AIRS). Trends are derived
by averaging direct measurements from these monitoring stations on
a yearly basis. Not all sites monitor all of the six criteria air pollu-
tants. 379 sites have sufficient data to assess trends from 1992-
2001 for both 8-hour and 1 -hour measurements.

Web sites: AIRS andAQS
http://www.epa.gov/ttnairs1/airsaqs/index.htm;
Air quality trends report http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 /
Indicator name: Ambient concentrations of lead

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 and 2): 1

Associated question: What are the concentrations of some criteria
air pollutants: PM2.5, PM10, ozone, and lead?

Spatial coverage: National. Based on the measurements, EPA desig-
nates geographical areas of attainment (meeting standards) and
nonattainment for specific criteria air pollutants.

Temporal coverage: 1982-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Air
Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and tfie State and Local Air Monitoring
Stations (SLAMS) network measure air quality at 5,200 monitors
operating at 3,000 sites across the country, mostly in urban areas.
Measurements, taken on both a daily and continuous basis to assess
both peak concentrations and overall trends, are reported in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval Systems (AIRS). Trends are derived
by averaging direct measurements from these monitoring stations on
a yearly basis. Not all sites monitor all of the six criteria air pollu-
tants. EPA has over 200 lead monitoring sites for lead nationally in
addition to special purpose monitors near smelters and other lead
emitters. The lead trend is based on 39 monitors that have a full 20
years of complete data.
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), the repository of
data collected from the NAMS and the SLA'MS is reported in U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air
Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-001, Washington,
DC: EPA., Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002.

Web sites: AIRS and AQS
http://www.epia.gov/ttnairs1/airsaqs/index.htm;
http://www.epia.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 / ;
Indicator name: Visibility

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 and 2): 1

Associated question: What are the impacjts of air pollution on visi-
bility in national parks and other protected lands?

Spatial coverage: National. 30 sampling sites located in national
parks and wilderness areas through 1999;|110 sites after 2000 in
the monitoring network with an additional' 20 sites using the moni-
toring protocol. Applicable to 156 Class I areas, mostly national
parks and wilderness areas in the eastern and western U.S.

Temporal coverage: 1992-1999 and 1990-1999

Characterization of supporting data se^(s): Data are presented by
mean visual range as measured in kilometers respectively by worst,
mid-range, and best visibility. The Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network was established
in 1987 as a cooperative effort among EPA, states, the National Park
Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Data are collected and ana-
lyzed from this network to determine the type of pollutants primarily
responsible for reduced visibility and to track progress toward the
Clean Air Act's national goal. '

Indicator derivation (project, program! organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air
Quality: 200! Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-001, Washington,
DC: EPA., Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002.

Web site: Air quality trends report
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01/
Indicator mime: Ambient concentrations of selected air toxics
i
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend i
j
Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 j

Associated question: What are the concentrations of toxic air pollu-
tants in ambient air?
i
Spatial coverage: National, but no formpl monitoring network in
place limiting information.
B-4
Indicator Metadata
Appendix D
-------
:?Q6?
Temporal coverage: 1994-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Selected-air toxics
only, not all 188 identified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). Ambient
concentrations are based on annual averages from the reporting
sites. EPA and the states do not maintain an extensive nationwide
monitoring network for air toxics as they do for the criteria air
pollutants. While EPA, states, tribes, and local air regulatory agencies
collect monitoring data for a number of toxic air pollutants, both the
chemicals monitored and the geographic coverage of the monitors
vary from state to state. Measurements of benzene were taken from
95 urban monitoring sites around the country. These urban areas
generally have higher levels of benzene than other areas of the
country.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
The data come from a combination of several monitoring networks,
including: Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations Program;
Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program; Non-Methane Organic
Compound Monitoring Program; Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Network. Reported in U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air
Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA 4S4-K-02- 001, Washington,
DC: EPA, Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002.

Web site: Air quality trends report
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 /
Indicator name: Emissions: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10),
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 and 2): 2

Associated question: What are contributors to particulate matter,
ozone, and lead in ambient air?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1992-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Actual emissions data
are not presented and estimates are used. EPA estimates nationwide
emissions of ambient pollutants and their precursors based on actual
monitored readings or engineering calculations of the amounts and
types of pollutants emitted by vehicles, factories, and other sources.
Emission estimates are based on many factors, including the level of
industrial activity, technology developments, fuel consumption, vehi-
cle miles traveled, and other activities that cause air pollution
(EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Consistent estimation methods
have been developed to provide trend data. Estimation is particularly
necessary for mobile sources and area-wide sources. The methodol-
ogy for estimating emissions is continually reviewed and is subject to
revision. EPA is currently conducting such an evaluation of emissions
data, and emissions estimates may be updated. Trend data prior to
revisions must be considered in the context of those changes.
Emission estimates also reflect changes in air pollution regulations
and installation of emission controls.

Web site: Air quality trends report
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 /
Indicator name: Lead emissions

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend v

Indicator category (1 and 2): 2

Associated question: What are contributors to particulate matter,
ozone, and lead in ambient air?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1982-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): EPA estimates nation-
wide emissions of ambient pollutants and their precursors based on
actual monitored readings or engineering calculations of the
amounts and types of pollutants emitted by vehicles, factories, and
other sources. Emission estimates are based on many factors, includ-
ing the level of industrial activity, technology developments, fuel
consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and other activities that cause
air pollution (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002). Consistent estimation
methods have been developed to provide trend data. Estimation is
particularly ne'cessary for mobile sources and area-wide sources. The
methodology for estimating emissions is continually reviewed and is
subject to revision. EPA is currently conducting such an evaluation of
emissions data, and emissions estimates may be updated. Trend data
prior to revisions must be considered in the context of those
changes. Emission estimates also reflect changes in air pollution
regulations and installation of emission controls.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Criteria and Hazardous
Air Pollutants (HAPs) is a composite of many data sources reported
in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National
Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-001, Washington,
DC: EPA., Office of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002.
Appendix 6
Indicator Metadata
B-5
-------
EPAs Draft Report on the Environment 200J3 • lecnnical Document
Web site: Air quality trends report
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 /
Indicator name: Air toxics emissions
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend
Indicator category (1 and 2): 2
Associated question: What are contributors to toxic air pollutants
in ambient air?
Spatial coverage: National
Temporal coverage: 1990-1993,1996
Characterization of supporting data set(s): Hazardous air pollu-
tant estimates are currently available for 1990-1993 (a mix of years
depending on data availability on various source types) and 1996.
EPA compiles an air toxics inventory as part of the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI, formerly the National Toxics Inventory) to
estimate and track national emissions trends for the 188 toxic air ,
pollutants regulated under the CM. In the NEI, EPA divides emis-
sions into four types of sectors: 1) major (large industrial) sources;
2) area and other sources, which include smaller industrial sources
like small dry cleaners and gasoline stations, as well as natural
sources like wildfires; 3) onroad mobile sources, including highway
vehicles; and 4) nonroad mobile sources like aircraft, locomotives,
and construction equipment. The data presented are based on the
data in the NEI (EPA, OAQPS, September 2002).
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
The NEI for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) is a com-
posite of many data sources reported in U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001
Status and Trends, EPA 4S4-K-02-001, Washington, DC: EPA., Office
of Air Quality and Standards, September 2002.
Web site: Air quality trends report
http://www,epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd01 /

Acid Deposition
Indicator name: Deposition: wet sulfate arid wet nitrogen
Indicator type (status or trend): Status comparison
Indicator category (1 and 2): 2
Associated question: What are the deposition rates of pollutants
that cause acid rain?
Spatial coverage: NADP/NTN consists of over 250 sites in the
continental U.S., Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Temporal coverage: 1989-1991, 1999-2001
Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The data is collect-
ed by uniform methods/protocol under the National Atmospheric
Deposition Program (NADP)/National Trends Network (NTN) and
the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet). The NADP is a
cooperative program among federal and state agencies, universities,
electric utilities, and other industries that has measured precipitation
chemistry in the U.S. since 1978. The NADP/NTN is a nationwide
network of precipitation monitoring sites designed to measure
regional levels of atmospheric deposition. The NADP/NTN measures
wet acid deposition that occurs in rain, snow, or sleet) weekly at
about 250 monitoring stations throughout the U.S. The data are
subject to strict quality assurance and completeness screening in the
field, in the laboratory, and during analysis; 2) Presented total sulfur
and total nitrogen data are derived from CASTNet, a nationwide
network of over 70 sites concentrated in the eastern continental U.S.
that measure ambient air concentrations of pollutants, including
ozone. CASTNet has not yet completed its expansion into the Great
Plains and western states. CASTNet also measures dry deposition
(the process through which particles and gases are deposited in the
absence of precipitation) of acidic compounds. CASTNet data are
also subject to strict quality assurance and completeness criteria
(EPA, OAR, November 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program,'organization, report):
NADP/NTN iand CASTNet data are reported in. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Acid Rain Program:\2001 Progress Report, EPA
430-R-02-009, Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Air and Radiation,
November, 2002. j

Web site: NADP/NTN Data Access http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/
Indicator name: Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend '

Indicator category (1 and 2): 2 ;

Associated question: What are the emissions of pollutants that
form acid rain? !

Spatial coverage: Over 2000 facilities nationally.

Temporal coverage: 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data collected by regu-
lated facilities using certified continuous emissions monitors or equiva-
lent, beginning in 1994-95 with quarterly and annual totals tabulated
for each facility and aggregated for plants, states, and the U.S.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Acid Rain Program: 2007
Progress Report, EPA 430-R-02-009. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office! °f Air anc' Radiation,
November 2002. Appendix A: Acid Rain Program - Year 2001 SO2
Allowance Holdings and Deductions. (April 8, 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/airinarkets/cmprpt/arp01 /appendixa.pdf) and
Appendix B1: 2001 Compliance Resultslfor NOX Affected Units.
(April 8, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp01/appen-
dixbl.pdf). ;
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/index.html
B-6
Indicator Metadata
Appendix B
-------
pGUrtiertt ;
raft "Report on the /Environment 2005
Indoor Air Quality
Indicator name: U.S. homes above EPA's radon action levels

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 and 2): 2

Associated question: What is the quality of the air in buildings in.
the United States?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1989-1990

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Radon
Residential Study of 1989-1990 was a survey of the nation's housing
that estimated that 6 percent of U.S. homes (5.8 million in 1990)
had an annual average radon level greater than 4 picocuries per liter
(pCi/L) in indoor air. Data viability is limited given its age and
subsequent changes as a result of education efforts and new
housing stock.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Residential Radon
Survey: Summary Report, EPA 402-R-92-011. Washington, DC: EPA,
Office of Air and Radiation, October 1992.

Web site: Report is not available online.
Indicator name: Percentage of homes where young children are
exposed to environmental tobacco smoke

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 and 2): 2

Associated question: What is the quality of the air in buildings in
the United States?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: The National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) has been conduct-
ed continuously since 1957, the content of the survey has been
updated about every 10-15 years. In 1996 a substantially revised
NHIS content began field testing. This new questionnaire, described
in detail below, began in 1997 and improves the ability of the NHIS
to provide important health information. 1998 data is cited.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The NHIS is a
continuous nationwide survey in which data are collected through
personal household interviews. Self-reported information is obtained
on personal and demographic characteristics, illnesses, injuries,
impairments, chronic conditions, utilization of health resources, and
other health topics. The sample scheduled for each week is
representative of the target population, and the weekly samples are
additive over time. Response rates for special health topics
(supplements) have generally been lower. Because of the extensive
redesign of the questionnaire in 1997 and introduction of the
computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) method of data
collection, data from 1997 and later years may not be comparable
with earlier years. The indicator numerator was the number of
' children 6 years and under living in households with a resident who
smoked inside the home 4 or more days each week. The
denominator was the number of households with children ages 6
years and under.
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for
Health Statistics. Healthy People 2000 Final Review, DHHS Publication
No. 01 -0256. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service, October 2001.
Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hp2000/hp2k01 .pdf

Stratospheric Ozone
Indicator name: Ozone levels over North America
Indicator type (status or trend): Status (two separate data points,
not a trend)
Indicator category (1 and 2): 1
Associated question: What is the trends in the Earth's ozone layer?
Spatial coverage: Daily images of North America.
Temporal coverage: Begun in 1978, ongoing with a gap in coverage
from December 1994 through June 1996.
Characterization of supporting data set(s): High-resolution spec-
trographic images taken daily from National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) satellite platforms.
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ozone Levels Over
North America - NIMBUS-7/TOMS. March 1979 and March 1994.
(January,24, 2003; http://epa.gov/ozone/science/glob_dep,html).
Web site: The graphic images referenced by the indicator can be
found at http://www.epa.gov.ozone/science/glob_dep.html
Indicator name: Worldwide and U.S. production of ozone-depleting
substances

indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 and 2): 2

Associated question: What are causing changes to the ozone layer?

Spatial coverage: Global and national

Temporal coverage: Worldwide1986 and 1999; U.S.1958-1993

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Global—The present
report contains additional and updated data on the production and
consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS), as reported to
the United Nations Secretariat during the period 1986-2000, by
167 of the 183 parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Appendix 6
Indicator Metadata
B-7
-------
Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Secretariat has arranged the data
provided by the Parties into the groups for which control measures
arc prescribed in the protocol. To calculate the figures for each
group, the quantities in metric tons reported by the parties for
each substance of the group were multiplied by the ozone-
depleting potential (OOP) of that substance and added together.
All the data in this report is therefore presented in OOP tons.
National-Methodology uncertain.

Indicator derivation (project, p'rogram, organization, report):
Global: United Nations Environment Programme. Production and
Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances under the Montreal
Protocol 1986-2000, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment
Programme, Secretariat for The Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer and The Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, April 2002. National:
Historical data (1958-1993) is drawn from the report U.S.
International Trade Commission. 1993. Synthetic Organic Chemicals;
U.S. Production and Sales, Washington DC Government Printing
Office, 1994.
Web site: EPA report http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/
publications/emissions/index.html;
U.S. ITC report http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/
Jndicat/index.html
Web site: WMO report http://www.unep.ch/ozone/sap2002.shtml;
Global Equivalent Effective Chlorine graphic
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/graphs/graphs
Indicator name: Concentrations of ozone-depleting substances
(equivalent effective chlorine)

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 and 2): 2
Associated question: What are causing changes to the ozone layer?

Spatial coverage: Global .

Temporal coverage: 1992-2002

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Approximately 250
scientists from many countries of the developed and developing
world participated in the 2002 assessment as lead authors, coau-
thors, contributors, and reviewers.
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Scientific Assessment of
Ozone Depletion: 2002, Executive Summary, Report No. 47. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization, Global Ozone
Research and Monitoring Project, 2003. 2) Montzka, S.A., J.H. Butler,
J.W. Elkins, T.M. Thompson, A.D. Clarke, and LT. Lock. Present and
future trends in the atmospheric burden of ozone- depleting halo-
gens. Nature 398: 690-694 (1999). 3) National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics
Laboratory. Halocarbons and other Atmospheric Trace Species
(HATS). 2002. March 18, 2003;
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/graphs/graphs.html).
B-8
Indicator Metadata
Appendix B
-------

Chapter 2: turer Water

Waters and Watersheds
Indicator name: Altered fresh water ecosystems
Indicator type (status or trend): Status
Indicator category (1 or 2): 2
Associated question: What is the condition of fresh surface waters
and watersheds in the U.S.?
Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states. Applies to rivers, streams, lakes,
ponds and reservoirs, and does not account for all types of alter-
ation.1
Temporal coverage: 1992
Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The U.S.
Geological Survey's National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the
Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium's
National Land Cover Database (NLCD) were used to identify alter-
ation. NLCD uses remote-sensed image data. 2) Data on altered wet-
lands are available through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS): National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). NWI counts all wet-
lands, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds regardless of land ownership, but
recognizes only wetlands that are at least 3 acres, and ponds that
are at least 1 acre/At present, these data are not available in elec-
tronic form for the entire U.S.
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) MRLC Consortium's NLCD and the USGS's NHD, processed by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and
Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Environmental
Sciences Division plus the 2) USFWS's NWI. Presented in The State
of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 140 and 247 (The Heinz Center,
2002).
Web site: NHD http://nhd.usgs.gov/;
NLCD http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/about.html;
NWI http://www.nwi.fws.gov
Indicator name: Lake Trophic State Index

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What is the condition of fresh surface waters
and watersheds in the U.S.?

Spatial coverage: Northeast United States

Temporal coverage: 1991 -1994
Characterization of supporting data set(s): The EPA
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (EMAP) program con-,
ducted variable probability sampling on 344 lakes throughout the
northeastern United States. The EMAP trophic state characterization
is based primarily on the total phosphorus indicator. Descriptions of
total nitrogen, chlorophyll-a, total suspended solids, and Secchi disk
transparency were used to support the total phosphorus characteri-
zation.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Peterson, Spencer A., David P. Larsen, Steven G. Paulsen, and N. Scott
Urquhart. Regional Lake Trophic Patterns in the Northeastern United
States: Three Approaches. Environmental Management 22 (5):
789-801 (1999).

Web site: Full article not available on noncommercial website.
Indicator name: Wetland extent and change

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trends

Indicator category (T or 2): 1

Associated question: What is the extent and condition of wetlands?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states

Temporal coverage: 1950s to 1997 (1954-1974, 1974-1983,
1986-1997)

Characterization of supporting data set(s): An interagency group
of statisticians developed the design for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (USFWS) national status and trends study. The basic sam-
pling design and study objectives have remained constant for each
wetland status and trends report. The study design consists of
4,375 randomly selected sample plots (4-square-miles in area) that
are examined and characterized using aerial imagery provided by the
National Aerial Photography Program in combination with field verifi-
cation to determine wetland change. Estimates of change in wetlands
were made over a specific time period. To make the three studies
used comparable, the USFWS authors of the 2000 report adjusted
the estimate of wetland area for the mid-1980s in the 1991 report
to be in the same statistical range. Other factors contributing to this
adjustment were corrections to the wetland data set, and improved
data capture and measurement techniques (Dahl, 2000).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United
States 1986 to 1997, Washington DC: U.S. Department of the -
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000. 2) Frayer, WE., T.J.
Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and F.A. Graybill. Status and Trends of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United States,
1950'sto 1970's, Ft. Collins, CO: Colorado State University, 1983.
3) Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the
Conterminous United States, Mid-197Q's to Mid-1980's, Washington
DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1991.
Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-9
-------
., . i ..
EPAs Draft "RbjDbrt on tne Environment 20S.fJ:
Web site: DaM, 2000
http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html
Indicator name: Sources of wetland change/loss
Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trend
Indicator category (1 or 2): 2
Associated question: What is the extent and condition of wetlands?
Spatial coverage: Non-federal lands, lower 48 states, Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands
Temporal coverage: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
National Resources Inventory (NRI) data are collected every five
years, 1982-1997.
Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data collected for the
1997 NRI were based on a statistical design to sample 800,000
sample points, using photo-interpretation and other remote sensing
methods and standards. Data gatherers utilized a variety of ancillary
materials; extensive use was made of USDA field office records, infor-
mation provided by local Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) field personnel, soil survey and wetland inventory maps and
reports, and tables and technical guides developed by local field
office staffs.
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Summary Report 1997 National
Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), Washington, DC:
Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University, Statistical Laboratory, 2000.
Web site:
http%y/www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/
table16.html
Indicator name: Water clarity in coastal waters
Indicator type (status or trend): Status
Indicator category (1 or 2): 2
Associated question: What is the condition of coastal waters?
Spatial coverage: U.S. east coast south of Cape Cod, Gulf of
Mexico, and west coast.
Temporal coverage: 1990-1997 variable by region
Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data collected using a
statistically based random design from estuaries by transmissometer
at 1 meter below the water surface.
Geographic location/applicability: U.S. east coast south of Cape
Cod, Gulf of Mexico, and west coast
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAr*) Estuaries database as
presented in U.S. Environmental Protection1 Agency. National Coastal
Condition Report, EPA 620-R-01-005. Washington DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development and Office of Water, September 2001.

Web site: EMAP data
http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/datal/estuary/data/index.html;
NCCR http://eipa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html

Indicator name: Dissolved oxygen in coas :al waters
Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What is the condition of coastal waters?

Spatial coverage: U.S. east coast south of Cape Cod, Gulf of
Mexico, and west coast

Temporal coverage: 1990-1997 variable by region

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data collected using a
statistically-based random design from estuaries by point-in-time or
continuously recording dissolved oxygen meter a 1 meter above the
bottom. . |

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Estuaries database as
presented in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal
Condition Report, EPA 620-R-01 -005. Washington DC: EPA, Office of
Research and Development and Office of Water, September 2001.
i ;
Web site: EMAP data
http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/datal/estuary/data/index.html;
NCCR http://epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.htm!
Indicator name: Total organic carbon in sediments

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What is the condition of coastal waters?

Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic estuaries

Temporal coverage: 1997-1998

Characterization of supporting data setj(s): The EPA Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Siimmary Database contains
water quality, sediment, benthic community, and fish data collected
by several partners in MAIA Region estuaries in 1997 and 1998. The
MAIA program conducted regular fish surveys during the summer of
1998 to characterize the structure and health of the fish communi-
B-10
Indicator Metadata
Appendix B
-------
O^
ties. The stations sampled were selected according to a probabilistic
design. These stations were not identical with the stat ons sampled
for water'and sediment quality analyses conducted primarily in 1997;
therefore, it is not possible to directly compare these different
analyses station by station. However, it is statisticallyvalid to
compare results among classes of estuaries, (e.g., large versus small
estuaries, Delaware Estuary versus Chesapeake Estuary).
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment,
MAIA - Estuaries 1997-98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003.
Narragansett, Rl: EPA, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic
Ecology Division, May 2003.
Web site: MAIA Estuaries data
http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/html/data/estuary/9798/xport.html
Indicator name: Chlorophyll concentrations

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the condition of coastal waters?

Spatial coverage: National in scope, selected ocean regions

Temporal coverage: 1998-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data from the
National Aeronautical and Space Administration's (NASA) Sea
viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (Sea WiFS) were analyzed for
nine ocean regions, by the National Ocean Service (NOS),
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Reflectance, or light reflected from the sea surface is used to
estimate chlorophyll concentrations at the surface using a series
of assumptions accepted by the scientific community (The
Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
NASA Sea WiFS data analyzed by the NOS. Presented in The State of
the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 80 and 226 (The Heinz Center,
2002).

Web site: http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov
Indicator name: Percent urban land cover in riparian areas

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial, coverage: National, excluding Alaska

Temporal coverage: NLCD, 1992 imagery; C-CAP, mid-1990s
imagery; NHD, 1999.
Characterization of supporting data set(s): Riparian zones defined
as 30-meter buffer around streams, extent and locations extracted
from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Urban land cover
defined as sum of low-intensity residential, high-intensity residential,
and commercial/industrial/transportation land cover types in
National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and sum of high-intensity
developed and low- intensity developed land cover types in the
Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). Cover identified by aerial
imagery.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
NHD, NLCD, and C-CAP data processed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
Exposure Research Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division.

Web sites: NLCD http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/about.html;
C-CAP http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/index.html;
NHD http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html;
HUC http://water.usgs.gov/CIS/huc.html
Indicator name: Agricultural lands in riparian areas

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: National, excluding Alaska

Temporal coverage: NLCD, 1992 imagery; C-CAP, mid-1990s
imagery; NHD, 1999.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Riparian zones
defined as 30-meter buffer around streams, extent and locations
extracted from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Total
agriculture is defined as the sum of row crops and pasture land
cover types in the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and as
the amount of cultivated land in the Coastal Change Analysis
Program (C-CAP). Cover identified by aerial imagery.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
NHD, NLCD, and C-CAP data processed by U.S. EPA National
Exposure Research Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division.

Web sites: NiCD http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/abouthtml;
C-C4P http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/index.html;
NHD http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html;
HUC http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html
Indicator name: Population density in coastal areas

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: National
Appendix 6
Indicator Metadata
B-ll
-------

Temporal coverage: 1790 to 1994 population data
Characterization of supporting data set(s): Various Bureau of the
Census publications were used in preparing the article. NPA Data
Services, Inc. provided the population projection data for this paper.
The Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of the Interior, provided
historical information on coastal counties.
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
Culliton, Thomas J. "Population: Distribution, Density and Growth."
In NOAA's State of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1998. (February 2003;
http://state-of-coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html/pop_dl/pop.html).
Web site: http://state-of-coastnoaa.gov/bulletins/
html/pop_01 /pop.html
Indicator name: Changing stream flows
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend
Indicator category (1 or 2): 1
Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?
Spatial coverage: National
Temporal coverage: Since end of the 19th century focusing on
period from 1970s to 1990s
Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data are from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge network using standard
USGS protocols. Data are available in the form of daily streamflow
values reported as the average volume of water per second over a
24-hour period. Gauge placement by the USGS is not a random
process as gauges are generally placed on larger, perennial streams
and rivers, and changes seen in these larger systems may differ from
those seen in smaller streams and rivers (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): USGS
stream gauging network. Presented in The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, pages 142 and 249 (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Web site: http://www,water.usgs.gov.nwis.discharge
Indicator name: Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in
grassland/shrublands
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend
Indicator category: 2
Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?
Spatial coverage: National
Temporal coverage: 1950s to 1990s
Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data are from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge network using standard
USGS protocols. Data are available in the form of daily streamflow
values reported as the average volume of Water per second over a
24-hour period. Gauge placement by the UJSGS is not a random
process as gauges are generally placed on larger, perennial streams
and rivers, and changes seen in these largejr systems may differ from
those seen in smaller streams and rivers (The Heinz Center, 2002).
The number of sites with at least one no-ffow day in a year was
determined for each water year from 1950|to 1999. The correspon-
ding percentage value for that year was also calculated as 100 x
(number of sites/total sites). The percentage values were then aver-
aged over each decade (i.e., 1950s, 1960s1 1970s, 1980s, and
1990s). This procedure was followed for ajl sites with greater than
50% grassland/shrubland cover as well as jfor each ecoregion
(The Heinz Center, 2002). |
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
USGS stream gauge network. Presented mjhe State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, pages 166 and 259 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nwis/discharge
Indicator name: Sedimentation index |

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?
!
Spatial coverage: Statistically selected stream sites in the Mid-
Atlantic states (parts of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New
York and all of West Virginia) ;

Temporal coverage: 1993-1994 sampling years

Characterization of supporting data sejt(s): About 450 stream
reaches were sampled in the Mid-Atlantic] Highlands. To describe the
condition of all streams within the Highlands without sampling all of
them EMAP worked with EPA Region 3 and the states to develop a
regional statistical survey of streams. A sedimentation index was ;
developed far streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands to assess the
quality of insitream habitat to support aquatic communities. Stream
sedimentation was defined as an increase or excess in the amount of
fine substrate particles (smaller than 16m'm diameter) relative to an
expected reference value that is based on the region and the

Indicator derivation (project, program' organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams
Assessment, EiPA 903-R-00-015. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 3, Office of Research and Development,
August 2000. ;
Web site: MAIA Report http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/maha.html
Indicator name: Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen
Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trend
B-12
Indicator Metadata
Appendix B
-------

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: NADP/NTN consists of over 250 sites in the con-
tinental U.S., Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Temporal coverage: 2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The data is collect-
ed by uniform methods/protocol under the National Atmospheric
Deposition Program (NADP)/National Trends Network (NTN) and
the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet). The NADP is a
cooperative program among federal and state agencies, universities,
electric utilities, and other industries that has measured precipitation
chemistry in the U.S. since 1978. The NADP/NTN is a nationwide
network of precipitation monitoring sites designed to measure
regional levels of atmospheric deposition. The NADP/NTN measures
wet acid deposition that occurs in rain, snow, or sleet) weekly at
about 2SO monitoring stations throughout the U.S. The data are
subject to strict quality assurance and completeness screening in
the field, in the laboratory, and during analysis. 2) CASTNet is a
nationwide network of over 70 sites concentrated in the eastern
continental U.S. that measure ambient air concentrations of pollu-
tants. CASTNet has not yet completed its expansion into the Great
Plains and western states. CASTNet also measures dry deposition
(the process through which particles and gases are deposited in the
absence of precipitation) of acidic compounds. CASTNet data are
also subject to strict quality assurance and completeness criteria
(EPA, OAR, November 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
NADP/NTN and CASTNet

Web site:
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps2001 Aio3dep.pdf and
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps2001/nh4dep.pdf
Indicator name: Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams
and ground water

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: National. Major river basins and watersheds
across U.S.

Temporal coverage: 1992-1998

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Nitrate data were col-
lected annually from 105 stream sites and 1,190 wells in agricultural
areas from 36 major river basins in the conterminous U.S. 1992-
1998. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program samples watersheds with relatively
homogeneous land use/land cover to better illuminate the effect of
land use on water quality. All sample were collected and analyzed by
USGS according to the overall NAWQA design. The data are highly
aggregated and should be interpreted mainly as an indication of
general national patterns (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
USGS, NAWQA. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems,
pages 95 and 232 (The Heinz Center, 2002)

Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa
Indicator name: Total nitrogen in coastal waters

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic estuaries

Temporal coverage: 1997-1998

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The EPA Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Summary Database contains
water quality, sediment, benthic community, and fish data collected
by several partners in MAIA Region estuaries in 1997 and 1998. The
MAIA program conducted regular fish surveys during the summer of
1998 to characterize the structure and health of the fish communi-
ties. The stations sampled were selected according to a probabilistic
design. These stations were not identical with the stat ons sampled
for water and sediment quality analyses conducted primarily in 1997;
therefore, it is not possible to directly compare these different
analyses station by station. However, it is statistically valid to
compare results among classes of estuaries, (e.g., large versus small
estuaries, Delaware Estuary versus Chesapeake Estuary).

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment,
MAIA - Estuaries 1997-98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003.
Narragansett, Rl: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, May 2003.

Web site: MAIA Estuaries data
http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/html/data/estuary/9798/xport.html
Indicator name: Phosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban
streams

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: National. Major river basins and watersheds
across U.S.

Temporal coverage: 1992-1998
Appendix B
Indicator Metadata
B-13
-------
£lT\S Draft "Report on the Environment 20Q3;
Documera
Jit
Characterization of supporting data set(s): Phosphorus data were
collected annually from 105 stream sites in agricultural areas from 36
major river basins in the conterminous U.S. 1992-1998. The U.S.
Geological Survey's (USCS) National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program samples watersheds with relatively homogeneous
land use/land cover to better illuminate the effect of land use on
water quality. All sample were collected and analyzed by USCS
according to the overall NAWQA design. The data are highly aggre-
gated and should be interpreted mainly as an indication of general
national patterns (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
USCS, NAWQA. Presented in Tfie State of the Nation's Ecosystems,
pages 96 and 232 (The Heinz Center, 2002)
Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa
Indicator name: Phosphorus in large rivers
indicator category (1 or 2): 2
Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?
Spatial coverage: National. Major river basins and watersheds
across U.S.
Temporal coverage: 1992-1998
Characterization of supporting data set(s): Phosphorus data
were collected annually from 140 stream sites in agricultural areas
from 36 major river basins in the conterminous U.S. 1992-1998.
The U.S. Geological Survey's (USCS) National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) and National Stream Water Quality
Accounting Network (NASQAN) program sampling efforts from
1992 to 1998. NAWQA samples watersheds with relatively homoge-
neous land use/land cover to better illuminate the effect of land use
on water quality. All sample were collected and analyzed by USGS
according to the overall NAWQA design. The data are highly aggre-
gated and should be interpreted mainly as an indication of general
national patterns (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
USGS, NAWQA. Presented in , pages 141 and 248 (The Heinz
Center, 2002)
Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa
Indicator name: Total phosphorus in coastal waters
Indicator category (1 or 2): 2
Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?
Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic estuaries
Temporal coverage: 1997-1998
Characterization of supporting data set(s): The EPA Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Summary Database contains
water quality, sediment, benthic community, and fish data collected
by several partners in MAIA Region estuaries in 1997 and 1998. The
MAIA program conducted regular fish surveys during the summer of
1998 to characterize the structure and health of the fish communi-
ties. The stations sampled were selected according to a probabilistic
design. These stations were not identical with the stat ons sampled
for water and Sediment quality analyses conducted primarily in 1997;
therefore, it is not possible to directly compare these different
analyses station by station. However, it is statistically valid to com-
pare results among classes of estuaries, (e.g., large versus small estu-
aries, Delaware Estuary versus Chesapeake Estuary).

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment,
MAIA-Estuarie.> 1997-98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003.
Narragansett, Rl: EPA, Office of Research ahd Development, Atlantic
Ecology Division, May 2003.

Web site: MAIA Estuaries data j
http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/html/data/estuary/9798/xport.html
Indicator name: Atmospheric deposition of mercury

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 •

Associated question: What are pressures'to water quality?

Spatial coverage: National with limited coverage related to mercury
emission sources

Temporal coverage: 2001 ' .

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National
Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)i Mercury Deposition
Network (MDN) is a cooperative program:among federal and state
agencies, universities, electric utilities, and other industries. Samples
were collected from SO sites across the UjS. related to mercury
emissions. The network uses standardizedrmethods for collection
and analyses. Weekly precipitation sample^ are collected and ana-
lyzed by cold vapor atomic fluorescence. The MDN provides data
for total mercury, but also includes methylmercury if desired by a
site sponsor.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
NADP, MDN !
i
Website: i
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/maps/2001 /01 MDNdepo.pdf
Indicator name: Chemical contamination
water

Indicator type (status or trend): Status
n streams and ground
B-14
Indicator Metadata
Appendix D
-------
= -.._.:_-.-.•---..= .--•--•---• 1" .-._;. ..'... ..,,.:- ;..,.". . - =. .,.;••••' -••-•- •-•.•'•. •.-" •. . ;-
Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states

Temporal coverage: 1992-1998

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The data for freshwater
streams and ground water were collected and analyzed by the U.S.
Geological Survey's (USGS), National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) in 36 major river basins and aquifers across the U.S.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
USGS, NAWQA. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems,
pages 48-51 and 210 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa
Indicator name: Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: National in scope, 20 hydrologic basins

Temporal coverage: 1992-1998

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data collection from
1992-1996 included analyses for 76 pesticides and 7 selected
pesticide degradation products, in 8,200 samples of ground
water/surface water in 20 of the nation's major hydrologic basins.
The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program samples watersheds with relatively
homogeneous land use/land cover to better illuminate the effect of
land use on water quality. All sample were collected and analyzed
by USGS according to the overall NAWQA design. The data are
highly aggregated and should be interpreted mainly as an indica-
tion of general national patterns (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
USGS, NAWQA. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems,
pages 97-98 and 234 (The Heinz Center, 2002)

Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa
Indicator name: Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: Eastern United States

Temporal coverage: 1984-1986
Characterization of supporting data set(s): In the mid-1980s,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal
agencies commissioned a National Surface Water Survey (NSWS) to
examine the effect of acid deposition in over 1,000 lakes 1,000
lakes larger than 10 acres and in thousands of miles of streams
believed to be sensitive to acidification.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): 1)
EPA, NSWS and 2) Baker, LA., A. Herlihy, P. Kaufmann, and J. Eilers.
Acid Lakes and Streams in the United States: the role of acid
deposition. Science 252:1151-1154 (1991).

Web site: NSWS not available online and Baker, et al., not available
on a noncommercial website.
Indicator name: Toxic releases to water of mercury, dioxin, lead,
PCBs, and PBTs

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxics Release Inventory
(TR1) database consists of release and other waste management
information from facilities. EPA requires facilities to use one or
more of four general approaches to estimating/measuring releases,
namely, monitoring, emission factors, mass balance, and
engineering calculations. Facilities report release and other waste
management information along with information about release
estimation methods.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 Toxics Release Inventory Public
Data Release Report, EPA 260-S-02-001. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information, May 2002.

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/tri/
Indicator name: Sediment contamination of inland waters
Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: National, generally from sites targeted for con-
tamination problems

Temporal coverage: 1980-1999
Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-15
-------
-q- -| ;: :;•••=;•:: 1 rV&tit f "'*. f ||t|
;IMn;j1i||l.::U^|g^|M!:
Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data are contained in
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Sediment
Qualify Inventory, comprehensive national survey of data about the
quality of aquatic sediments in the United States mandated by
Congress, and the forthcoming report of this data is an update of a
1997 report. The underlying data primarily are those reported to the
EPA Storage and Retrieval (STORE!) database. Data are from 19,470
sites evaluated. Limitations of the compiled data include: the mixture
of data sets derived from different sampling strategies; incomplete
sampling coverage; the age and quality of the data; and missing
information, such as latitude and longitude. The limitations of the
evaluation approach include uncertainties in the tools used to assess
sediment qualify. Because of these limitations, the draft report
assesses locations in the U.S. where there is the probability of
adverse effects to human health and the environment. Since the data
in this report come from non-random sampling and do not cover the
entire country, EPA states that it is not appropriate to come up with
a national estimate of contaminated sediments. EPA also states that
the results from the trend assessment should not be extrapolated to
areas of the country where data were not available.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Incidence and Severity of
Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States,
National Sediment Quality Survey: Second Edition, DRAFT, EPA 823 -R-
01 -01, Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Water, December 2001.

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/surveyfs.html ,
Indicator name: Sediment contamination of coastal waters

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures to water quality?

Spatial coverage: Eastern U.S. south of Cape Cod and Gulf of
Mexico estuaries

Temporal coverage: 1990-1997

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The data for sedi-
ments and fish contamination in coastal waters were collected and
analyzed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). The
data were collected in a manner that allows conclusions to be drawn
concerning the majority (approximately 76 percent) of the area of
estuaries in the United States. The list of contaminants targeted in
sediments by EMAP include pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls .
(PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals.
Samples collected from over 2,000 location for measurement of over
100 contaminants. Sample sites selected based upon statistically
random design.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): EPA's
EMAP Estuaries data set (EPA, 2001) implemented through partner-
ships with the| National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), coastal states, and aca-
demia as reported in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National
Coastal Condition Report, EPA 620-R-01 -005. Washington DC: EPA,
Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, September
2001. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, 72 and 220
(The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: EM4P-http://www.epa.gov/emap'/;
NCCR http://i5pa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html
Indicator name: Sediment toxicity in estuaries

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are pressures ito water quality?

Spatial coverage: Eastern U.S. south of Cape Cod and Gulf of
Mexico estuaries ,

Temporal coverage: 1990-1997 for EMAP and since 1986 for
NOAA

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The data were
collected and analyzed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program. 1) The
EMAP data from over 2,500 location were collected in a manner
[
that allows conclusions to be drawn concerning the majority
(approximately 76 percent) of the area of estuaries in the United
States. Sample sites selected based upon statistically random
design. 2) The NOAA NS&.T bioeffects program collected toxicity
data from 22 major estuaries of the United States.

Indicator derivation (project, program,[Organization, report):
EPA's EMAP Estuaries data set (EPA, 2001 j) implemented in partner-
ship with NOAA, as reported in U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. National Coastal Condition Report; EPA 620-R-01 -005.
Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development and Office of Water, September 2001.
E
Web site: EMAP http://www.epa.gov/emap/;
NCCR http://epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html;
NOAA http://ccmaserver.nos.noaa.gov/NSandT/New_NSandT.htm!
Drinking; Water
Indicator narrie: Population served by community water systems
that meet all health-based standards i

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trends

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1
Associated question: What is the quality

Spatial coverage: National
if drinking water?
B-16
Indicator Metadata
Appendix 6
-------

Temporal coverage: 1993-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Community water
systems report monitoring violations quarterly to the states and
data are compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The over 55,000 water systems that are required to report
violations serve about 94% of the U.S. population. The Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) contains information
about public water systems and their violations of EPA's drinking
water regulations, as reported to EPA by states and EPA regions in
conformance with reporting requirements established by statute,
regulation and guidance. States report the following information to
EPA:
• Basic information on each water system, including: name, ID
number, number of people served, type of system (year-round or
seasonal), and source of water (ground water or surface water);
• Violation information for each water system: whether it has
followed established monitoring and reporting schedules, com-
plied with mandated treatment techniques, or violated any
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs);
• Enforcement information: what actions states have taken to
ensure that drinking water systems return to compliance if they
are in violation of a drinking water regulation;
• Sampling results for unregulated contaminants and for regulated
contaminants when the monitoring results exceed the MCL

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
EPA SDWIS1 Federal version.

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm

Recreation in and on the Water

Indicator name: Number of beach days that beaches are closed or
under advispry

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What is the condition of surface waters sup-
porting recreational use?

Scale and coverage: National, coastal

Temporal coverage: 2001 reporting year, collected since 1997

Characterization of supporting data set(s): A questionnaire is
sent to managers (usually health or environmental quality depart-
ments in states, counties, or cities) responsible for monitoring swim-
ming beaches on the coasts or estuaries of the Atlantic Ocean,
Pacific Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico, and the shoreline of the Great
Lakes; information on some inland fresh water beaches has also been
collected. Days that beaches are closed or under advisory are
extracted from the survey and compiled by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Respondents numbered 237 in 2001
reporting on 2,445 beaches.
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Beach Watch Program:
2001 Swimming Season, EPA 823-F-02-006. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, May 2002.
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/waterscienee/beaches/2001
surveyfs.pdf

Consumption of Fish and Shellfish
Indicator name: Percent of river miles and lake acres under fish con^
sumption advisories
Indicator type (status or trend): Status and trend
Indicator category (1 or 2): 2
Associated question: What is the condition of waters that support
consumption offish and shellfish?
Spatial coverage: National
Temporal, coverage: 1993-2001
Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National
Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) database includes
all available information describing state-, tribal-, and federally-
issued fish consumption advisories in the United States for the 50
States, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. Territories, and in
Canada for the 12 provinces and territories. The database contains
information provided to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) by the states, tribes, territories and Canada. The EPA has
compiled these advisory data into a database which lists, among,
other things, species and size offish or wildlife under advisory,
chemical contaminants covered by the advisory, location and sur-
face area of the waterbody under advisory, and population subject
to the advisory.
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Update: National Listing of Fish
and Wildlife Advisories. EPA 823-F-02-007, Washington, DC: EPA,
Office of Water, May 2002.
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/
factsheet.pdf
Indicator name: Contaminants in fresh water fish

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What is the condition of waters that support
consumption offish and shellfish?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states

Temporal coverage: 1992-1998 (USGS)
Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-T7
-------
I - '''•[<• I '! :'H '
ETTAS Draft feport ori tke Envirohirjent 2005
Characterization of supporting data set(s): From 1992 to 1998,
fish samples were collected and analyzed from 223 stream sites by
the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program. Tissue composites from whole fish
were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine
pesticides, and trace elements. The stream sites selected were r
epresentative of a large range of stream sizes, land use practices and
were not selected to be a statistical representation of U.S. streams
(The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
USGS, NAWQA; EPA, EMAP and GLNPO. Presented in The State of
the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 48-51 and 210 (The Heinz Center,
2002).

Web site: NAWQA http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa
Indicator name: Number of watersheds exceeding health-based
national water qualify criteria for mercury and PCBs in fish tissue

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What is the condition of waters that support
consumption offish and shellfish?

Spatial coverage: National; for mercury, 35 states (West coast and
eastern two-thirds of the U.S.)

Temporal coverage: 2001 reporting year, collected 1993-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The data set is a com-
pilation offish tissue quality data housed in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Advisories (NLFWA) fish tissue database. Mercury data represented
in 696 watersheds and PCBs in 153 watersheds. Mercury map is
based on 22,000 records offish tissue mercury concentrations from
the NLFWA where air deposition is the sole significant source of
mercury. Watersheds are eliminated from the analysis if they contain
potentially significant, but unquantified, runoff and effluent loads
from mercury mines, large-producer gold mines, and mercury-cell
chlor-alkati facilities. Watersheds are also eliminated when the total
screening level effluent load estimates for municipal wastewater
treatment plants and pulp and paper mills are above five percent of
the estimated waterbody-delivered air deposition load (EPA, Office
of Water, November 2001).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
EPA NLFWA Mercury Fish Tissue Database, June 2001 as presented
in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Maps: Unking Air
Deposition and Fish Contamination on a National Scale. EPA 823-F-01 -
026. Washington, DQ EPA, Office of Water, November 2001.

Web site: Mercury map
http://www.epa.gov/watersdence/maps/factsheet.pdf
C^napter 3: "Better

"Protected Land
Land Use

Indicator name: Extent of developed lands

Indicator type (status or trend): Status jand Trend

Indicator Category: 1

Associated question: What is the extent iof developed lands?

Spatial coverage: National, statistical sample of non-federal lands.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service's (NRCS) National Resources Inventory (NRI)
collects data at the same 800,000 sampling sites every five years in
all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and some Pacific
Basin locations. i

Temporal coverage: At each NRI sample point, information is
available for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997 so that trends and
changes in land use and resource characteristics over 15 years can
be examined! and analyzed. i
[
Characterization of supporting data set(s): NRI is a statistical
sampling of over 800,000 locations to collect data on land cover
and use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity,
conservation practices, and related resource attributes. NRI is a com-
pilation of natural resource information on non-Federal land in the
U.S. ;

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Summary Report: 1997 National
Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), Washington, DC:
Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University, Statistical Laboratory, 2000.

Web site: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/tedhnical/NRI/
Indicator name: Extent of urban and suburban lands

Indicator type (status or trend): Statjjs

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the extent of developed lands?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states. ;

Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite land cover data.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Land
Cover Dataset (NLCD), in the 1990s, a federal interagency
B-18
Indicator Metadata
Appendix 6
-------
ilecnnicai 1^

consortium (the Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC)
consortium) was created to coordinate access to and use of land
cover data from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Using Landsat data
and a variety of ancillary data, the consortium processed data from a
series of 1992 Landsat images, to create the NLCD on a square grid
covering the lower 48 states. The MRLC NLCD with 21 land cover
classes, was further processed by the USCS for the Heinz Center to
estimate the urban and suburban area coverage for the U.S.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. Multi-resolution land characteristics consortium -
national land cover data. 1992. (February 19, 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html). Presented in The State of the
Nation's Ecosystems, pages 181 and 264 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: Data are available from http://www.usgs.gov/mrlcreg.html
Indicator name: Extent of agricultural land uses

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend

Indicator Category: 1

Associated question: What is the extent of farmlands?

Temporal coverage: At each NRI sample point, information is
available for 1982, 198Z 1992, and 1997 so that trends and
changes in land use and resource characteristics over 15 years can
be examined and analyzed.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): NRI is a statistical
sampling of over 800,000 locations to collect data on land cover
and use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity,
conservation practices, and related resource attributes. NRI is a
compilation of natural resource information on non-Federal land in
theU.S. ':

Web site: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/
Indicator name: The farmland landscape
Indicator type (status or trend): Status
Indicator Category: 2
Associated question: What is the extent of farmlands?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states.

Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite land cover data.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National
Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). In the 1990s, a federal interagency
consortium (the Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC)1
consortium) was created to coordinate access to and use of land
cover data from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Using Landsat
data and a variety of ancillary data, the consortium processed data
from a series of 1992 Landsat images, to create the NLCD on a
square grid covering the lower 48 states. The MRLC NLCD with 21
land cover classes, was aggregated and reprocessed by the USCS
for the Heinz Center to estimate the farmland landscape coverage
for the U.S.

Web site: Data are available from http://www.usgs.gov/mrlcreg.html
Indicator name: Extent of grasslands and shrublands

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the extent of grasslands and
shrublands?

Spatial coverage: The lower 48 states and Alaska.

Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite imagery

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The Multi-Resolution
Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium's National Land Cover
Dataset (NLCD) with 21 land cover classes, was used to estimate the
area coverage for the U.S. The NLCD is based on remotely sensed
imagery from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Data for Alaska were
estimated from a vegetation map of Alaska by Fleming (1996) based
on Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) remote-
sensing images with an approximate resolution of 1 km on a side
(The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. Multi-resolution land characteristics consortium -
national land cover data. 1992. (February 19, 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html). 2) Flemming, M,D. A Statewide
Vegetation Map of Alaska Using a Phenological Classification of AVHRR
Data. Anchorage, AK: 1996 Alaska Surveying and Mapping
Conference, February 1996. Presented in The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, pages 161 and 256 (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-19
-------

i_
Web site: Data are available from http://www.usgs.gov/mrlcreg.html
Indicator name: Extent of forest area, ownership, and management

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend

Indicator Category: 1

Associated question: What is the extent of forest lands?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: Data from late 1940s to present. Data since
1953 provided with a reliability of ± 3-10 percent per 1 million
acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA provides updates of
assessment data every five years.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The USDA Forest
Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is a survey-
based program that has operated since the late 1940s, collecting
information on a variety of forest characteristics. FIA has used a two-
phase sample (generally, double sampling for stratification) to collect
information on the nation's forests. Phase one establishes a large
number of samples (more than 4 million, roughly every 0.6 miles).
These are selected using aerial photographs or other remote-sensing
images, which are then interpreted for various forest attributes.
Phase two establishes a subset of approximately 450,000 phase-one
points (roughly every 3 miles) for ground sampling. About 125,000
of these samples are permanently established on forest land. The
forest characteristics measured include ownership, protection status,
Species composition, stand age and structure, tree growth,
occurrences of mortality and removals, tree biomass, incidences of
pathogens, natural and human-caused disturbances, and soil
descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Draft Resource
Planning Act assessment tables. August 12, 2002. (September
2003; http://wvfff.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801 /FIADB/rpaJabler/Draft_RPA_
2002Jrbrest_ResourceJables.pdf). Presented in The State of the
Nation's Ecosystems, pages 117 and 239 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/
Indicator name: Sediment runoff potential from croplands and
pasturelands

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What are the ecological effects associated
with land uses?

Spatial coverage: National, statistical sample of non-federal lands.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service's (NRCS) National Resources Inventory (NRI)
collects data at the same 800,000 sampling sites every five years in
all 50 states, F'uerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Isjands, and some Pacific
Basin location!;. ;

Temporal coverage: At each NRI sample point, information is avail-
able for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997 so that trends and changes in '
land use and resource characteristics over JI5 years can be examined
and analyzed. NRI is a compilation of natural resource information on
non-Federal land in the U.S. i

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data are from
USDA/NRCS STATSGO Soils Data and NR 1997 data (adjusted in
2000). The Sioil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is a public
domain rnodeil actively supported by the USDA Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) at the Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory
in Temple, Texas. :

Indicator derivation (project, program; organization, report):
Walker, Clive. Sediment Runoff Potential, 1990-1995. Hydrologic
Unit Modeling of the United States (HUNJIUS) Project. Temple, TX:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. August 24, 1999.

Web site: Exhibit source
http://www.cpa.gOV/iwi/1999sept/iv12c_usmap.html;
NRI http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/;
SWAT http://www.brc.tamus.edu/swat/ '

Chemicals in the Landscape

Indicator name: Quantity and type of toxic chemicals released and
managed i

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2 [

Associated question: How much and what types of toxics are
released into the environment? i

Spatial coverage: National '

Temporal coverage: 1998-2000 i

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Th'e U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) database consists of release and other waste management
information from facilities. EPA requires facilities to use one or
more of four general approaches to estimating/measuring releases,
namely, monitoring, emission factors, rnass balance, and engineer-
ing calculations. Facilities report release and other waste
management information along with information about release
estimation methods. •,

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.j2000 Toxics Release Inventory
Public Daia Release Report, EPA 260-S-02-001. Washington, DC: U.S:
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information, May 2002. j

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/tri/ |
B-20
Indicator Metadata
Appendix D
-------

Indicator name: Agricultural pesticide use

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the volume, distribution, and extent
of pesticide use?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1992 and 1997

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data are based on the
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) Pesticide
Use Database, a database of information on pesticide applications to
cropland for 220 active ingredients.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Data from the NCFAP, a private, non-profit, non-advocacy research
organization, as reported in Gianessi, LR, and M.B. Marcelli. Pesticide
Use in U.S. Crop Production. Washington D.C. November, 2000.

Web site: http://www.ncfap.org/ncfap/nationalsummary1997.pdf
Indicator name: Fertilizer use

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the volume, distribution, and extent
of fertilizer use?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1960-1998

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Resources and -
Environmental Indicators Report is based on a variety of surveys, as
well as the Census of Agriculture and the Natural Resources
Inventory.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Daberkow, S., H. Taylor, and W. Huang. "Agricultural Resources and
Environmental Indicators: Nutrient Use and Management."
September, 2000. In Agricultural Resources and Environmental
Indicators, Agricultural Handbook No. AH722. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, February
2003,4.4.1-4.4.49.

Web site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/arei2001 /
Indicator name: Pesticide residues in food

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator Category: 1
Associated question: What is the potential disposition of chemicals
used on land?

Scale and coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1997-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (POP) was started by
USDA in May 1991 to provide data on pesticide dietary exposure,
food consumption, and pesticide usage. POP data are based on
samples of approximately SO different commodities tested for more
than 290 different pesticides.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing
Service. Pesticide Data Program: Annual Summary Calendar Year 2000,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2002.
POP is USDA's program to collect data on pesticide residues in food.

Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/
Indicator name: Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 1

Associated question: What is the potential disposition of chemicals
used on land?

Temporal coverage: At each NRI sample point, information is avail-
able for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997 so that trends and changes in
land use and resource characteristics over 15 years can be examined
and analyzed. The data used in this analysis were from 1992.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Using national-level
databases, a simulation was conducted of potential pesticide losses
from representative farm fields. About 170,000 Natural Resources
Inventory (NRI) sample points were treated as "representative fields."
Thirteen crops were included in the simulation: barley, corn, cotton,
oats, peanuts, potatoes, rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugar beets, sun- '
flowers, tobacco, and wheat. The potential for pesticide loss from
each "representative field" was estimated using the state average
pesticide application rate and percent acres treated from the
National Pesticide Use Database. The maximum percent runoff loss
over a 20-year simulation of rainfall from the Pesticide Loss Database
was imputed to NRI sample points using match-ups by soil
properties and proximity to 55 climate stations. The total loss of
pesticides from each "representative field" was estimated by summing
over the loss estimates for all the pesticides that the National
Appendix 6
Indicator Metadata
B-21
-------
Ef/\s Draft Rteport on the Environment 2QOi$ • Technical Documellt
I ' . : i .• - i : ! I'.r ! i . - I : . . • ' • .-.'•[. I;; I f
Pesticlde Use Database reported for each State and crop. Watershed
scores were determined by averaging the scores for the NRI sample
points within each watershed.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Data are from 1)1) National Resources Inventory, U.S. Department.
of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1992; 2)
National Pesticide Use Database from Gianessi, Leonard P., and James
Earl Anderson. Pesticide Use in U.S. Crop Production: National Data
Report. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington
D.C, February 1995; and 3) Pesticide Loss Database from Don W.
Coss, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Temple, Texas.

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/iwi/1999sept/iv12a_usrnap.html
Indicator name: Risk of nitrogen export

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the potential disposition of chemicals
used on land?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states

Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite imagery

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. Multi-resolution land characteristics consortium -
national land cover data. 1992. (February 19, 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcdMml). 2) Wickham, J.D., K.H. Riitters,
R.V. O'Neill, K.H. Reckhow, T.G. Wade, and K.B. Jones. Land cover as
a framework for assessing risk of water pollution, journal of the
American Water Resources Association 36 (6): 1-6 (2000).

Web site: Data are available from http://www.usgs.gov/mrlcreg.html
Indicator name: Risk of phosphorus export

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the potential disposition of chemicals
used on land?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states

Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite imagery

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and-
Development. Multi-resolution land characteristics consortium -
national land cover data. 1992. (February 19, 2003; ,
http://www.epa.gov/mrk/nlcd.html). 2) Wickiham, J.D., K.H. Riitters,
R.V. O'Neill, K.H. Reckhow, T.G. Wade, and JK.B. Jones. Land cover as
a framework for assessing risk of water pollution. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association 36 (6r. 1 -6 (2000).

Web site: Data are available from http://www.usgs.gov/mricreg.html

Waste and Contaminated Lands
Indicator name: Quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) generat-
ed and managed

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: How much and what types of waste are
generated and managed?

Spatial coverage: National ;

Temporal coverage: Trends in MSW mapagement from 1960 to
1999, including source reduction, recovery for recycling (including .
composting), and disposal via combustioji and landfilling.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The supporting data
set addressees MSW in the U.S. that is ge.nerated, recycled, and
disposed. More recently, estimates of waste prevention have been
included as well. Data are provided both for specific materials
(glass, plastic, paper, etc.) in MSW and specific products (newspaper,
aluminum cans, etc.) in MSW.
i
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Data are from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures, EPA S30-S-02-
001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agehcy, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, June 2002. ,

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/
msw99.htm :
Indicator name: Quantity of RCRA hazardous waste generated
and managed ;

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2 !

Associated question: How much and what types of waste are
generated ;and managed? j

Spatial coverage: National i
B-22
Indicator Metadata
7 \ppendix "B
-------
technical 00£u^
..-..:- •--.: •- "-.- ' - '.- ••:' '-- . -.;,. ' .-' - I:"...-.,..;..:. .j.cX.^v^i^: .;/-• ,;..; ::luii IA :^T-;':;':i:3S^

Temporal coverage: Biennial

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Generators,
transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous waste
are required to provide information about their activities to state
environmental agencies. These agencies in turn pass on the
information to regional and national EPA offices. This information
is stored in EPA's RCRAInfo database.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Biennial RCRA
Hazardous Waste Report, EPA 530-R-01 -009. Washington DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, June 2001.

Website:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs99/index.htm
Indicator name: Quantity of radioactive waste generated and in
inventory

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: How much and what types of waste are
generated and managed?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: Fiscal year 2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Summary data on the
amounts (vplume/mass) and location of the radioactive waste, spent
nuclear fuel, and contaminated media managed by the U.S.
Department,of Energy (DOE). These data are provided in a publicly-
available report (Summary Data Report) and are based oh data in
the DOE's Environmental Management (EM) Corporate Database
(Central Internet Database).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
Central Internet Database. 2002. (January 2003;
http://cid.em.doe.gov).

Web site: http://cid.em.doe.gov
Indicator name: Number and location of municipal solid waste
(MSW) landfills

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend

Indicator Category: 2 •

Associated question: What is the extent of land used for waste
management?

Spatial coverage: National
Temporal coverage: Trends in MSW management from 1960 to
1999, including source reduction, recovery for recycling (including
composting), and disposal via combustion and landfilling.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): BioCycle magazine
collects the MSW landfill data annually through a survey to state
solid waste officers who relay the total number of landfills in
each state (as reported by state agencies, counties, and/or
municipalities). There is no quality review process for these data
and there are differences in the ways data is collected and
reported by the state programs.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
BioCycle Journal of Composting and Organics Recycling 41 (4), April
2000 as reprinted in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures,
EPA 530-S-02-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, June 2002.

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/
muncpl/msw99.htm
Indicator name: Number of RCRA hazardous waste management
facilities

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the extent of land used for waste
management?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1999

Characterization of supporting data set(s): RCRAInfo is
EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data
supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of
1984. RCRAInfo replaces the data recording and reporting abilities
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
(RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). The RCRAInfo
system allows tracking of many types of information about the
regulated universe of RGRA hazardous waste handlers. RCRAInfo
characterizes facility status, regulated activities, and compliance
histories and captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous
waste from large quantity generators and on waste management
practices from treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Biennial RCRA
Hazardous Waste Report, EPA 530-R-01 -009. Washington DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, June 2001.

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/index.htm
Appendix B
Indicator Metadata
B-23
-------

Indicator name: Number and location of Superfund National
Priorities List sites

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the extent of contaminated land?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1990-2002

Characterization of supporting data set(s): CERCLIS is the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System. CERCLIS contains information on haz-
ardous waste sites, potential hazardous waste sites, and remedial
activities across the nation, including sites that are on the National
Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for the NPL CERCLIS is
used by EPA to track activities conducted under its Superfund pro-
gram. Specific information is tracked for each individual Superfund
site. Sites which come to EPA's attention because of a potential for
releasing hazardous substances into the environment are added to
the CERCLIS inventory.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. National
Priorities List Site Totals by Status and Milestone. March 26, 2003.
(April 3, 2003; hltp://mw.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/
queryhtm/npltotal.htm) and Number of NPL Site Actions and
Milestones by Rscal Year. March 26, 2003. (April 3, 2003;
htip://ww»f.epa,gov/ superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfy/htm).

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm
ing of many types of information about th? regulated universe of
RCRA hazardous waste handlers. RCRAInfo! characterizes facility sta-
tus, regulated activities, and compliance histories and captures
detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste from large quan-
tity generators and on waste management;practices from treatment,
storage, and (disposal facilities. Currently, EPA believes that there are
over 6,500 facilities subject to RCRA CA statutory authorities. Of
these, approximately 3,700 facilities haveiCA already underway or :
will need to implement CA as part of the process to obtain a permit
to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. EPA refers to these
3,700 facilities as the "corrective action workload." To help prioritize
resources further, EPA established specific short-term goals for 1,714
facilities referred to as the RCRA Cleanup! Baseline.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Corrective action background. October 8,
2002. (October 15, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/
ca/backgnd.htm#5). [

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/index.htm
Indicator name: Number and location of RCRA Corrective Action
Sites

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the extent of contaminated land? .,

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1997-1999

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Corrective Action
(CA) is the term the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) program uses to describe the cleanup of sites that
manage hazardous wastes. The EPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) CA program keeps information on
CA sites in the RCRAInfo database. RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive
information system, providing access to data supporting the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRAInfo
replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCR1S) and the
Biennial Reporting System (BRS). The RCRAInfo system allows track-
B-24
Indicator Metadata
Appendix B.
-------

CJnapter 4: Human

Health
Health Status of the United States: Indicators and Trends of Health
and Disease
Indicator name: Life expectancy
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend
Indicator category (1 or 2): 1
Associated question: What are the trends for life expectancy?
Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the SO states and the
District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.
Temporal coverage: 1933 to present.
Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics
Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births,
deaths, marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all
births and deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and
Death Certificates are revised periodically. Most state certificates
conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard
certificate recommended by NCHS and all certificates contain a
minimum data set specified by NCHS. The mother provides demo-
graphic information on the birth certificate, such as race and
ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical and health information is
based on hospital records. Demographic information on the death
certificate is provided by the funeral director based on information
supplied by an informant. A physician, medical examiner, or coroner
provides medical certification of cause of death.
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
NCHS, NVSS
Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm
Indicator name: Cancer mortality

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend
Indicator category (7 or 2): 1

Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular
disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma?

Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and, the
District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.

Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1973-1998 data displayed.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS),'through the National Vital Statistics
Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths,
marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and
deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates
are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in
content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended
by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by
NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth
certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical
and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic
information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral
director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician,
medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of
cause of death.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
NCHS, National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS)

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm
Indicator name: Cancer incidence

indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular
disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1997-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the
National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to
provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases
defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State epidemiolo-
gists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabulates
and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
(MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United States.
Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by disease
or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review and recom-
mend additions or deletions to the list or nationally notifiable
diseases based on the need to respond to emerging priorities.
However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is voluntary.
Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at the
local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are consid-
ered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data are
useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative disease
burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of
reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting
also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control
measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the
interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials respon-
sible for disease control and public health surveillance, introduction
of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease entities can
Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-25
-------
y** *'i*i«^
cause changes in disease reporting that are independent of the true
incidence of disease.
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program
Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System
Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/;
Summary of Notifiable Diseases
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/
Indicator name: Cardiovascular disease mortality

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular
disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma?

Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the SO states and the
District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.-

Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1900-1996 data displayed.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics
Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths,
marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and
deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates
are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in
content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended
by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by
NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth
certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical
and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic
information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral
director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician,
medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of
cause of death.
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
NCHS, NVSS
Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm
Indicator name: Cardiovascular disease prevalence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular
disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: NHANES III, 1998-1994
Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a
series of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's
(CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is
designed to collect data on the health of [the United States popu-
lation, including information about many topics, such as nutrition,
heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001). The
NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years.
The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975;
NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES 111 was performed in
1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and
is ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were
collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to
be harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with •
laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people
in the survey, while other chemicals wereionly measured for a small
sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV meas-
ures exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous
NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for
only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
NHANES III, 1999. The CDC National Replprt on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals (often referred to| as the "CDC Report
Card") summarizes chemical exposure data from the 1999 NHANES;

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
Indicator name: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular
disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma?

Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.

Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1980-1998 data displayed.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS), through the relational Vital Statistics
Systems (NVSS), has collected and pub ished data on births, deaths,
marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and
deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates
are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in
content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended
by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by
NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth
certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical
and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic
information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral
director biased on information supplied by an informant. A physician,
medical exiaminer, or coroner provides medical certification of
cause of death.
B-26
Indicator Metadata
Appendix 6
-------

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
NCHS, NVSS

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm
Indicator name: Asthma mortality

indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular
disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma?

Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.

Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1980-1999 data displayed

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
NCHS, NVSS

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm
Indicator name: Asthma prevalence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What are the .trends for cancer, cardiovascular
disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: NHIS has been conducted continuously since
195^ the content of the survey has been updated about every 10-
15 years. In 1996 a substantially revised NHIS content began field
testing. This new questionnaire, described in detail below, began in
1997 and improves the ability of the NHIS to provide important
health information. 1980-1996 and 1980-1999 data displayed.
Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health
Interview Survey (NHIS) is a continuous nationwide survey in which
data are collected through personal household interviews. Self-
reported information is obtained on personal and demographic
characteristics, illnesses, injuries, impairments, chronic conditions,
utilization of health resources, and other health topics. The sample
scheduled for each week is representative of the target population,
and the weekly samples are additive over time. Response rates for
special health topics (supplements) have generally been lower.
Because of the extensive redesign of the questionnaire in 1997
and introduction of the computer-assisted personal interviewing
(CAPI) method of data collection, data from 1997 and later years
may not be comparable with earlier years.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Center for Health Statistics .(NCHS), National Health
Interview Survey (NHIS)

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm
Indicator name: Cholera prevalence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal ill-
nesses?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1997-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the
National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to
provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of dis-
eases defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State epidemi-
ologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tab-
ulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases,
United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can
vary by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually
review and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nation-
ally notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging
priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC
is voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation
only at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that
are considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease
data are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining
relative disease burdens.-However, these data must be interpreted
in light of reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data
reporting also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available,
the control measures in effect, public awareness of a specific
disease, and the interests, resources, and priorities of state and
local officials responsible for disease control and public health
surveillance, introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of
Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-27
-------

new disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that
arc independent of the true incidence of disease.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program
Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System
Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
http://wvw.cdc.gov/mmwr/;
Summary of Notifiable Diseases
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/
Indicator name: Cryptosporidiosis prevalence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal ill-
nesses?

Spatial coverage: National
Temporal coverage: 1997-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of
the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to
provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of
diseases defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State epidemiol-
ogists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC tabu-
lates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases, United
States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary by
disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review
and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally
notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging pri-
orities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is
voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only
at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are
considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data
are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative dis-
ease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of
reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting
also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control
measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the
interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials
responsible for disease control and public health surveillance,
introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new
disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are
independent of the true incidence of disease.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program
Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System

Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/;
Summary of Notifiable Diseases
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/
Indicator name: E. coli 0157:H7 prevalence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 '
i
Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal ill-
nesses? ; I

Spatial coverage: National !

Temporal coverage: 1997-2001 ;

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of
the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to .
provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of
diseases defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State .epidemiol-
ogists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC
tabulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases,
United Status. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary
by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review
and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally noti-
fiable diseases based on the need to reispond to emerging priorities.
However, reporting nationally notifiable' diseases to CDC is volun-
tary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only at
the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are
considered notifiable varies slightly by Istate. Notifiable disease data
are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative dis-
ease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of
reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting
also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control
measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the
interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials
responsible for disease control and pdblic health surveillance,
introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new'
disease entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are
independent of the true incidence of jdisease.

Indicator source (project, program,!organization, report):
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program
Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System

Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Wet kly Report
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/; ! :
Summary of Notifiable Diseases , •
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsCim/
Indicator name: Hepatitis A prevalence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2 ;
B-28
Indicator Metadata
Appendix B
-------
Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal
illnesses?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1997-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the
National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to
provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases
defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State
epidemiologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC
tabulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases,
United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary
by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review
and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally
notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging
priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is
voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only
at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are
considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data
are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative
disease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of
reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting
also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control
measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the
interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials
responsible for disease control and public health surveillance,
introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease
entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent
of the true incidence of disease.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program
Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System

Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/;
Summary of Notifiable Diseases
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/
Indicator name: Salmonellosis prevalence '

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal
illnesses?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1997-2001"

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the
National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to
provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases
defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State
epidemiologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC
tabulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases,
United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary
by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review
and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally
notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging
priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is
voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only
at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are
considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data
are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative
disease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of
reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting
also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control
measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the
interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials
responsible for disease control and public health surveillance,
introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease
entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent
of the true incidence of disease.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program
Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System

Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/;
Summary of Notifiable Diseases
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/
Indicator name: Shigellosis prevalence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal ill-
nesses?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1997-20Q1

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the
National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to
provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases
defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State
epidemiologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC
tabulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases,
United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary
by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review
Appendix B
Indicator Metadata
B-29
-------
Tefctirlteal Ddcflminfe
and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally
notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging
priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is
voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only
at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are
considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data
are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative
disease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of
reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting
also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control
measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the
interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials
responsible for disease control and public health surveillance,
introduction of new diagnostic tests, or discovery of new disease
entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent
of the true incidence of disease.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program
Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System

Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/;
Summary of Notifiable Diseases
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/
Indicator name: Typhoid fever prevalence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What are the trends for gastrointestinal ill-
nesses?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1997-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The purpose of the
National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System is primarily to
provide weekly provisional information on the occurrence of diseases
defined as notifiable by the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE) and annual summary data. State
epidemiologists report cases of notifiable diseases to CDC, and CDC
tabulates and publishes these data in the Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report (MMWR) and the Summary of Notifiable Diseases,
United States. Policies for reporting notifiable disease cases can vary
by disease or reporting jurisdiction. CSTE and CDC annually review
and recommend additions or deletions to the list or nationally
notifiable diseases based on the need to respond to emerging
priorities. However, reporting nationally notifiable diseases to CDC is
voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated by law or regulation only
at the local and state level. Therefore, the list of diseases that are
considered notifiable varies slightly by state. Notifiable disease data
are useful for analyzing disease trends and determining relative
disease burdens. However, these data must be interpreted in light of
reporting practices. The degree of completeness of data reporting
also is influenced by the diagnostic facilities available, the control
measures in effect, public awareness of a specific disease, and the
interests, resources, and priorities of state and local officials
responsible for disease control and public rjealth surveillance,
introduction of new diagnostic tests, or disfcovery of new disease
entities can cause changes in disease reporting that are independent
of the true incidence of disease.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program
Office, National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System

Web site: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/;
Summary of Notifiable Diseases '
http://www.ciJc.gov/epo/dphsi/annsum/ :
Indicator name: Infant mortality

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated (question: What are the trends for children's environ-
mental health issues?

Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.

Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1999 data displayed

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital
Statistics Systems (NVSS)

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm
Indicator name: Low birthweight incidence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend
B-30
Indicator Metadata
Appendix D
-------
cj^

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What are the trends for children's
environmental health issues?

Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.

Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1991-2000 data displayed.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics
Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths,
marriages; and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and
deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates
are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in
content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended
by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by
NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth
certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical
and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic
information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral
director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician,
medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause
of death. :

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS); National Vital
Statistics Systems (NVSS)

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/htm
Indicator name: Childhood cancer mortality

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What are the trends for children's environ-
mental health issues?

Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.

Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 1994-1998 data displayed.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics
Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths,
marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and
deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates
are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in
content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended
by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by
NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth
certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical
and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic
information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral
director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician,
medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause
of death.
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National'Vital
Statistics Systems (NVSS)
Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm
Indicator name: Childhood cancer incidence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or.2): 2

Associated question: What are the trends for children's environ-
mental health issues?

Spatial coverage: Eleven Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(SMSAs) amounting to fourteen percent of the U.S. population.

Temporal coverage: 1973 to present; 1975-1998 data displayed.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National
Cancer Institute is a source of information on cancer incidence and
survival in the United States. The SEER Program began on January 1,
1973. NCI contracts with 11 population-based registries that cover
eleven SMSAs (and three supplemental registries) within the United
States to provide data on all residents diagnosed with cancer during
each year and to provide current followup information on all
previously diagnosed patients. The SEER Program covers
approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population. The SEER Program
is the only comprehensive source of population-based information in
the United States that includes stage of cancer at the time of
diagnosis and survival rates within each stage.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Institutes of Health (NIH), NCI, SEER

Web site: http://seer.cancer.gov
Indicator name: Childhood asthma mortality

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What are the trends for children's
environmental health issues?

Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.

Temporal coverage: 1933 to present

Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics
Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths,
/Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-31
-------
IKTOSfsaBRSf «=»w;
marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and
deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates
are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in
content and arrangement to the standard certificate recommended
by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by
NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth
certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical
and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic
information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral
director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician,
medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause
of death.
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital
Statistics Systems (NVSS)
Web site: http://vww.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm
Indicator name: Childhood asthma prevalence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What are the trends for children's
environmental health issues?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: NHIS has been conducted continuously since
19S7, the content of the survey has been updated about every 10-
15 years. In 1996 a substantially revised NHIS content began field
testing. This new questionnaire, described in detail below, began in
1997 and improves the ability of the NHIS to provide important
health information. 1980-2001 data displayed.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health
Interview Survey (NHIS) is a continuous nationwide survey in which
data are collected through personal household interviews. Self-
reported information is obtained on personal and demographic
characteristics, illnesses, injuries, impairments, chronic conditions,
utilization of health resources, and other health topics. The sample
scheduled for each week is representative of the target population,
and the weekly samples are additive over time. Response rates for
special health topics (supplements) have generally been lower.
Because of the extensive redesign of the questionnaire in 1997 and
introduction of the computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI)
method of data collection, data from 1997 and later years may not
be comparable with earlier years.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Health
Interview Survey (NHIS)

Web site: http://wvw.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm
Indicator name: Deaths due to birth defeqts
I
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend •

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 |

Associated question: What are the trends for children's
environmental health issues?

Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.

Temporal coverage: 1933 to present.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics
Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths,
marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and
deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Live Birth and Death Certificates
are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in
content and arrangement to the standard [certificate recommended
by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by
NCHS. The mother provides demographic; information on the birth
certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical
and health iriformation is based on hospital records. Demographic
information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral
director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician,
medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause
of death. • '

Indicator sciurce (project, program, organization, report):
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital
Statistics Systems (NVSS) '
Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm
Indicator name: Birth defect incidence

Indicator type (status or trend): Trent

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1 i

Associated question: What are the trends for children's
environmental health issues? ;

Spatial coverage: National. Data are for the 50 states and the
District of Columbia, unless otherwise specified.

Temporal coverage: 1933 to present; 2000 data displayed.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS), through the National Vital Statistics ;
Systems (NVSS), has collected and published data on births, deaths,
marriages, and divorces in the United States. Virtually all births and
deaths are registered. U.S. Standard Livje Birth and Death Certificates
are revised periodically. Most state certificates conform closely in
content arid arrangement to the standard certificate recommended
by NCHS and all certificates contain a minimum data set specified by
NCHS. The mother provides demographic information on the birth
certificate, such as race and ethnicity, at the time of birth. Medical
B-32
Indicator Metadata
Appendix D
-------

and health information is based on hospital records. Demographic
information on the death certificate is provided by the funeral
director based on information supplied by an informant. A physician,
medical examiner, or coroner provides medical certification of cause
of death.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital
Statistics Systems (NVSS)

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm

Measuring Exposure to Environmental
Pollution: Indicators and Trends

Indicator name: Blood lead level

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What is the level of exposure to heavy metals?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: NHANES 1999-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series
of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC)
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is
designed to collect data on1 the health of the United States
population, including information about many topics, such as
nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001).
The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years.
The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975;
NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in
1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is
ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were
collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be
harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with
laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in
the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small
sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures
exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous
NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for
only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999.
The CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals (often referred to as the "CDC Report Card") summarizes
chemical exposure data from the 1999 NHANES.

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
Indicator name: Urine arsenic level
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What is the level of exposure to.heavy metals?

Spatial coverage: NHEXAS-Region 5

Temporal coverage: 1999

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Human
Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) was developed by the Office
of Research and Development (ORD) of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) early in the 1990s to provide critical
information about multipathway, multimedia population exposure
distribution to chemical classes. Phase 1 of NHEXAS consisted of
demonstration and scoping studies in Maryland, Phoenix, Arizona,
and ERA Region 5 using probability- based sampling designs.
Although the study was conducted in three different regions of the
U.S., it was not designed to be nationally representative. The Region
S study was conducted in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and measured metals and volatile organic
chemicals (VOCs).

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
1) NHEXAS-Region 5; 2) National Research Council. Arsenic in
Drinking Water. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999.

Web site: NHEXAS
http://www.epa.gov/nerl/research/nhexas/nhexas.htm;
NHEXAS data in EPA's Human Exposure Database System
http://www.epa.gov/heds/
Indicator name: Blood mercury level

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

. Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What is the level of exposure to heavy metals?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series
of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC)
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is
designed to collect data on the health of the United States
population, including information about many topics, such as
nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001).
The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years.
The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975;
NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in
1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is
ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were
collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be
harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with
Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-33
-------

laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in
the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small
sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures
exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous
NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for
only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine.

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
Indicator name: Blood cadmium level

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What is the level of exposure to heavy metals?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series
of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC)
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is
designed to collect data on the health of the United States
population, including information about many topics, such as
nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001).
The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years.
The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975;
NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in
1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is
ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were
collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be
harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with
laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in
the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small
sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures
exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous
NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for
only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine.

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
Indicator name: Blood cotinine level
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What is the level of exposure to cotinine?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series
of surveys conducted by the Centers for Djsease Control's (CDC)
National Center for Health Statistics (NChjS). The survey is
designed to collect data on the health of tpe United States
population, including information about many topics, such as
nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001).
The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years.
The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975;
NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in
1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is
ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were
collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be
harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with
laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in
the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small
sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures
exposure for 127 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous
NHANES, exposure had been assessed via'laboratory analysis for
only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cbtinine.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
1 I
Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
Indicator name: Blood volatile organic compound levels

Indicator type (status or trend): "

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What is the level of exposure to volatile
organic compounds?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: NHANES 111 (1988-1994)

1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is
ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were
collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be
harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with
laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in
the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small
sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures
exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous
NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for
only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine.

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
Indicator name: Urine organophosphate levels to indicate pesticides

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What is the level of exposure to pesticides?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series
of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC)
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is
designed to collect data on the health of the United States
population, including information about many topics, such as
nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001).
The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years.
The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975;
NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in
1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is
ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were
collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be
harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with
laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in
the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small
sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures
exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous
NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for
only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine.

Indicator name: Blood lead level in children
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend
Indicator category (1 or 2): 1
Associated question: What are the trends in exposure to environ-
mental contaminants for children?
Spatial coverage: National
Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000
Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series
of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC)
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is
designed to collect data on the health of the United States
population, including information about many topics, such as
nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001).
The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years. •
The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975;
NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in
1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is
ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were
collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be
harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with
laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in
the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small
sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures
exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous
NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for
only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine.
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999.
The CDC National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals (often referred to as the "CDC Report Card") summarizes
chemical exposure data from the 1999 NHANES.
Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
Indicator name: Blood mercury level in children
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend
Indicator category (1 or 2): 1
Associated question: What are the trends in exposure to environ-
mental contaminants for children?
Spatial coverage: National
Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000
Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of a series
Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-35
-------
of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC)
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is
designed to collect data on the health of the United States
population, including information about many topics, such as
nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001).
The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years.
The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975;
NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in
1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is
ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were
collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be
harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with
laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in
the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small
sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures
exposure for 27 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous
NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for
only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine.

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
"1"
exposure for 2,7 chemicals for people in the U.S. In previous
NHANES, exposure had been assessed via laboratory analysis for
only three chemicals: lead, cadmium and cotinine.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)

Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
Indicator name: Blood cotinine level in children

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What are the trends in exposure to
environmental contaminants for children?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: NHANES, 1999-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is comprised of
a series of surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control's
(CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The survey is
designed to collect data on the health of the United States
population, including information about many topics, such as
nutrition, heart disease, and exposure to chemicals (CDC, 2001).
The NHANES surveys have been performed over a number of years.
The first survey, NHANES I, took place from 1971 through 1975;
NHANES II occurred from 1976-80; NHANES III was performed in
1988 through 1994; and the current NHANES began in 1999 and is
ongoing. As part of the survey, blood and urine samples were
collected to measure the amounts of certain chemicals thought to be
harmful to people. Because of the extensive work involved with
laboratory analyses, some chemicals were measured for all people in
the survey, while other chemicals were only measured for a small
sample of people in an age group. The current NHANES IV measures
B-36
Indicator Metadata
/Appendix 13
-------
^
SmMSffiTa^^^ySw^^a^^
^^:yfefafrUy&rt^
Chapter 5: tcologica
(Condition
Forests

Indicator name: Extent of area by forest type

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 1

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states

Temporal coverage: 1963-1997. Data from late 1940s to present.
Data since 1953 provided with a reliability of ± 3-10 percent per 1
million acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA provides updates of
assessment data every five years.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The USDA Forest
Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is a survey-
based program that has operated since the late 1940s, collecting
information on a variety of forest characteristics. FIA has used a two-
phase sample (generally, double sampling for stratification) to collect
information on the nation's forests. Phase one establishes a large
number of samples (more than 4 million, roughly every 0.6 miles).
These are selected using aerial photographs or other remote-sensing
images, which are then interpreted for various forest attributes.
Phase two establishes a subset of approximately 450,000 phase-one
points (roughly every 3 miles) for ground sampling. About 125,000
of these samples are permanently established on forest land. The
forest characteristics measured include ownership, protection status,
species composition, stand age and structure, tree growth,
occurrences of mortality and removals, tree biomass, incidences of
pathogens, natural and human-caused disturbances, and soil
descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Smith, W.B., J.S. Vissage, D.R. Darr, and R.M. Sheffield. Forest Statistics
of the United States, 1997, General Technical Report NC-219. St.
Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North •
Central Research Station, 2001. Presented in The State of the
Nation's Ecosystems, pages 118 and 240 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: http://fia.fs.fed.us
Indicator name: Forest age class

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2
Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?

Spatial coverage: National, all 50 states

Temporal coverage: 1997. Data from late 1940s to present. Data
since 1953 provided with a reliability of ± 3-10 percent per 1 million
acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA provides updates of assess-
ment data every five years.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The USDA Forest
Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is a survey-
based program that has operated since the late 1940s, collecting
information on a variety of forest characteristics. FIA has used a two-
phase sample (generally, double sampling for stratification) to collect
information on the nation's forests. Phase one establishes a large
number of samples (more than 4 million, roughly every 0.6 miles).
These are selected using aerial photographs or other remote-sensing
images, which are then interpreted for various forest attributes.
Phase two establishes a subset of approximately 450,000 phase-one
points (roughly every 3 miles) for ground sampling. About 125,000
of these samples are permanently established on forest land. The
forest characteristics measured include ownership, protection status,
species composition, stand age and structure, tree growth,
occurrences of mortality and removals, tree biomass, incidences of
pathogens, natural and human-caused disturbances, and soil
descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Smith, W.B., J. Vissage, D. Darr, and R. Sheffield. Forest Statistics of the
United States, 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest
Service, General Technical Report NC-219. St. Paul, MN: USDA,
Forest Service. 2001. Presented in The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, pages 126 and 242 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: http://fia.fs.fed.us
Indicator name: Forest pattern and fragmentation

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states

Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite imagery and data from late
1940s to present. Data since 1953 provided with a reliability of ± 3-
10 percent per 1 million acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA
provides updates of assessment data every five years.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The Multi-
Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) Consortium's National
Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) provides a consistent, uniform, spatially
explicit description of general land cover/land use across the
continental U.S. at a 30-meter resolution. It does not contain
habitat types. 2) The USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and
Analysis (FIA) program is a survey-based program that has operated ,
Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-37
-------
^^
since the late 1940s, collecting information on a variety of forest
characteristics. F1A has used a two-phase sample (generally, double
sampling for stratification) to collect information on the nation's
forests. Phase one establishes a large number of samples (more than
4 million, roughly every 0.6 miles). These are selected using aerial
photographs or other remote-sensing images, which are then
interpreted for various forest attributes. Phase two establishes a
subset of approximately 450,000 phase-one points (roughly every 3
miles) for ground sampling. About 125,000 of these samples are
permanently established on forest land. The forest characteristics
measured include ownership, protection status, species composition,
stand age and structure, tree growth, occurrences of mortality and
removals, tree biomass, incidences of pathogens, natural and human-
caused disturbances, and soil descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1)Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium (MRLC) -
National Land Cover Data (NLCD); 2) Conkling, B., J. Coulston, and
M. Ambrose (eds.). Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report
1991 "1999, Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, Southern Research Station, 2002; 3) Riiters, K.H., J.D.
Wickham, R.V. O'Neill, K.B. Jones, E.R. Smith, J.W. Coulston, T.G.
Wade, and J.H. Smith. Fragmentation of Continental United States
Forests. Ecosystems 5: 815-822 (2002). Presented in The State of the
Nation's Ecosystems, pages 120-121 and 240 (The Heinz Center,
2002).
Web sites: MRLC http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/;
NLCD http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nkd.html;
Riitlers, et at. material http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/4803/landscapes/
Indicator name: At-risk native forest species

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?

Spatial coverage: Natural Heritage programs in all 50 states.

Temporal coverage: 2000. Data managed consistently since 1974.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): NatureServe is an
independent nonprofit organization whose research biologists
gather, review, integrate, and record available information about
species taxonomy, status, and use of different habitats or ecological
system types. They are assisted in this work by scientists in the
network of Natural Heritage programs as well as by contracted
experts for different invertebrate taxa. NatureServe staff and
collaborators assign a conservation status by using standard
Heritage ranking criteria. The Heritage ranking process considers five
major status ranks: critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2),
vulnerable (G3), apparently secure (G4), and demonstrably
widespread, abundant, and secure (G5). In addition, separate ranks
are assigned for species regarded as presumed extinct (GX) or
possibly extinct (GH).
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
NatureServe and its member programs in the network of Natural
Heritage programs develop and maintain information on species at
risk. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 124 and
214 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: http://www.natureserve.org
Indicator name: Populations of representative forest species

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?
!
Spatial coverage: National data for birdsy 37 states for trees

Temporal coverage: 1970-2002. FIA data date from late 1940s to
present. Data since 1953 provided with ateliability oft 3-10 per:
cent per 1 million acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA provides
updates of assessment data every five years. BBS was initiated in
1966. ;

Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The North American
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a long-term, large-scale international
avian monitoring program intended to track the status and trends of
North American bird populations. Today there are approximately
3700 active BBS routes across the continental U.S. and Canada of
which 2900 are surveyed each year (Saufer, et al., 2001). 2) The
USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is a
survey-based program that has operated since the late 1940s,
collecting information on a variety of forest characteristics. FIA has
used a two-phase sample (generally, double sampling for stratifica-
tion) to collect information on the nation's forests. Phase one estab-
lishes a largo number of samples (more than 4 million, roughly every
0.6 miles). These are selected using aerial photographs or other
remote-sensing images, which are then interpreted for various forest
attributes. Phase two establishes a subset of approximately 450,000
phase-one points (roughly every 3- miles) for ground sampling.
About 125,000 of these samples are permanently established on
forest land. The forest characteristics measured include ownership,
protection status, species composition, stand age and structure, tree
growth, occurrences of mortality and removals, tree biomass, inci-
dences of pathogens, natural and human-caused disturbances, and
soil descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Bird data are from the U.S. Geological Survey's North American
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), and tree data are from the U.S. Forest
Service, Draft Resource Planning and Assessment Tables, August
2002. Reported in U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report
on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. This indicator was
based on the final review draft of the Sustainable Forests report
(USDA, FS, 2002) and the website for corresponding technical sup-
port material is provided below. The final version of the report and
B-38
Indicator Metadata
Appendix B
-------
'

supporting technical material will be found at
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/.
Web site: Sustainable Forests Report
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/data.htm (Indicator 9);
RPA tables http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801 /FIADB/rpaJabler/
Draft_RPA_2002_Forest_Resource_Tables.pdf;
BBS http://www.mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/
Indicator name: Forest disturbance: fire, insects, and disease

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator Category: 1

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?

Spatial coverage: National, all 50 states

Temporal coverage: 1979-2000. FIA data date from late 1940s to
present. Data since 1953 provided with a reliability of ± 3-10 per-
cent per 1 million acres (67 percent confidence limit). FIA provides
updates of assessment data every five years.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The USDA Forest
Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is a survey-
based program that has operated since the late 1940s, collecting
information on a variety of forest characteristics. FIA has used a two-
phase sample (generally, double sampling for stratification) to collect
information on the nation's forests. Phase one establishes a large
number of samples (more than 4 million, roughly every 0.6 miles).
These are selected using aerial photographs or other remote-sensing
images, which are then interpreted for various forest attributes.
Phase two establishes a subset of approximately 450,000 phase-one
points (roughly every 3 miles) for ground sampling. About 125,000
of these samples are permanently established on forest land. The
forest characteristics measured include ownership, protection status,
species composition, stand age and structure, tree growth,
occurrences of mortality and removals, tree biomass, incidences of
pathogens, natural and human-caused disturbances, and soil
descriptors (The Heinz Center, 2002). Data on insects and disease
are based on a probability sample that represents unbiased
estimates of both public and private forests in the U.S.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Data on fires are from 1) U.S. General Accounting Office. Western
National Forests: Nearby Communities Are Increasingly Threatened by
Catastrophic Wildfires, GAO/T-RCED-99-79. Washington, DC: U.S.
General Accounting Office, 1999 and 2) National Interagency Fire
Center. Wildland Fire Statistics. 2002. (May 2003;
http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html).; data on insects
and disease are from Conkling, B., J. Coulston, and M. Ambrose
(eds.). Forest Health Monitoring National Technical Report 1991 -1999,
Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Southern Research Station, 2002. Presented in The State of the
Nation's Ecosystems, pages 127 and 242 (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Web site: FHM http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/fhm/index.htm;
NIFC http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.html
Indicator name: Tree condition

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?

Spatial coverage: 32 states; more than half of the South and Rocky
Mountain regions had insufficient or no data.

Temporal coverage: 1990-1999

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Available national
data relates almost exclusively to trees, not the entire suite of forest
biota. Three metrics are used to determine tree condition: tree mor-
tality, tree crown condition, and fire condition class. National scale
data is lacking on many components of forest ecosystems. Available
data coverages are incomplete. Fundamental research linking biologi-
cal components to ecological processes is lacking (USFS, FS, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) Conkling, B., J. Coulston and M. Ambrose (eds). Forest Health
Monitoring National Technical Report, 1991-1999. Asheville, NC:
USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program,
Southern Research Station. 2002; 2) U.S. Department of
Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Final Draft,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
2002. This indicator was based on the final review draft of the
Sustainable Forests report (USDA, FS, 2002) and the website for
corresponding technical support material is provided below. The final
version of the report and supporting technical material will be found
at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/.

Web site: FHM http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/fhm/index.htm;
Sustainable Forest Report
http://www.fs.fed.us/ research/sustain/data.htm (Indicator 17)
Indicator name: Ozone injury to trees

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?

Spatial coverage: 32 states

Temporal coverage: 1994-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The USDA Forest
Service Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program collects informa-
tion about ozone air quality on a network of biomonitoring plots
using ozone sensitive bioindicator plants (trees, woody shrubs, and
non-woody herb species). In 2000, there were 918 biomonitoring
sites in 32 states.
/Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-39
-------

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report): 1)
Conkling, B., J. Coulston, and M. Ambrose (eds.). Forest Health
Monitoring National Technical Report 1991-1999, Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research
Station, 2002; 2) U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on
Sustainable Forests - 2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002. This indicator was
based on the final review draft of the Sustainable Forests report
(USDA, FS, 2002) and the website for corresponding technical sup-
port material is provided below. The final version of the report and
supporting technical material will be found at
http:XAvww.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/.
Web site; Sustainable Forest Report
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/data.htm (Indicator 16);
FHM http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/fhm/index.htm
Indicator name: Carbon storage
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend
Indicator Category: 2
Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?
Spatial coverage: National. Data for Alaska and Hawaii are not
included in this data series.
Temporal coverage: 1953-1996. Volume, area, and other forest
characteristics are compiled in Smith, et al., 2001 for the years
1953,1963,1977,1987, and 1997. The inventory years begin on the
first calendar day of each year. More detailed data are available in
databases for 1997 (USDA, FS, 2002).
Characterization of supporting data set(s): All carbon pools, with
the exception of soil carbon, are estimated using USDA Forest
Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) measured data or imput-
ed data, along with inventory-to-carbon relationships, developed
with information from ecological studies (USDA, 2003). Carbon
storage is estimated by the FIA program using on-the ground meas-
urements of tree trunk size from many forest sites and statistical
models that show the relationship between trunk size and the weight
of branches, leaves, coarse roots (>0.1 inch in diameter), and forest
floor litter. Such data are combined with estimates of forest land area
obtained from aerial photographs and satellite imagery. Forest floor
litter includes all dead organic matter above the mineral soil horizons,
including litter, humus, small twigs, and coarse woody debris (branch-
es and logs greater than 1.0 inches in diameter lying on the forest
floor). Note that there are 1.1 English tons per metric ton. In most
international discussions, carbon storage is reported in metric tons.
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) Smith, W.B., J.S. Vissage, D.R. Darr, and R.M. Sheffield. Forest
Statistics o/Oie United States, 1997, General Technical Report NC-
219. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
North Central Research Station, 2001. 2) U.S. Department of
Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, Final Draft,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
2002. This indicator was based on the final review draft of the
Sustainable Forests report (USDA, FS, 2002) and the website for
corresponding technical support material is provided below. The final
version of the report and supporting technical material will be found
at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/.>

Web site: FIA http://fia.fs.fed.us; '
Sustainable Forests Report '
http://www.f5.fed.us/research/sustain/data.htm (primarily Indicator
27 with reference to Indicators 26 and 28)
Indicator name: Soil compaction

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2 !

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?

Spatial coverage: 37 states (mostly east of the Mississippi, Rocky
Mountains and Pacific Coast); STATSGO data are available for the
conterminous U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

Temporal coverage: 1998-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s):
1) Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program data collected on a rep-
resentative sample of 2006 plots, a subset of the Forest Inventory
Analysis (FIA) plot network (USDA, FS, J2003). The FIA soil indicator
program is in the implementation phase and plots have not yet been
established in all states. Analysis from the program is limited in
scope. Da':a used for this indicator are based on visual inspection
and state soil maps. No measurements !were made regarding the
intensity of compaction and physical disturbances that are not readi-
ly visible from the surface may be underreported. Compaction data
from FIA/FHM are intended only to provide a "presence/absence"
index of the occurrence of disturbed sbils across the landscape
(USDA, FS, 2003). 2) State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO)
consists of state general soil maps made by generalizing the detailed
soil survey data. The level of mapping is designed to be used for
broad planning and management uses covering state, regional, and
multi-state areas. STATSGO data are designed for use in a
Geographic Information System (CIS). The mapping scale for STATS-
GO map is 1:250,000 (with the exception of Alaska, which is
1:1,000,000). Each STATSGO map is linked to the Soil
Interpretations Record (SIR) attribute data base. The attribute data
base gives the proportionate extent of the component soils and
their properties for each map unit. The STATSGO map units consist '
of 1 to 21 components each. The Soil Interpretations Record data
base includes over 25 physical and chemical soil properties, interpreH
tations, and productivity. Examples of information that can be
queried from the data base are available water capacity, soil reaction,
salinity, flooding, water table, bedrock, and interpretations for engi- ,
neering uses, cropland, woodland,; ra'ngeland, pastureland, wildlife,
and recreation development. \ •
B-40
Indicator Metadata
Appendix D :
-------

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable
Forests - 2003, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Forthcoming, 2003. This indicator was based on
finalized portions of the forthcoming report referenced above that
were provided to EPA for this report. The report, including technical
support material for this indicator can be found at the website listed
below. 2) STATSGO.

Web site: Sustainable Forests Report
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/; •
STATSCO http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/stat_data.html
Indicator name: Soil erosion

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?-

Spatial coverage: 37 states (mostly east of the Mississippi, Rocky
Mountains and Pacific Coast); STATSCO data are available for the
conterminous U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

Temporal coverage: 1998-2000

Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) Forest Health
Monitoring (FHM) Program measured erosion rates on plots and
modeled the data using the Water Erosion Prediction Project
(WEPP). Erosion estimates are limited by model assumptions and
aggregate estimates of soil erosion often have little meaning in and
of themselves due to natural variability in soil erosion (USDA, FS,
2003). 2) State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) consists of
state general soil maps made by generalizing the detailed soil survey
data. The level of mapping is designed to be used for broad planning
and management uses covering state, regional, and multi-state areas.
STATSGO data are designed for use in a Geographic Information
System (CIS). The mapping scale for STATSGO map is 1:250,000
(with the exception of Alaska, which is 1:1,000,000). Each STATS-
GO map is linked to the Soil Interpretations Record (SIR) attribute
data base. The attribute data base gives the proportionate extent of
the component soils and their properties for each map unit. The
STATSGO map units consist of 1 to 21 components each. The Soil
Interpretations Record data base includes over 25 physical and
chemical soil properties, interpretations, and productivity. Examples
of information that can be queried from the data base are available
water capacity, soil reaction, saliniiy, flooding, water table, bedrock,
and interpretations for engineering uses, cropland, woodland,
rangeland, pastureland, wildlife, and recreation development.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable
Forests - 2003, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Forthcoming, 2003. This indicator was based on final-
ized portions of the forthcoming report referenced above that were
provided to EPA for this report. The report, including technical
support material for this indicator can be found at the website listed
below. 2) STATSGO.
Web site: Sustainable Forests Report—
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/; STATSGO—
http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/stat_data.html
Indicator name: Processes beyond the range of historic variation

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of forests?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: Effects during 1800-1850 (historic or baseline
time period) were compared with the 1996-2000 (current time
period) and beyond the range of recent variation (using data from
the past 20-80 years) the effects of the recent past, e.g. 1979-
1995, were compared with those during the current time period
(USDA, FS, 2002).

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Primarily anecdotal
data.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S.
Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable Forests -
2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, 2002. This indicator was based on the final review
draft of the Sustainable Forests, report (USDA, FS, 2002) and the
website for corresponding technical support material is provided
below. The final version of the report and supporting technical
material will be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/.

Web site: Sustainable Forests Report—
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/data.htm (Indicator 15)

Farmlands

Indicator name: Pesticide leaching potential

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of farm-
lands?

Spatial coverage: Agricultural lands covering 5.5 million hectares in
six mid-Atlantic states

Temporal coverage: 1994 and 1995

samples and questionnaire data were collected from a random sam-
ple of 293 sites. Indicators addressed productivity, management at
the agroecosystem scale, and management for the landscape scale
on annual crop land. Crop yields were almost 30% higher than those
of the 1980s, with a mean observed to expected yield index of 1.27.
The mean soil qualify index showed moderate quality for supporting
plant growth. Non-tilted sites, which were mostly hay, had greater
microbial biomass than tilled sites, just over half of the annual crop
land was covered by rotation plans; hay fields accounted for most of
the land where one crop was grown- continuously. Hay showed a
lower use of applied nitrogen than seed crops. Integrated pest man-
agement was practiced on less than 20% of annual crop land.
Twenty-seven different annual crops were grown in the region, with
hay (all types) the dominant crop. Less than 20% of the land where
pesticides were applied had high to moderately high potential for
pesticides leaching into groundwater. This information provides a
baseline for long-term monitoring of agricultural lands in the region
(Hellkamp. et al. 2000).
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
Hellkamp, A.S., J.M. Bay, CL Campbell, K.N. Easterling, D.A. Fiscus,
G.R. Hess, B.F. McQuaid, M.J. Munster, G.L Olson, S.L. Peck, S.R.
Shafer, K. Sidik, and M.B. Tooley. Assessment of the condition of
agricultural lands in six mid-Atlantic states. Journal of Environmental
Quality 29: 79-804 (2000).

Web site: Paper abstract—
httpv'/oaspub.epa.gov/emap/bib.print_abstract?pub_id_in=1284
Indicator name: Soil quality index

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of farm-
lands?
Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic states

Temporal coverage: 1994-1995

Characterization of supporting data set(s): EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) used the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) probability area sampling frame
in the Mid-Atlantic region to select 122 sites in 1994 and 152 sites
in 1995. The sites were sampled during the NASS Fall Survey. Soil
samples and questionnaire data were collected from a random
sample of 293 sites. Indicators addressed productivity, management
at the agroecosystem scale, and management for the landscape scale
on annual crop land. Crop yields were almost 30% higher than those
of the 1980s, with a mean observed to expected yield index of 1.27.
The mean soil quality index showed moderate quality for supporting
plant growth. Non-tilled sites, which were mostly hay, had greater
microbial biomass than tilled sites. Just over half of the annual crop
land was covered by rotation plans; hay fields accounted for most of
the land where one crop was grown continuously. Hay showed a
lower use of applied nitrogen than seed crops. Integrated pest
management viras practiced on less than 20% of annual crop land.
Twenty-seven different annual crops were grown in the region, with
hay (all types) the dominant crop. Less than 20% of the land where
pesticides were applied had high to moderately high potential for
pesticides leaching into groundwater. This information provides a
baseline for long-term monitoring of agricultural lands in the region
(Hellkamp, etal. 2000). '.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Data
are available from the EPA Mid- Atlantic Integrated Assessment
(MAIA) initiative and the index is described in Hellkamp, A.S., J.M.
Bay, CL Campbell, K.N. Easterling, D.A. Fiscus, C.R. Hess, B.F.
McQuaid, M.J. Munster, G.L. Olson, S.L. Peck, S.R. Shafer, K. Sidik,
and M.B. Tooley. Assessment of the condition of agricultural lands in
six mid-Atlantic states. Journal of Environmental Quality 29: 79-804
(2000). ;

Web site: Paper abstract ,
http://oaspub.epa.gov/emap/bib.print_abstract?pub_id_in=1284
Indicator name: Soil erosion

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of farmlands?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: At each Natural Resources Inventory (NRI)
sample point, information is available for 1982, 1987, 1992, and
1997 so that trends and changes in land use and resource character-
istics over 15 years can be examined and analyzed.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) The NRI is a statis-
tical sampling of over 800,000 locations to collect data on land
cover and use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat
diversity, conservation practices, and related resource attributes on
non-federal land in the U.S. 2) Soil erosion estimates were calculated
using the USGS watersheds, NRI soils data, and the Universal Soil
Loss Equation (Renard et al., 1997) and the Wind Erosion Equation
(Bondy et al., 1980; Skidmore and Woodruff, 1968). 3) Soil parame-
ters were obtained from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) soils database. The State Soil Geographic Database
(STATSGO) consists of state general soil maps made by generalizing
the detailed soil survey data. The level of mapping is designed to be
used for broad planning and management uses covering state,
regional, and multi-state areas. STATSGO data are designed for use
in a Geographic Information System (CIS). The mapping scale for
STATSGO map is 1:250,000 (with the exception of Alaska, which is
1:1,000,000). Each STATSGO map is linked to the Soil
Interpretations Record (SIR) attribute data base. The attribute data
base giveis the proportionate extent of the component soils and
their properties for each map unit. The STATSGO map units consist
of 1 to .21 components each. The Soil Interpretations Record data
B-42
Indicator Metadata
Appendix D
-------

base includes over 25 physical and chemical soil properties, interpre-
tations, and productivity. Examples of information that can be
queried from the data base are available water capacity, soil reaction,
salinity, flooding, water table, bedrock, and interpretations for engi-
neering uses, cropland, woodland, rangeland, pastureland, wildlife,
and recreation development.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization,, report):
Data are from 1) USDA, NRCS STATSGO soils data and 2)
USDA, NRCS NRI 1997 data (adjusted in 2000). Presented in The
State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 100 and 235 (The Heinz
Center, 2002).

Web site: NRI http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRl/;
STATSCO http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/stat_data.html

Grasslands and Shrublands

Indicator name: At-risk native grasslands and shrublands species

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of grasslands
and shrublands?

Spatial coverage: National

Spatial coverage: Natural Heritage programs in all 50 states.

Temporal coverage: 2000. Data managed consistently since 1974.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): NatureServe is an
independent nonprofit organization whose research biologists
gather, review, integrate, and record available information about
species taxonomy, status, and use of different habitats or ecological
system types. They are assisted in this work by scientists in the
network of Natural Heritage programs as well as by contracted
experts for different invertebrate taxa. NatureServe staff and
collaborators assign a conservation status by using standard
Heritage ranking criteria. The Heritage ranking process considers five
major status ranks: critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2),
vulnerable (G3), apparently secure (G4), and demonstrably
widespread, abundant, and secure (G5). In addition, separate ranks '
are assigned for species regarded as presumed extinct (GX) or
possibly extinct (GH).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
NatureServe and its member programs in the network of Natural
Heritage programs develop and maintain information on species at
risk. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 168 and
214 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: http://www.natureserve.org
Indicator name: Population trends in invasive and native non-inva-
sive bird species
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category: 1

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of grasslands
and shrublands?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: Data were analyzed in seven 5-year intervals
from 1966 to 2000.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The North American
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a long- term, large-scale international
avian monitoring program intended to track the status and trends of
North American bird populations. Today there are approximately
3700 active BBS routes across the continental U.S. and Canada of
which 2900 are surveyed each year (Sauer, et al., 2001).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division, Breeding Bird
Survey. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 170
and 262 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: BBS
http://www.tnbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/introbbs.html and
http://www.mp2- pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/;
Sauer, et al. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/trend/tfmb.html

Urban and Suburban Lands

Indicator name: Patches of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland
in urban/suburban areas

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of urban and
suburban areas?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states

Temporal coverage: 1992 satellite imagery

Characterization of supporting data set(s): NLCD provides a
consistent, uniform, spatially explicit description of general land
cover/land use across the continental U.S. at a 30-meter resolution.
It does not contain habitat types. Eight of the 21 NLCD classifica-
tions were defined as "natural" for this analysis, including three class-
es of forest, three types considered grasslands/shrublands, and two
wetlands types (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium (MRLC) -
National Land Characterization Data (NLCD). Data analyses were
undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey's Earth Resources
Observations Systems (EROS) Data Center. Presented in The State
of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 183 and 266 (The Heinz
Center, 2002).
/Appendix u
Indicator Metadata
B-43
-------

iiik'SsiT .• r>ii
icilulc
Web sites: MRLC http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/;
EROS Data Center "raw" data (requiring "considerable computing
power" (The Heinz Center, 2002) http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/prb-
gram/lccp/mrlcreg.html

Fresh Waters
Indicator name: Extent of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs
Indicator type (status or trend): Trend
Indicator category (1 or 2): 1
Associated question: What is the ecological condition of fresh waters?
Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states. Lake area does not include
the Great Lakes, which cover about 60.2 million acres within the
United States.
Temporal coverage: 1950s-1990s
Characterization of supporting data set(s): The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) counts all lakes,
reservoirs, and ponds regardless of land ownership. A permanent
study design is used, based initially on stratification of the 48 con-
terminous states by state boundaries and 35 physiographic subdivi-
sions. Within these subdivisions are 4375 randomly selected sample
plots that are examined with the use of aerial imagery of varying
scale and type. Ponds include the category of open- water ponds
and non-vegetated palustrine wetlands (mud flats and shorelines of
ponds) generally less than six feet deep and less than 20 acres in
size. Lakes and reservoirs are generally larger than 20 acres and
deeper than six feet (The Heinz Center, 2002).
Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Data
for lakes, reservoirs, and ponds come from 1) Dahl, T.E. Status and
Trends of Wetlands in ifie Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2000; 2) Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson. Status and
Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, Mid-1970's to
Mid-1980's, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Rsh and Wildlife Service, 1991; 3) Prayer, WE., T.J. Monaha'n, D.C.
Bowden, and FA Graybill. Status and Trends of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats in tl\e Conterminous United States, 19SO's to
1970's, Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of
Forest and Wood Sciences, 1983; and 4) unpublished data from the
U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service (The Heinz Center, 2002). Presented in
The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 139 and 246 (The Heinz
Center, 2002).
Web site: Dahl, 2000
http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html
Indicator name: At-risk native fresh water species
Indicator type (status or trend): Status
Indicator category: 2
Associated question: What is the ecological condition of fresh
waters? |
i
Spatial coverage: Natural Heritage programs in all 50 states.

Temporal coverage: 2000. Data managed consistently since 1974.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): NatureServe is an
independent nonprofit organization whose' research biologists
gather, review, integrate, and record available information about
species taxonomy, status, and use of different habitats or ecological
system types. They are assisted in this work by scientists in the
network of Natural Heritage programs as well as by contracted
experts for different invertebrate taxa. NatureServe staff and
collaborators assign a conservation status by using standard
Heritage ranking criteria. The Heritage ranking process considers five
major status ranks: critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2),
vulnerable (G3), apparently secure (G4), and demonstrably
widespread, abundant, and secure (G5). In addition, separate ranks
are assigned for species regarded as presurned extinct (GX) or
possibly extinct (GH). |

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
NatureServe aind its member programs in the network of Natural
Heritage programs develop and maintain information on species at
rislc Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 144 and
214 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer
Indicator name: Non-native fresh water species

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the condition of fresh waters?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states

Temporal coverage: 2000. An expansive spatial database underlies
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) program, which was
created in 1978 and continues to be updated and revised.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Roughly 90 percent
of the data in the U.S. Geological Survey's NAS database are derived
from the published literature. Data are collected for the most part by
federal and state biologists, although the public does contribute by
reporting sightings (The Heinz Center, 2002). NAS is a repository
for accurate and spatially referenced biogeographic accounts of
nonindigenous aquatic species. Provided are scientific reports,
online/realtime queries, spatial data sets, regional contact lists, and
general information. The data is made available for use by biologists,
interagency groups, and the general public.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division (BRD), NAS
Database. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages
145 and 251 (The Heinz Center, 2002).
B-44
Indicator Metadata
Appendix D
-------
Web site: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/
Indicator name: Animal deaths and deformities

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of fresh
waters?

Spatial coverage: National. Database covers all 50 states, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands

Temporal coverage: 1985-1999

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The National Wildlife
Health Center (NWHC) maintains a database that contains wildlife
disease and mortality events information on avian, mammalian, and
amphibian mortality events. Information in the database is provided
by various sources, such as state and federal personnel, diagnostic
laboratories, wildlife refuges, and published reports (The Heinz
Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resource Division (BRD), NWHC.
Presented :in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 146 and 252
(The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: http://www/mwhc.usgs.gov/pub_metadata/ qrt_mortali-
ty_report.html
Indicator name: At-risk fresh water plant communities

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of fresh
waters?
Spatial coverage: Natural Heritage programs in all 50 states, but
this coverage excludes Alaska

- Temporal coverage: 2000. Data managed consistently since 1974.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): NatureServe is an
independent nonprofit organization whose research biologists
gather, review, integrate, and record available information about
species taxonomy, status, and use of different habitats or ecological
system types. They are assisted in this work by scientists in the net-
work of Natural Heritage programs as well as by contracted experts
for different invertebrate taxa. NatureServe staff and collaborators
assign a conservation status by using standard Heritage ranking
criteria. The Heritage ranking process considers five major status
ranks: critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2), vulnerable (G3),
apparently secure (G4), and demonstrably widespread, abundant,
and secure (G5). In addition, separate ranks are assigned for species
regarded as presumed extinct (GX) or possibly extinct (GH).
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
NatureServe and its member programs in the network of Natural
Heritage programs develop and maintain information on species at
risk. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, 148 and 253
(The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: http://www.natureserve.org
Indicator name: Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) in streams

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of fresh
waters?

Spatial coverage: Statistically selected stream sites in the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands (parts of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
New York and all of West Virginia)

Temporal coverage: 1993-1994 sampling years

Characterization of supporting data set(s): About 450 stream
reaches were sampled in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. To describe the
condition of all streams within the Highlands without sampling all of
them EMAP worked with EPA Region 3 and the states to develop a
regional statistical survey of streams. Examples offish metrics
measured were: the number offish species present in the stream who
cannot tolerate pollution; the proportion of individuals present that
require clean gravel for spawning; and the number of bottom versus
water column species present. Each metric was scored against the
researchers expectations of what value was possible for each stream
based on reference conditions.
Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1 )Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA), Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment,
EPA/903/R-00/015, August 2000. 2) McCormick, F.H., R.M.
Hughes, P.R. Kaufmann, D.V. Peck, J.L Stoddard, and A.T. Herlihy.
Development of an index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic
Highlands Region. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:
857-877 (2001).
Web site: MAIA Report http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/maha.html
Indicator name: Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) for
streams
Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2
Associated question: What is the condition of fresh waters?
Appendix 6
Indicator Metadata
B-45
-------
• T i JD" ..... "f" i : "*:f '•$• •'•]' ; -'I" '•' i iP ' ' |:"':' ' !•'••"' ';t •'• ; ""/'• Pl-'rf^' .....
rcirt meport 6fi the tZnvirbnifient 2Q03
II ;
ecntlKa
'
JESS:
Spatial coverage: Statistically selected stream sites in the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands (parts of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
New York and all of West Virginia)

Temporal coverage: 1993-1994 sampling years

Characterization of supporting data set(s): About 450 stream
reaches were sampled in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. To describe the
condition of all streams within the Highlands without sampling all of
them EMAP worked with EPA Region 3 and the states to develop a
regional statistical survey of streams. One aquatic insect index, EPT,
has been used extensively to evaluate stream condition throughout
the United States and was used in the Highlands. It is calculated
from the number of species that are found in three orders of aquatic
insects-mayflies (Ephemeoptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddis-
flies (JHchoptera) and gets its name from the first initials of these
three orders (EPT). Many of the species in these three orders are
sensitive to pollution and other stream disturbances, and the total
number of species is a good gauge of how disturbed any given
stream may be. EPT scores from least-disturbed Highland streams
were used to set expectations. Expectations were set separately for
streams with fast-moving sections or "riffles" (the vast majority of
Highland streams) and slow-moving streams where "pools" dominate,
because fewer EPT species naturally occur in pools.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) Klemm, D.J., KA Blocksom, FA Fulk, AT. Herlihy, R.M. Hughes,
P.R. Kaufmann, D.V. Peck, J.L Stoddard, W.T. Thoeny, M.B. Griffith,
and W.S. Davis. Development and Evaluation of a Macroinvertebrate
Biotic Integrity Index (MBit) for Regionally Assessing Mid-Atlantic
Highlands Streams. Environmental Management 31 (5): 656-669
(2003). 2) Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA),
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams
Assessment, EPA/903/R-00/015, August 2000.

Web site: MAIA Report http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/maha.html

Coasts and Oceans

Indicator name: Extent of estuaries and coastline

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category (1 or 2): 1

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts
and oceans?

Spatial coverage: National, all 50 states and territories

Temporal coverage: 1996-1998

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data were submitted
by the states and territories to EPA's Office of Water which compiled
a national report. Data were collected using different methodologies,
definitions, and assumptions, so the data is unlikely to be consistent.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 2000 National
Water Quality Inventory, EPA 841 -R-02-001, August 2002, Table C-1
Total Estuarine and Ocean Shoreline Waters in the Nation.

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/appendixc.pdf
Indicator name: Coastal living habitats

Indicator type (status or trend): Trend

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts
and oceans?

Spatial coverage: National

Temporal coverage: 1950s to 1990s

Characterization of supporting data set(s): While data gaps are
reported for the coral reef, seagrasses, and shellfish beds compo-
nents of the indicator (The Heinz Center, 2002), the wetlands
component ii> supported by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
recent report. The Status and Trend of Wetlands in the Conterminous
United States 1986-1997. The report utilizes National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) and other wetland data. NWI counts all wetlands,
regardless of land ownership, but recognizes only wetlands that are
at least three acres. To ensure adequate coverage of coastal •
wetlands, supplemental sampling along the Atlantic and Gulf coast
fringes was added (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): Dahl,
T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States
1986 to 1997, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000. Presented in The State of the Nation's
Ecosystems, pages 69 and 218 (The Heinz ;Center, 2002).

Web site: htl:p://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html
Indicator naime: Shoreline types

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts
and oceans?

Spatial coverage: National in scope; Pacific Northwest, Southern
California, and South Atlantic regions only

Temporal coverage: 1984-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data were extracted
from Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) atlases, a product of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA), Office
of Response and Restoration (ORR). The ESI method provides a
standardized mapping approach for coastal geomorphology as well
as biological and human use elements. Data from multiple atlases
B-46
Indicator Metadata
Appendix D
-------

were aggregated into the regions used. Some of the data atlases
utilized were more than 15 years old (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
NOAA, ORR, Hazardous Materials Response Division, ESI atlases.
Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, pages 70 and 219
(The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: Some NOAA ESI data are available at
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/esi/esiintro.html
Indicator name: Benthic Community Index

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts
and oceans?

Spatial coverage: National in scope, 24 coastal states

Temporal coverage: Stations on the west coast were sampled in
1999. The entire U.S. coast, including the Gulf of Maine, was sam-
pled in 2000.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): In 2000, EPA, NOAA,
and USCS, in cooperation with all 24 U.S. coastal states, initiated
the National Coastal Assessment. Using a compatible, probabilistic
design and a common set of survey indicators, each state conducted
the survey and independently assessed the condition of their coastal
resources. While the complete assessment of national coastal waters
is scheduled for publication in 2003, a preliminary assessment of
selected estuaries was published by EPA in 2001. The EPA
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
National Coastal Database contains estuarine and coastal data that
EMAP and Regional-EMAP have collected since 1990 from hundreds
of stations between Cape Cod and the Mexican border. These
include water column data, sediment chemistry and toxicity data,
demersal fish and invertebrate community and contaminant data
and benthic invertebrate community data.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1.) EMAP National Coastal Database; 2) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report, EPA 620-R-01 -
005. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development and Office of Water, September 2001.

Web site: NCCR
http://epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html;
National Coastal Database
http://www.epa.gov/emap/nca/html/data/index.html
Indicator name: Fish diversity

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2
Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts
and oceans?

Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic estuaries

Temporal coverage: 1997-1998

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The EPA Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Estuaries Summary Database contains
water quality, sediment, benthic community, and fish data collected
by several partners in MAIA Region estuaries in 1997 and 1998. The
MAIA program conducted regular fish surveys during the summer of
1998 to characterize the structure and health of the fish communi-
ties. The stations sampled were selected according to a probabilistic
design. These stations were not identical with the stations sampled
for water and sediment quality analyses conducted primarily in 1997;
therefore, it is not "possible to directly compare these different f
analyses station by station. However, it is statistically valid to com-
pare results among classes of estuaries, (e.g., large versus small estu-
aries, Delaware Estuary versus Chesapeake Estuary).

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Mid- Atlantic Integrated Assessment,
MAIA - Estuaries 1997-98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003.
Narragansett, RI: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, May 2003.

Web site: MAIA data http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/html/data/
estuary/9798/xport.html
Indicator name: Submerged aquatic vegetation

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts
and oceans?

Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic estuaries, Chesapeake Bay

Temporal coverage: 1985-1998

Characterization of supporting data set(s): The Chesapeake
Bay Program's second submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) Technical
Synthesis revises and updates the first synthesis published in 1992,
by providing new light requirements for SAV through the water
column and at the leaf surface, providing diagnostic tools for their
application and interpretation, and identifying preliminary sets of
physical, chemical, and other biological habitat requirements. An
algorithm was applied to analyze SAV habitat suitability for some 50
sites in Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries using data collected
over 14 years (1985-1998) of environmental monitoring (EPA, CBP,
2000). 2) Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) field crews
noted the presence or absence of SAV at their sampling stations as
an ancillary measurement. No attempt was made to estimate the
extent of SAV the MAIA region. The MAIA database contains water
quality, sediment, benthic community, and fish data collected by
Appendix D
Indicator Metadata
B-47
-------

IE;
several partners in MAIA Region estuaries in 1997 and 1998. The
MAIA program conducted regular fish surveys during the summer of
1998 to characterize the structure and health of the fish communi-
ties. The stations sampled were selected according to a probabilistic
design. These stations were not identical with the stations sampled
for water and sediment qualify analyses conducted primarily in
1997; therefore, it is not possible to directly compare these different
analyses station by station. However, it is statistically valid to
compare results among classes of estuaries, (e.g., large versus small
estuaries, Delaware Estuary versus Chesapeake Estuary).

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report):
1) Batiuk, RA, P. Bergstrom, M. Kemp, E. Koch, L Murray, J.C.
Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, C.
Callegos, L Karrh, M. Naylor, D. Wilcox, K.A. Moore, S. Ailstock, and
M. Teichberg. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Water
Qualify and Habitat-Based Requirements and Restoration Targets: A
Second Technical Synthesis, CBP-TRS 245-00, EPA 903-R-00-014.
Annapolis, MD: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake
Bay Program, 2000; 2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-
Atlantic Integrated Assessment, MAIA - Estuaries 1997-98, Summary
Report, EPA 620-R-02-003. Narragansett, Rl: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic
Ecology Division, May 2003.

Web site: CBP report
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/sav/index.html
Indicator name: Rsh abnormalities

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of coasts
and oceans?

Spatial coverage: National assessment, data presented for Gulf of
Mexico to Cape Cod, Great Lakes excluded

Temporal coverage: Data collected in 2000, available in 2002 for
Pacific Coast

Characterization of supporting data set(s): U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) data on fish pathologies by estuarine province.

Indicator source (project, program, organization, report): U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report,
EPA 620-R-01 -005. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water,
September 2001.

Web site: NCCR http://epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html
Indicator name: Unusual marine mortalities
Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator category: 2

Associated question:. What is the ecological condition of coasts
and oceans?

Spatial coverage: National in scope for marine mammals

Temporal coverage: 1992-2001

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Data is available for
whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, sea otters, and mana-
tees. Data is not available for turtle, seabjrd, fish, and shellfish
mortality. The 2001 data for two unusual mortality events and the
total number of gray whales lost in the 19,99-2001 unusual mortality
event were obtained directly from National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). All other unusual mortality event data were obtained from
Dierauf and Gulland, (2001) (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program;
2) Dierauf, LA., and F.M.D. Gulland (eds.) CRC Handbook of Marine
Mammal Medicine: Health, Disease, and Rehabilitation, 2nd Edition,
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc., 2001. Presented in The State of the
Nation's Ecosystems, pages 77 and 223 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: NMFS data ]
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Health_and_Stranding_
Response_Program/WGUMMME.html

The Entire Nation

Indicator name: Ecosystem extent ;

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend

Indicator category (1 or 2): 2

Associated (question: What is the ecological condition of the
entire nation?

Spatial coverage: National in all cases ;

Temporal coverage: 1950s-1990s.
i
Characterization of supporting data set(s): 1) For cropland, the
data source is the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) relying
on data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service and a variety
of other sources to provide an estimate of extent. 2) For forests, the
data source is the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis
(FIA) program, a survey-based program that has operated since the
late 1940s, collecting information on a variety of forest characteris-
tics. 3) For fresh water wetlands, the data source is the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory as reported in the
most recent wetlands status and trends report (Dahl, 2000). 4) For
grasslands and shrublands, the data source is the National Land
Cover Datassit (NLCD). In the 1990s, a federal interagency consor-
tium (the Multi- Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC)
Consortium) was created to coordinate access to and use of land
B-48
Indicator Metadata
Appendix D
-------
cover data from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper. Using Landsat data
and a variety of ancillary data, the consortium processed data from a
series of 1992 Landsat images, to create the NLCD on a square grid
covering the lower 48 states. The MRLC NLCD with 21 land cover
classes, was used to estimate the area coverage for the U.S. 5) For
urban/suburban, the data source is the NLCD.

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):
1) ERS; 2) FIA; 3) Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the
Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000;
4) NLCD; 5) NLCD. Presented in The State of the Nation's Ecosystems,
pages 41 -43 and 207 (The Heinz Center, 2002).

Web site: ERS
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Emphases/Harmony/issues/arei2000/;
FIA http://fia.fs.fed.us;
Dahl, 2000 http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html;
NLCD http://www.usgs.gov/mrlcreg.html
Indicator name: At-risk native species

Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of the entire
nation?

Spatial coverage: Natural Heritage programs in all SO states.

Temporal coverage: 2000. Data managed consistently since 1974.

Characterization of supporting data set(s): NatureServe is an
independent nonprofit organization whose research biologists
gather, review, integrate, and record available information about
species taxonomy, status, and use of different habitats or ecological
system types. They are assisted in this work by scientists in the
network of Natural Heritage programs as well as by contracted
experts for different invertebrate taxa. NatureServe staff and collabo-
rators assign a conservation status by using standard Heritage rank-
ing criteria. The Heritage ranking process considers five major status
ranks: critically imperiled (Cl), imperiled (G2), vulnerable (G3),
apparently secure (C4), and demonstrably widespread, abundant,
and secure (C5). In addition, separate ranks are assigned for species
regarded as presumed extinct (CX) or possibly extinct (CH).

Web site: http://www.natureserve.org
Indicator name: Bird Community Index
Indicator type (status or trend): Status

Indicator Category: 2

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of the
entire nation?

Spatial coverage: Mid-Atlantic Highlands (parts of Virginia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York and all of West Virginia)

Temporal coverage: 1995-1996 data

Characterization of supporting data set(s): Birds and vegetation
were surveyed across the entire Mid-Atlantic highlands within sites
sufficiently large (200 acres) to represent most of the habitat
elements that are required by breeding birds. Use of EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) survey
design guaranteed that data from the 126 sample sites were
representative of the entire highlands area. Sixteen specific groups of
bird species, such as omnivores, bark probers, residents, migrants,
shrub nesters, etc., were ultimately selected as representative of the
mostly forested Mid-Atlantic Highlands'area. Of the 16 groups, nine
were "specialists" and seven were "generalists"; for example,
insectivores are specialists and omnivores are generalists. Placement
of specific bird species within each group was based on a review of
scientific publications. Species may be assigned to several groups as
well as to both specialist and generalist groups simultaneously. In
general, a high proportion of birds with specialized requirements
indicates healthy natural habitat that provides ecological benefits at
local and larger scales (EPA, 2000).

Indicator derivation (project, program, organization, report):1
1) O'Connell, T.J., L.E. Jackson, and R.P. Brooks. Bird guilds as indica-
tors of ecological condition in the central Appalachians. Ecological
Applications 10: 1706-1721 (2000). 2) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. MAIA Project Summary: Birds Indicate Ecological
Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. EPA 620-R-000-003.
Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Research and Development, June
2000.

Web site: MAIA summary http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/bird.htrh;
Full research report http://www.wetlands.cas.psu.edu
Indicator name: Terrestrial Plant Growth Index

Indicator type (status or trend): Status and Trend

Indicator Category: 1

Associated question: What is the ecological condition of the entire
nation?

Spatial coverage: Lower 48 states

Temporal coverage: 1989-2000, except for 1994 when the
satellite failed. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is
calculated at two-week intervals and summed throughout the grow-
ing season; only values that exceed non-growing-season, background
NDVI are included. Growing season dates, end dates, and back-
Appendix 8
Indicator Metadata
B-49
-------
!pi m ISIlIil 3 IM/iWfl ||jOT.:Mw
-------
Appendix C:
• • i .. . •

Atronyhfis and
I I ..
Abbreviations
-------

BRAC: base realignment and closure facilities

BRD: Biological Resources Division
TNAP:1-napthol

AFO: animal feeding operation

AHA: American Heart Association

AHEF: Atmospheric and Health Effects Framework

AIRS: Aerometric Information Retrieval System

AM: atrazine mercapturate

ANC: acid-neutralizing capacity

APCs: areas of probable concern

AQI: Air Quality Index

AQS: Air Quality System

AREAL: Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory

ARS: Agricultural Research Center

ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

AVHRR: advanced veiy high resolution radiometer

AVS: acid volatile sulfide
c
6
BASE: Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation

BBS: Breeding Bird Survey

BCI: Bird Community Index

BEACH: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
Program

BEIR VI: Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation

BLM: Bureau of Land Management
C&I: criteria and indicators

CAA: Clean Air Act ;

CAFOs: confined animal feeding operations

CAPI: computer-assisted personal interviewing

CASTNet: Clean Air Status and Trends Network

CBP: Chespeake Bay Program

CCA: chromate copper arsenate

C-CAP: Coastal Change Analysis Program

CDC: Centeirs for Disease Control and Prevention

CDDS: California Department of Developmental Services

CEMS: continuous emissions monitors

CENR: Council on the Environment and Natural Resources

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act

CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System

CESQCs: conditionally exempt small quantity generators

CFCs: chloroflourocarbons

CHD: coronary heart disease

cm: centimeter

CMSAs: consolidated metropolitan statistical areas

CO: carbon monoxide
C-2
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Appendix C
-------
COHb: carboxyhemoglobin

COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

COS: carbonyl sulfide

CPI: Consumer Price Index

CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission

CRA: comparative risk assessment

CRP: Conservation Reserve Program

CSO: combined sewer overflow

CSTE: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists

CVD: cardiovascular disease

CWA: Clean Water Act

CWS: community water system
D
DBPs: disinfection byproducts

DDE: dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

DDT: dichlorodiphenltrichloroethane

DO: dissolved oxygen

DOC: dissolved organic carbon

DOE: U.S. Department of Energy

DOI: U.S. Department of the Interior

DSS: decision support systems

DU: Dobson Units"
EBD: environmental burden of disease

ECAO: Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office

ECI: Employee Cost Index

EDC: endocrine-disrupting compounds

EEA: essential ecological attribute

EECL: equivalent effective chlorine

EEZ: U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

EMAP: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

ENSO: El Nino-Southern Oscillation

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

STAR: Science to Achieve Results

EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

EPHI: environmental public health indicators

EPO: Epidemiology Program Office

EPT: Ephemeoptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera Index

ERL: effects range low

ERM: effects range medium

EROS: Earth's Resources Observation System

ESC: Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines

ESI: Environmental Sensitivity Index

ESRD: end stage renal disease

ETS: environmental tobacco smoke
Appendix
Acronyms and Abbreviations
C-3
-------

lechrim
F
FDA: Food and Drug Administration

FHM: Forest Health Monitoring Program

FIA; Forest Inventory and Analysis

FQPA: Food Quality Protection Act

FS: Forest Service

FY: fiscal year
G
CAO: General Accounting Office

GBD: global burden of disease

GDP: gross domestic product

GI: gastrointestinal illness

CIS: geographic information systems

GLEAMS: groundwater loading effects of agricultural management

GPRA: Government Performance Results Act
H
HABs: harmful algal blooms

HCB: hexachlorobenzene

HCFCs: hydrochlorofiuorocarbons

HFCs: hydrofluorocarbons

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services

HHW: household hazardous waste
HUG: hydrol ogic unit code

HUMUS: hydrologic unit modeling of the United States
1-1
IAQ: indoor air quality

IBI: index of biotic integrity

ICCC: international classification of childhood cancer

ICTDRN: International Center for Tropical Disease Research
Network : ;

IDEM: India'na Department of Environmental Management

IMP: integrated pest management

IMPROVE: Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

IPCS: International Programme on Chemical Safety

IQ: intelligence quotient

IRIS: Integrated Risk Information System

IWI: Index of Watershed Indicators
K-L
Ibs: pounds

LDC: least distributed condition

LQGs: large quantity generators

LTER: long-term ecological research

LUST: leaking underground storage tanks

km: kilometers
C-4
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Append
x
-------
M
MA: metropolitan area

MAD: malathion dicarboxylic acid

MAIA: Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment

MBII: Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index

MCL: maximum contaminant levels

MDC: minimally distributed condition

MDN: Mercury Deposition Network

|J/m3: micrograms per cubic meter

|J/dl: micrograms per deciliter

|J/L: micrograms per liter

MRLC: Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics

MSAs: metropolitan statistical areas
N
N2: nitrogen

NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NADP: National Atmospheric Deposition Program

NAE: National Academy of Engineering

NAMS: national air monitoring stations

NAO: North Atlantic Oscillation

NAPAP: National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program

NAS: Nonindigenous Aquatic Species

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASQAN: National Stream Quality Accounting Network
NASS: National Agricultural Statistics Service

NAWQA: National Water Qualiiy Assessment Program

NCEA: National Center for Environmental Assessment

NCES: National Center for Education Strategies

NCEH: National Center for Environmental Health

NCFAP: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy

NCHS: National Center for Health Statistics

NCI: National Cancer Institute

NCS: National Children's Study

NDVI: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index

NEI: National Emissions Inventory

NEP: National Estuary Program

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NERRS: National'Estuarine Research Reserve System

ng/mL: nanograms per milliliter

NHANES: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

NHATS: National Human Adipose Tissue Survey

NHj: ammonia

NHD: National Hydrography Dataset

NHEXAS: National Human Exposure Assessment Survey

NHIS: National Health Interview Survey

NHLBI: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

NIH: National Institutes of Health

NINDS: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

NLCD: National Land Cover Data

NLFWA: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
Appendix C.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
C-5
-------
' ' _r '" ' • ' • •" •• ':"^^T' " ' ' ; ila*llli'a*l•llal^^*Sl¥S^!t*4Jl^^i^SB;fiSE^S6^lll^K!
II
NLV: Norwalk-like virus

nm: nanometers

NMI: Nematode Maturity Index

MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

NMVOCs: non-methane volatile organic compounds

NOjs nitrogen dioxide

NO,, nitrogen oxides

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOPES: Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study

NPb National Priorities List

NPP: Net Primary Production

NRC: National Research Council

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRI: National Resources Inventory

NSF: National Science Foundation

NSh National Sediment Inventory

NSSP: National Sanitary Survey Program

NS&.T: National Status and Trends Program

NTN: National Trends Network

NVSS: National Vital Statistics System

NWHC: National Wildlife Health Center

NWI: National Wetlands Inventory
o
j: ozone
OAQPS: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
. !
OAR: Office of Air and Radiation !

OCFO: Office of the Chief Financial Officer

OCHP: Office of Children's Health Protection

OCIR: Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

OECA: Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OEI: Office of Environmental Information

OOP: ozone-depleting potential

ODS: ozone-depleting substance

OE: Office of Enforcement

OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OPEI: Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

OPs: organophosphate pesticides '

OPP: Office of Pesticide Programs

OPPE: Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation

OPPT: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

OPPTS: Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

ORD: Office of Research and Development

OSWER: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OW: Office of Water
C-6
Acronyms and Abbreviations
/Appendix (_- :
-------

P: phosphorus

PAH: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Pb: lead

PBTs: persistent bioaccumulative toxics

PCBs: polychlorinated biphenyls

PCC: poison control centers

PCDD: pojychlorinated dibenzo-dioxin

PCDF: polychlorinated dibenzo-furan

pCi/L: picocuries per liter

PDO: Pacific Decadal Oscillation

POP: Pesticides Data Program

PECDF: pentachlorodibenzofuran

PERC: chloroform tetrachloroethylene

PFCs: perflourinated carbons

PIBI: Periphyton Index of Biotic Integrity

PM: particulate matter

PMiQr PM2.s: particulate matter 10, 2.5 micrometers (coarse, fine)

PMSAs: primary metropolitan statistical areas

POPs: persistent organic pollutants

POTW: publicly owned treatment works

PPI: Producer Price Index

PSR: pressure-state-response framework

PSR/E: pressure-state-response-effects framework

PWS: public water system
Q-R
QA/QC: quality assurance/quality control

RB meter: Robertson-Berger meter

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRAInfo: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
System

ReVA: Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program

RMSF: rocky mountain spotted fever

ROE: EPA's Report on the Environment

ElPA: Resource Planning Act

RUSLE: revised universal soil loss equation
s
SiAB: Science Advisory Board

SARA: Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act

SAV: submerged aquatic vegetation

SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS: Safe Drinking Water Information System

SDWIS/FED: Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal
version

SeaWiFS: sea viewing wide field-of-view sonar

. SiEER: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program

Si EM: simultaneously extracted metals

SF6: sulfur hexafluoride x

SIC: standard industrial classification

SIDS: sudden infant death syndrome
Appendix C
Acronyms and Abbreviations
C-7
-------
\ ' I If .;•'• . .. ! I ' j . ; '. : '! : 1M
'
SLAMS: state/local air monitoring stations

SMSA: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area

SO2: sulfur dioxide

SOLEC: State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference

SQI: Soil Quality Index

SPARROW: SPAtially-Referenced Regression On Watershed
Attributes

SQCs: small quantify generators

SSO: sanitary sewer overflow

SST: sea surface temperature

STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database

STORET: STORage and RETrieval Database

SWAT: Soil and Water Assessment Tool
T
TBP: theoretical bioaccumulation potential

TCEs trichloroethylene

TDCF: tetrachlorodibenzofuran

TESS: Toxic Exposure Surveillance System

THMs: trihalomethanes

TIME: temporally integrated monitoring of ecosystems

TMDL: total maximum daily load

TN: total nitrogen

TOO total organic carbon

TOMS: total ozone mapping spectrometer

TP: total phosphorus
TRI: Toxics Release Inventory

TD: Technical Document for EPA's Report on the Environment

TSDs: treatrhent, storage, and disposal facilities

TYPY: 3,5,6'-trichloro-2-pyridinol
U-Z
UAs: urbanised areas

UCs: urban clusters

UN: United Nations

UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USCS: U.S. Geological Survey

UST: underground storage tanks

UV: ultraviolet

UV-A: ultraviolet A

UV-B: ultraviolet B

VMT: vehicle miles traveled

VOCs: volatile organic compounds

WBDO: Waterborne disease outbreak

WHO: World Health Organization

WMO: World Meteorological Organization

WMPC: waste minimization priority chemicals
C-8
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Appendix C.
-------
Appendix D

Ci
• ^^k ^ £* **%•' VM JF
ioss3rv
: ^ ! ' J

.1 of Tetrnris..
-------
• |• "™ [" ' ' • '" • "«: " ' Still IHlllf . '^W.^^:l:'J>wi:^ .'^^g^^HlMlKKifl^
A
accretion: The gradual build-up of sediment along the bank or
shore of a river or stream.

acid deposition: A complex chemical and atmospheric phenomenon,
that occurs when emissions of sulfur and nitrogen compounds are
transformed by chemical processes in the atmosphere and then
deposited on earth in either wet or dry form. The wet forms, often
called "acid rain," can fall to earth as rain, snow, or fog. The dry
forms are acidic gases or particulate matter.

adipose tissue: Fatty tissue.

advisory: A nonregulatory document that communicates risk
information to those who may have to make risk management
decisions. (EPA, December 1997)

aerosol: 1. Small droplets or particles suspended in the
atmosphere, typically containing sulfur. They are emitted naturally
(e.g., in volcanic eruptions) and as a result of human activities
(c.g. burning fossil fuels). 2. The pressurized gas used to propel
substances out of a container. (EPA, December 1997)

agricultural waste: Byproducts generated by the rearing of animals
and the production and harvest of crops or trees. Animal waste, a
large component of agricultural waste, includes waste (e.g., feed
waste, bedding and litter, and feedlqt and paddock runoff) from
livestock, dairy, and other animal-related agricultural and farming
practices.

air pollutant: Any substance in air that could, in high enough
concentration, harm man, other animals, vegetation, or material.
Pollutants may include almost any natural or artificial composition of
airborne matter capable of being airborne. They may be in the form
of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or in combination thereof.
Generally, they fall into two main groups: (1) those emitted directly
from identifiable sources and (2) those produced in the air by
interaction between two or more primary pollutants, or by reaction
with normal atmospheric constituents, with or without
photoactivation. Exclusive of pollen, fog, and dust, which are of
natural origin, about 100 contaminants have been identified. Air
pollutants are often grouped in categories for ease in classification;
some of he categories are: solids, sulfur compounds, volatile organic
compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen compounds, oxygen
compounds, halogen compounds, radioactive compounds, and
odors. (EPA, December 1997)

air pollution: The presence of contaminants or pollutant
substances in the air that interfere with human health or welfare or
produce other harmful environmental effects. (EPA, December 1997)
air quality criteria: The levels of pollution and lengths of exposure
above which harmful health and welfare effects may occur.
(EPA, December 1997)

air quality standards: The level of pollutants prescribed by
regulations that are not to be exceeded during a given time in a
defined area. (EPA, December 1997)
' '. •' i i • • ; i ,..
air toxics: Air pollutants that cause or may cause cancer or other
serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects,
or adverse environmental and ecological effects. Examples of toxic air
pollutants include benzene, found in gasoline; perchloroethylene,
emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride,
used as a solvent by a number of industries.

algal blooms: Sudden spurts of algal growth, which can degrade
water quality and indicate potentially hazardous changes in local
water chemistry. (EPA, December 1997)

ambient air: Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere; open air,
surrounding air. (EPA, December 1997)

ambient aiir quality standards: See criteria pollutants and National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.

animal waiste: Byproducts that result from livestock, diary, and
other animal-related agricultural practices.

anthropogenic: Originating from humans, not naturally occurring,
(EPA, MAIA, August 2002)

aquatic ecosystems: Salt water or fresh water ecosystems, includes
rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries and coral reefs.

aquifer: An underground geological formation, or group of
formation:;, containing water; source of. ground water for wells and
springs. (USCS, 1996)

arsenic: A silvery, nonmetallic element that occurs naturally in rocks
and soil, water, air, and plants and animals. It can be released into the
environment through natural activities such as. volcanic action,
erosion of rocks, and forest fires or through human actions.
Approximately 90 percent of industrial arsenic in the U.S. is used as
a wood preservative, but arsenic is also used in paints, dyes, metals,
drugs, sojips, and semiconductors. Agricultural applications (used in
rodent poisons and some herbicides), mining, and smelting also
contribute to arsenic releases in the environment. It is a known
human carcinogen.

arterioscjerosis: Hardening of the arteries.

asbestos:: Naturally occurring strong, flexible fibers that can be
separated into thin threads and woven. These fibers resist heat and
D-2
Glossary of Terms
Appendix D
-------

chemicals and do not conduct electricity. Asbestos is used for
insulation, making automobile brake and clutch parts, and many
other products. These fibers break easily and form a dust composed
of tiny particles that are light and sticky. When inhaled or swallowed
they can cause health problems. (NCI, 2001)

assemblage: The association of interacting populations of
organisms in a selected habitat.
6
basal cell carcinoma: A type of skin cancer, usually curable if
treated in time.

beach day: A day that a beach would normally be open to the
public. :

benthic: Occurring at or near the bottom of a body of water.

benthic organisms: The worms, clams, crustaceans, and other
organisms that live at the bottom of the estuaries and the sea.

benthos: In fresh water and marine ecosystems, organisms attached
to, resting on, or burrowed into bottom sediments.

bioaccumulation: A process whereby chemicals (e.g., DDT, PCBs)
are retained by plants and animals and increase in concentration
over time. Uptake can occur through feeding or direct absorption
from water or sediments. (EPA, MAIA, August 2002)

biodiversity: The variety and variability among living organisms and
the ecological complexes in which they occur. Diversity can be
defined as the number of different items and their relative
frequencies. The term encompasses three basic levels of biodiversity:
ecosystems, species, and genes.

biological diversity: See biodiversity.

biomarker: 1. A parameter that can be used to identify a toxic
effect in an individual organism and can be used in extrapolation
between species. 2. An indicator signaling an event or condition in a
biological system or sample and giving a measure of exposure, effect,
or susceptibility. (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry,
1993)

biomass: All of the living material in a given area; often refers to
vegetation. (EPA; December 1997)

biomonitoring: Use of a living organism or biological entity as a
detector and its response as a measure to determine environmental
conditions. Ambient biological surveys and toxicity tests are common
biological monitoring methods.

biotic: Refers to living organisms.

biotic condition: The state of living things.

biotic integrity: The ability to support and maintain balanced,
integrated functionality in the natural habitat of a given region.

body burden: The amount of various contaminants retained in a
person's tissues.

bog: A type of wetland that accumulates appreciable peat deposits.
Bogs depend primarily on precipitation for their water source and
are usually acidic and rich in plant residue, with a conspicuous mat
of living green moss. (EPA, December 1997)

brownfield: Real property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse
of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence
of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
c
cadmium: A metal found in natural deposits as ores containing
other elements. The greatest use of cadmium is primarily for metal
plating and coating operations, including transportation equipment,
machinery and baking enamels, photography, and television
phosphors. It is also used in nickel-cadmium and solar batteries and
in pigments. (EPA, OGWDW, September 2002)

carcinogen: An agent that causes cancer.

cerebrovascular disease: A category of diseases, including stroke,
related to blood vessels supplying the brain.

chlorination: The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage,
or industrial waste to disinfect or to oxidize undesirable compounds.
(EPA, December 1997)

chlorine: A greenish-yellow gas that is slightly soluble in water.
Chlorine is often used in disinfection of water and treatment of
sewage effluent as well as in the manufacture of products such as
antifreeze, rubber, and cleaning agents.

chromium: A heavy metal that occurs naturally in rocks, plants, soil,
and volcanic dust and gases. It is tasteless and odorless. It can
damage living things at low concentrations and tends to accumulate
in the food chain.
Appendix D
Glossary of Terms
D-3
-------
ecnnica
chronic exposure: Multiple exposures occurring over an extended
period of time or over a significant fraction of an animal's or human's
lifetime (usually seven years to a lifetime). (EPA, December 1997)

Class I area: Under the Clean Air Act, a Class I area is one in which
visibility is protected more stringently than under the national
ambient air quality standards; includes national parks, wilderness
areas, monuments, and other areas of special national and cultural
significance. (EPA, December 1997)

cleanup: Action taken to deal with a release or threat of release of a
hazardous substance that could affect humans, the environment, or
both. The term "cleanup" is sometimes used interchangeably with
the terms "remedial action," "removal action," "response action," or
"corrective action."

coastal and ocean ecosystem: An ecosystem that consists
primarily of estuaries and ocean waters under U.S. jurisdiction. U.S. •
waters extend to the boundaries of the U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone, 200 miles from the U.S. coast. (The Heinz Center, 2002)
(This report focuses on waters within 25 miles of the coast.)

coastal wetland: Ecosystem generally found along the Atlantic,
Pacific, Alaskan, and Gulf coasts and closely linked to the nation's
estuaries, where sea water mixes with fresh water to form an
environment of varying salinities. The plants in coastal wetlands have
adapted to changing fluctuating water levels and salinities to create
tidal salt marshes, mangrove swamps, and tidal fresh water wetlands,
which form beyond the upper edges of tidal salt marshes where the
influence of salt water ends. Fresh water coastal wetlands can also be
found adjacent to the Great Lakes.

community water system: A public water system that serves at least
15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly
serves at least 25 year-round residents. (EPA, December 1997)

composting: The controlled biological decomposition of organic
material in the presence of air to form a humus-like material.
Controlled methods of composting include mechanical mixing and
aerating, ventilating the materials by dropping them through a
vertical series of aerated chambers, and placing the them in piles out
In the open air and mixing it or turning it periodically.

congenital anomalies: Birth defects.

construction and demolition debris: Waste generated during
building, renovation, and wrecking projects. This type of waste
generally consists of materials such as wood, concrete, steel, brick,
and gypsum.
contaminant: Any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological
substance or matter that has an adverse effect on air, water, or soil.
(EPA, December 1997)

contaminated land: Ground that has been polluted with hazardous
materials and requires cleanup or remediation. Contaminated sites
may contain both polluted objects (e.g., buildings, machinery) and
land (e.g. soil, sediments, and plants).

contaminated media: Materials such as soil, sediment, water, and
sludge that are polluted at levels requiring cleanup or further
assessment.

contamination: Introduction into water,-air, or soil of
microorganisms, chemicals, toxic substances, wastes, or waste water
in a concentration that makes the medium unfit for its next intended
use. Also applies to surfaces of objects, buildings, and various
household and agricultural use products. ;(EPA, December 1997)

conterminous: Enclosed within one common boundary (e.g., the
48 conterminous states).

cotinine: A breakdown product (metabolite) of nicotine that can be
measured in urine.

criteria air pollutants: A group of six widespread and common air
pollutants regulated by the EPA on the basis of standards set to
protect public health or environmental effects of pollution. These six
criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

cropland: A National Resources Inventory land cover/use category
that includes areas used for the production of adapted crops for
harvest. Two subcategories of cropland are recognized: cultivated
and noncultivated. Cultivated cropland comprises land in row crops
or close-grown crops and also other cultivated cropland, for
example, hayland or pastureland that is in a rotation with row or
close-grown brops. Noncultivated cropland includes permanent
hayland and horticultural cropland. (USDA, NRCS, 2000)
D
depuration: The process of reducing the number of pathogenic
organisms that may be present in shellfish by using a controlled
aquatic environment as the treatment process. (FDA, 2000)
D-4
Glossary of Terms
/Appendix U
-------
^^::^' yM^^'-?'&'$ft*yt%i&?&-&M$Mb i '•l-MT^-.^^^^j^j^^tf^&i!^^-,
dermal absorption: The process by which a chemical penetrates
the skin and enters the body as an internal dose. (EPA, December
1997) _. • .

designated uses: Those wate'r uses identified in state water quality
standards that must be achieved and maintained as required under
the Clean Water Act. Uses can include fishing, shellfish harvesting,
public water supply, swimming, boating, and irrigation. (EPA,
December 1997)

developed land: A combination of National Resource Inventory
land cover/use categories: large urban and built-up areas, small built-
up areas, and rural transportation land. (USDA, NRCS, 2000)

dioxin: A group of chemically similar compounds, known chemically
as dibenzo-p-dioxins, that are created inadvertently during
combustion, chlorine bleaching of pulp and paper, and some types of
chemical manufacturing. Tests on laboratory animals indicate that it
is one of the more toxic anthropogenic (manmade) compounds.

disinfection byproduct: A compound formed by the reaction of a
disinfectant such as chlorine with organic material in the water
supply; a chemical byproduct of the disinfection process. (EPA,
December 1997)

Dobson unit (DU): A measurement of ozone in the atmosphere. If,
for example, 100 DU of ozone were brought to earth's surface, they
would form a layer one millimeter thick. (EPA, December 1997)

dose: 1. The actual quantity of a chemical administered to an
organism or to which it is exposed. 2. The amount of a substance
that reaches a specific tissue (e.g., the liver). 3. The amount of a
substance available for interaction with metabolic processes after
crossing the outer boundary of an organism. (EPA, December 1997)

dry deposition: The settling of gases and particles out of the
atmosphere. Dry deposition is a type of acid deposition, more
commonly referred to as "acid rain." (EPA, Clean Air Markets Division,
October 2002).
ecological processes: The metabolic functions of ecosystems—
energy flow, elemental cycling, and the production, consumption,
and decomposition of organic matter, (EPA, SAB, 2002)

ecology: The study of the structure and function of nature; the
totality of relations between organisms and their environment.
(Odum, 1971)

ecoregions: Areas within which ecosystems with similar
characteristics are likely to occur with predictable patterns; variables
include such things as landform, vegetation, soils, and fauna.

ecosystem: 1. The interacting system of a biological community and
its nonliving environmental surroundings. 2. A geographic area
including all living organisms (people, plants, animals, and
microorganisms), their physical surroundings (such as soil, water and
air), and the natural cycles that sustain them.

ecotone: A habitat created by the juxtaposition of distinctly
different habitats; an edge habitat; or an ecological zone or
boundary where two or more ecosystems meet. (EPA, December
1997)

emissions standard: The maximum amount of air-polluting
discharge legally allowed from a single source, mobile or stationary.
(EPA, December 1997)

endangered species: Animals, birds, fish, plants, or other living
organisms threatened with extinction by anthropogenic
(human-caused) or natural changes in their environment.
Requirements for declaring a species "endangered" are contained in
the Endangered Species Act. (EPA, December 1997)

endocrine disrupters: Chemicals that interfere with the endocrine
systems, leading to adverse effects. Some chemicals do this by
binding to receptors, such as the estrogen and androgen receptors.

endocrine system: The components of the body that produce
hormones that regulate reproductive and developmental functions.
Major endocrine glands include' the pituitary, thyroid, adrenal glands,
testes, and ovaries.
ecological indicators: Measurable characteristics related to the
structure, composition, or functioning of ecological systems (EPA,
SAB, 2002); a measure, an index of measures, or a model that
characterizes an ecosystem or one of its critical components
(Jackson et.al, 2000); any expression of the environment that
quantitatively estimates the condition of ecological resources, the
magnitude of stress, the exposure of biological components to
stress, or the amount of change in condition. (Barber, 1994)
enrichment: The addition of nutrients (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus,
carbon compounds) from sewage effluent, agricultural or urban
runoff, or other sources to surface water. Enrichment greatly
increases the growth potential for algae and other aquatic plants.
(EPA, December 1997)

environmental burden of disease: The proportion of diseases,
disability, and injury caused by factors in the environment: chemical
pollutants, infectious microorganisms, and radiation.
Appendix D
Glossary of Terms
D-5
-------

environmental exposure: Human exposure to pollutants in their
surroundings. Low-level chronic exposure to pollutants is one of the
most common forms of environmental exposure (see threshold level).
(EPA, December 1997)

environmental indicators: Scientific measurements that help
measure over time the state of air, water, and land resources,
*•
pressures on those resources, and resulting effects on ecological and
human health. Indicators show progress in making the air cleaner and
the water purer and in protecting land.

environmental risk: The potential for adverse effects on living
organisms associated with pollution of the environment by effluents,
emissions, wastes, or accidental chemical releases; energy use, or the
depletion of natural resources. (EPA, December 1997)

environmental risk factor: An exposure to something in the
environment that, based on evidence, is known to be associated with
health-related conditions and considered important to prevent.
(Green, 1999)

environmental tobacco smoke: A mixture of smoke exhaled by a
smoker and the smoke from the burning end of a smoker's cigarette,
pipe, or cigar. Also known as second hand smoke.

epidemiology: The study of how diseases occur in a population
or area.

epiphyte: A plant, fungus, or microbe sustained entirely by
nutrients and water received, by means other than a parasite, from
within the canopy in which it resides. (Moffett, 2000)

erosion: The wearing away of land surface by wind or water,
intensified by land-clearing practices related to farming,
residential or industrial development, road building, or logging.
(EPA, December 1997)

estuaries: Partially enclosed bodies of water (this term includes
bays, sounds, lagoons, and fjords); they are generally considered to
begin at the upper end of tidal or saltwater influence and end where
they meet the ocean. (The Heinz Center, 2002)

cutrophic: Pertaining to a lake or other body of water
characterized by large nutrient concentrations, resulting in high
productivity of algae.

eutrophication: The slow aging process during which a lake,
estuary, or bay evolves into a bog or marsh and eventually
disappears. During the later stages of this process, the water body is
choked by abundant plant life that result from higher levels of
nutritive compounds such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Human
activities can accelerate the process. (EPA, December 1997)
exotic species: A species that is not indigenous to a region. (EPA,
December 1997)

exposure: The amount of radiation or pollutant present in a given
environment that represents a potential health threat to living
organisms. (I:PA, December 1997)

exposure pathway: The path from sources of pollutants via, soil,
water, or food to humans and other species. (EPA, December 1997)

exposure route: The way a chemical or pollutant enters an
organism after contact; i.e. by ingestion, inhalation, or dermal
absorption. (EPA, December 1997)

extraction waste: Byproducts produced as a result of mining
practices.
F
farmlands: include both croplands-lands used for production of
annual and perennial crops and livestock-and surrounding landscape,
such as field borders and windbreaks, small woodlots, grassland or
shrubland areas, wetlands, farmsteads, small villages and other built-
up areas, and similar areas within and adjacent to croplands. (The
Heinz Center, 2002)

fauna: Animal life.

fertilizers: Supplements to improve plant growth that are commonly
used on agricultural lands, as well as in urban, industrial, and
residential settings.

fish kill: A large-scale die-off of fish caused by factors such as
pollution, noxious algae, harmful bacteria, and hypoxic conditions.

floodplain: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water
from any source.

flora: Plant or bacterial life.

forage: Food for animals especially when taken by browsing or grazing.

forests: Lands at least 10 percent covered by trees of any size, at
least one acre in extent. This includes areas in which trees are
intermingled with other cover, such as chaparral and pinyon, juniper
areas in the Southwest, and both naturally regenerating forests and
areas planted for future harvest (plantations or "tree farms"). (The
Heinz Center, 2002)
D-6
Glossary of Terms
Appendix D
-------
forest fragmentation: The division of a formerly healthy forest into
patches, usually as a result of conversion to agricultural or residential
land. (EPA, August 2002)

forest land: Land that is at least 10 percent stocked by forest
trees of any size, including land that formerly had tree cover and
that will be naturally or artificially regenerated. The minimum area
for classification of forest land is one acre. (USDA, Forest Service,
April 2001)

fresh water systems: Include:
• Rivers and streams, including those that flow only part of the year
• Lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, from small farm ponds to the Great "
Lakes
• Ground water, which is often directly connected to rivers, streams,
lakes, and wetlands
• Fresh water wetlands, including forested, shrub, and emergent wet-
lands (marshes), and open water ponds
• Riparian areas-they usually vegetated margins of streams and
rivers (although this term can also apply to lake margins).
(The Heinz Center, 2002)
ground water: Subsurface water that occurs beneath the water
table in soils and geologic formations that are fully saturated.
G
geomorphology: The scientific study of the nature and origin of
the landforms on the surface of earth and other planets.

giardiasis: The illness resulting from infection of the gastrointestinal
tract with Giardia lamblia. The symptoms of giardiasis include gastric
pain, fatigue, extreme diarrhea, fever, chills, and nausea. The most
acute symptoms typically last only a few days (Garcia, 1999).

global burden of disease: The overall impact of disease related to
all causes.' It takes into account the burden represented by years of
life lived with illness or disability.

grasslands and shrublands: Lands in which the dominant
vegetation is grasses and other nonwoody vegetation, or where
shrubs (with or without scattered trees) are the norm (also called
rangelands); includes bare-rock deserts, alpine meadows, arctic
tundra, pastures, and haylands (an overlap with the farmland
system). Less-managed pastures and haylands fit well within the
grassland/shrubland system; more heavily managed ones fit well as
part of the farmlands system. (The Heinz Center, 2002)

gross primary production: Total energy captured in units of
carbon gain.

ground-level ozone: See ozone.
H
habitat: The place where a population (e.g., human, animal, plant,
microorganism) lives and its surroundings, both living and nonliving.
(EPA, December 1997)

habitat fragmentation: The division of large areas of natural
habitat into smaller sections through conversion of the natural
habitat to other uses (e.g., roads, development), resulting in
populations of plants and animals becoming isolated from each other
and potentially threatening their survival.

habitat loss: The destruction of habitat by natural disasters
(hurricanes, fires, flooding, etc.) and human activity (clearing land for
agricultural, industrial, and residential development; clear-cut
harvesting of timber; oil spills; and war).

halogens: Compounds that contain atoms of chlorine, bromine, or
fluorine.

hardwood: The wood of an angiospermous tree as distinguished
from that of a coniferous tree; a tree that yields hardwood.

hazardous waste: Byproducts of society that can pose a
substantial or potential threat to human health or the environment
when improperly managed. Hazardous waste possesses at least one
of four characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, ortoxicity.

health outcomes: An outcome measured by the quality of life,
likelihood of disease, life expectancy, and overall health of individuals
or communities. (HIC, 2000-2001)

heavy metals: Metallic elements with high atomic weights
(e.g., mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, lead); can damage' living
things at low concentrations and tend to accumulate in the food
chain. (EPA, December 1997)

herbicide: A form of pesticide used to control weeds that limit or
inhibit the growth of the desired crop.

high-level radioactive waste: Highly radioactive waste material from
the chemical processing of spent fuel. It includes spent fuel, liquid
waste, and highly radioactive solid waste from the liquid. High-level
radioactive waste contains elements that decay very slowly and
remain radioactive for thousands of years. (DOE, 1997)
Appendix D
Glossary of Terms
D-7
-------
CDA' iffi HOT rfWPfPWI3«8£I! SWfllPW liiiff
tr/^s Pratt ixepsft ort
r *••'•!• ! • • T •••]•".• ' -" '•-•• ;t •'
household hazardous waste: Hazardous products used and
disposed of by residential rather than industrial consumers. It
includes paints, stains, varnishes, solvents, pesticides, and other
materials or products containing volatile chemicals that can catch
fire, react, or explode, or are corrosive or toxic.

human exposure to contaminants: The contact of a chemical
contacting and the outer boundary of a human. (EPA, ORD,
March 1998)

hydrologic cycle: Movement or exchange of water between the
atmosphere and earth. (EPA, December 1997)

hydrologic unit code (HUC): An eight-digit code that is used to
classify watersheds in the U.S. This code uniquely identifies each of
four levels of watershed classification within four two-digit fields. The
first two digits of the code identify the water-resources region; the
first four digits identify the sub-region; the first six digits identify the
accounting unit; and the final two digits identify the cataloging unit.
For example, in hydrologic unit code (HUC) 01080204, 01 identifies
the region; 0108 identifies the sub-region; 010802 identifies the
accounting unit; and 01080204 identifies the cataloging unit.

hydrology: The geology of ground water, with particular emphasis
on the chemistry and movement of water. (EPA, December 1997)

hypertrophic: Pertaining to a lake or other body of water
characterized by excessive nutrient concentrations, resulting high
productivity.

hypoxia/hypoxic waters: Waters with low levels of dissolved
oxygen concentrations, typically less than two ppm, the level
generally accepted as the minimum required for most marine life to
survive and reproduce. (EPA, December 1997).
incidence rate of disease: The number of new cases of a disease or
condition in a given period of time in a specified population.

indoor air: The breathable air inside a habitable structure or
conveyance. (EPA, December 1997)

indoor air pollution: Chemical, physical, or biological contaminants
in indoor air. (EPA, December 1997)

industrial waste: Process waste associated with manufacturing.
This waste u<;ually is not classified as either municipal waste or
RCRA hazardous waste by federal or state laws. (EPA, OSWER,
October 1988)

industrial non-hazardous waste: Process waste associated with
generation of electric power and manufacture of materials such as
pulp and paper, iron and steel, glass, and concrete. This waste
usually is not classified as either municipal waste or hazardous waste
by federal or state laws.

infant mortality: The death of children in the first year of life.

inland wetlands: Wetlands that include marshes, wet meadows, and
swamps. These areas are often dry one or more seasons every year.
In the arid West of the U.S., they may be wet only periodically.

integrated pest management: The coordinated use of available
pest-control methods to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage
by the most eiconomical means and with the least possible hazard to
people, property, and the environment.

invasive species/invasive nuisance species: See nonnative species.

inversion: The condition that occurs when warm air is trapped near
the ground and normal temperature gradients don't permit air to
flow into the atmosphere. (Nadakavukaren, 2000).
impervious surface: A hard surface area that either prevents or
retards the entry of water into the soil mantle or causes water to run
off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow.
Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to,
rooftops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots, storage areas,
concrete or asphalt paving, and gravel roads. (Washington
Department of Ecology, 1992).

impounded: Refers to a body of water such as a pond, lake, or river
that has been confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other barrier.
(Texas Environmental Center, 1991)
Julian day (JO): A Julian day is a continuous count of days
beginning witjh January 1, 4713 BC. Julian days are often used by
astronomers and sometimes used by historians to provide a precise
date for an event, independent of all calendar systems. The date
4713 BC was chosen for the start of the count because this was
earlier than all known historical records and happened to be a
convenient starting point for several chronological and astronomical
cycles. The length of the year in the Julian calendar is exactly
365.25 Julian days.
D-8
Glossary of Terms
Appendix U
-------

K
keystone species: A species that interacts with a large number of
other species in a community. Because of the interactions, the
removal of this species can cause widespread changes to community
structure. (Pidwirny, 2000-2001)
L
lagoons (for waste treatment): Water impoundments in which
organic wastes are stored, stabilized, or both. A shallow, artificial
treatment pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to
purify wastewater; a stabilization pond. An aerated lagoon is a
treatment pond that uses oxygen to speed up the natural process of
biological decomposition of organic wastes. (EPA, August 2002)

land cover: The ecological status and physical structure of the
vegetation on the land surface. (NRC, 2000)

land use: Describes how a piece of land is managed or used by
humans. The degree to which the land reflects human activities (e.g.,
residential and industrial development, roads, mining, timber
harvesting, agriculture, grazing, etc.).

landfills: 1. Sanitary landfills: Disposal sites for nonhazardous solid
wastes spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume,
and covered by material applied at the end of each operating day. 2.
Secure chemical landfills: Disposal sites for hazardous waste, selected
and designed to minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment.

landscape: The traits, patterns, and structure of a specific
geographic area, including its biological composition, its physical
environment, and its anthropogenic or social patterns. An area where
interacting ecosystems are grouped and repeated in similar form.
(EPA, December 1997)

landscape condition: The extent, composition, and patterns of
habitats in a landscape.

landscape pattern: The spatial distribution of the land use/land
cover types, the arrangement of patches, connectivity among
patches, and corridors for movement.

large urban and built-up areas: A National Resources Inventory
land cover/use category composed of developed tracts of at least
10 acres, meeting the definition of urban and built-up areas. (USDA,
NRCS, 2000)
large-quantity generators: Businesses that generate substantial
"RCRA hazardous waste" as a part of their regular activities.

leaching: The process by which soluble materials in the soil, such as
nutrients, pesticide chemicals, or contaminants, are washed into a
lower layer of soil or are dissolved and carried away by water. (Texas
Environmental Center, 1991)

lead: A heavy metal used in many materials and products. It is a
natural element and does not break down in the environment. When
absorbed into the body, it can be highly toxic to many organs and
systems.

levee: A natural or manmade earthen barrier along the edge of a
stream, lake, or river. Land alongside rivers can be protected from
flooding by levees.

lichen: Any of numerous complex thallophytic plants made up of an
alga and a fungus growing in symbiotic association on a solid surface
(e.g., a rock).

life expectancy: The probable number of years (or other time
period) that members of a particular age class of a population are
expected to live, based on statistical studies of similar populations in
similar environments.

life expectancy (at birth): The average number of years that a
group or cohort of infants born in the same year are expected to live.

low birthweight: Refers to children born weighing less than 2,500
grams (5.5 pounds).

low-level waste: Radioactive waste, including accelerator-produced
waste, that is not high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel,
transuranic waste, byproduct material (as defined in the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954), or naturally occurring radioactive material.
M
macroinvertebrate: An organism that lacks a backbone and can be
seen with the naked eye. (EPA, OW, November 2002).

malignant melanoma: A type of skin cancer, more often fatal than
other types of skin cancer.

media: Specific environments—air, water, soil—that are the subject
of regulatory concern and activities. (EPA, December 1997)
Appendix D
Glossary of Terms
D-9
-------

medical waste: Any solid waste generated during the diagnosis,
treatment, or immunization of human beings or animals, in research,
production, or testing.

mercury: Mercury is a metallic element that occurs in many forms
and in combination with other elements. When combined with
carbon, which readily occurs in water, it forms more-bioavailable
organic mercury compounds (e.g., methylmercury).

mesotrophic: Pertaining to a lake or other body of water
characterized by moderate nutrient concentrations and moderate
productivity in terms of aquatic animal and plant life.

metabolic rate: The rate at which the body can turn food into
energy.

metabolites: Compound that result from human digestion
(metabolism) of contaminants and that serve as a biomarkers of
exposure.

metadata: Information about data. It describes the content, quality,
condition, and other characteristics of data.

methemoglobinemia: A rare but potentially fatal condition in
infants that results from interferences in the blood's ability to carry
oxygen. Nitrates in drinking water are associated with
methemoglobinemia (also known as "blue baby syndrome").

metropolitan area: A Metropolitan Area (MA) is a U.S. Census
Bureau construct that consists of an area comprising a core with a
large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities that
have a high degree of economic and social integration with that core.
Each MA must contain either a place with a minimum population of
50,000 or a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area and a total MA
population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). The area
is defined by county boundaries. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001)

microorganisms: Tiny life forms that can be seen only with the aid
of a microscope. Some microorganisms can cause acute health
problems when consumed; also known as microbes. (EPA, OGWDW,
November 2002)

Mid-Atlantic Highlands: A region that encompass 79,000 square
miles and extends east to west from the Blue Ridge Mountains in
Virginia to the Ohio River, and north to south from the Catskill
Mountains to the North Carolina-Tennessee-Virginia border

mixed low-level waste: Low-level radioactive waste that also
contains hazardous constituents. (DOE, December 1999)

mobile sources: Moving objects that release pollution from
combustion of fossil fuels, such as cars, trucks, buses, planes, trains,
lawn mowers, construction equipment, and snowmobiles. Some
mobile sources, such as some construction equipment or movable
diesel generators,- are called nonroad sources, because they are
usually operated off road.

Monte Carlo analysis: A computer-based statistical tool—drawing
on various probabilistic techniques—that is used to help quantify
variability and uncertainty inherent to risk assessment.

morbidity: Sickness, illness, or disease that does not result in
death.

mortality: Death; death rate, the proportion of the population who
die of a diseeise, often expressed as a number per 100,000.

municipal solid waste: Waste discarded by households,
hotels/motels, and commercial, institutional, and industrial sources.
It typically consists of everyday items such as product packaging,
grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers,
appliances, paint, and batteries. It does not include waste water.
N
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Standards established
by EPA under the Clean Air Act that apply to outdoor air throughout
the country (see criteria pollutants). (EPA, December 1997)

nematodes: Simple worms consisting of an elongate stomach and
reproduction system inside a resistant outer cuticle (outer skin).
(USDA, 2001)

net primary production: Gross primary production minus all
sources of plant respiration. Represents the carbon or biomass that
is available to other organisms, providing the base of the food web.

nitrate: The primary chemical form of nitrogen in most aquatic
systems; occurs naturally; a plant nutrient and fertilizer; can be
harmful to humans and aninmals.

nitric oxide (NO): A gas formed by combustion under high
temperature and high pressure in an internal combustion engine; it is
converted by sunlight and photochemical processes in ambient air to
nitrogen oxide. NO is a precursor of ground-level ozone pollution, or
smog. (EPA, December 1997)

nitrogen dioxide (NO2): The result of nitric oxide combining with
oxygen in the atmosphere; major component of photochemical
smog. (EPA, December 1997)
D-10
Glossary of Terms
Appendix D
-------

nitrogen export: The annual quantity of total nitrogen produced
by nitrogen sources in a watershed that leaves the watershed
through a river or stream that connects to other watersheds
downstream

nitrogen oxide (IMOX): The result of photochemical reactions of
nitric oxide in ambient air; major component of photochemical smog.
Product of combustion from transportation and stationary sources
and a major contributor to the formation of ozone in the
troposphere and to acid deposition. (EPA, December, 1997)

noncommunity water system: A public water system that is not a
community water system. Nontransient noncommunity water systems
are those that regularly supply water to at least 25 of the same
people at least six months per year but not year-round (e.g.,
schools, factories, office buildings, and hospitals that have their own
water systems). Transient noncommunity water systems provide water
in a place where people do not remain for long periods of time (e.g.,
a gas station or campground).

nonhazardous waste: See solid waste.

nonisolated intermediaries: An intermediate compound in a
chemical manufacturing process that can be a by-product or can be
released as a result of the process.

nonnative species: A species that has been introduced by human
action, either intentionally or by accident, into areas outside its
natural geographical range. Other names for these species include.
alien, exotic, introduced, and nonindigenous.

nonpoint source pollution: Pollution that occurs when rainfall,
snowmelt, or irrigation water runs over land or through the ground,
picks up pollutants, and deposits them into rivers, lakes, coastal
waters, or ground water. Types of pollution include sediments,
nutrients, pesticides, pathogens (bacteria and viruses), toxic
chemicals, heavy metals that runoff from agricultural land, urban
development, and roads.

noxious algae: Toxic algae commonly associated with harmful algae
blooms such as red tides.

nutrient: Any substance assimilated by living things that promotes
growth. The term is generally applied to nitrogen and phosphorus,
but is also applied to other essential and trace elements.

nutrient enrichment: See eutrophication.
o
oil and gas production wastes: Drilling fluids, produced waters,
and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, and
production of crude oil or natural gas that are conditionally
exempted from regulation as hazardous wastes.
>
oligotrophic: Pertaining to a lake or other body of water
characterized by extremely low nutrient concentrations, often with
very limited plant growth but with high dissolved-oxygen levels.

organic matter: Plant and animal material that is in the process of
decomposing. When it has fully decomposed, it is called "humus."
This humus is important for soil structure because it holds individual
mineral particles together in clusters. (USDA, NRCS, 2000)

organophosphate: Pesticides that contain phosphorus; short-lived,
but some can be toxic when first applied. (EPA, December, 1997)

outer boundary: In reference to the body, includes skin and body
openings.

ozone (O3): A very reactive form of oxygen that is a bluish
irritating gas of pungent odor. It is formed naturally in the
atmosphere by a photochemical reaction and is a beneficial
component of the upper atmosphere. It is also a major air pollutant
.in the lower atmosphere, where it can form by photochemical
reactions when there are conditions of air pollutants, bright sunlight,
and stagnant weather.

ozone depletion: Destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer,
which shields earth from ultraviolet radiation harmful to life. This
destruction of ozone is caused by the breakdown of certain
compounds that contain chlorine, bromine, or both
(chlorofluorocarbons or halons), which occurs when they reach the
stratosphere and then catalytically destroy ozone molecules. (EPA,
December 1997)

ozone hole: A well-defined, large-scale area of significant thinning
of the ozone layer. It occurs over Antarctica each spring.

ozone layer: The protective stratum in the atmosphere, about 15
miles above the ground, that absorbs some of the sun's ultraviolet
rays, thereby reducing the amount of potentially harmful radiation
that reaches earth's surface. (EPA, December 1997)

ozone precursors: Chemicals that contribute to the formation
of ozone.
Appendix D
Glossary of Terms
D-n
-------
EFAs Draft Mportpti the
ecnmca
particulate matter: Solid particles or liquid droplets suspended
or carried in the air (e.g., soot, dust, fumes, mist). (EPA, OAR,
October 2002)

passive smoking: Exposure to tobacco smoke, or the chemicals in
tobacco smoke, without actually smoking. It usually refers to a
situation where a nonsmoker inhales smoke emitted into the
environment by other people smoking. This smoke is known as
"environmental tobacco smoke" (ETS). (National Public Health
Partnership, 2000)

pastureland: A National Resources Inventory land cover/use
category of land managed primarily for the production of introduced
forage plants for livestock grazing. Pastureland cover may consist of a
single species in a pure stand, a grass mixture, or a grass-legume
mixture. For the NRI, it includes land that has a vegetative cover of
grasses, legumes, and/or forbs, regardless of whether or not it is
being grazed by livestock. (USDA, NRCS, 2000).

pathogen: Microorganism (e.g., bacteria, viruses, or parasites)
that can cause disease in humans, animals, and plants. (EPA,
December 1997)

pcriphyton: Microscopic underwater plants and animals that are
firmly attached to solid surfaces such as rocks, logs, and pilings.
(EPA, December 1997)

persistent organic pollutants: Chemicals that endure in the
environment and bioaccumulate as they move up trough the food
chain. They include organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and furans.

pesticides: Any substance or mixture of substances intended to
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest. Pests can be insects,
mice and other animals, unwanted plants (weeds), fungi, or
microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses. Though often
misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term "pesticide" also
applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used
to control pests. Under U.S. law, a pesticide is also any substance or
mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant,
or desiccant.

phosphorus: An essential chemical food element that can
contribute to the eutrophication of lakes and other, water bodies.
Increased phosphorus levels result from discharge of
phosphorus-containing materials into surface waters. (EPA,
December 1997)

photosynthesis: The manufacture by plants of carbohydrates and
oxygen from carbon dioxide mediated by chlorophyll in the presence
of sunlight. (EPA, December 1997)
phytoplankton: That portion of the plankton community composed
of tiny plants (e.g. algae, diatoms). (EPA, December 1997)

playas: Areas at the bottom of undrained desert basins that are
sometimes covered with water. (EPA, OWOW, July 2002)

PM2.s: Fine particles that are less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers
in diameter.

PM-i0: Particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter.

point source pollution: Effluent or discharges directly from a
pipe into a waterway (e.g., from many industries and sewage
treatment plants).
I

pollutant: Generally, any substance introduced into the environment
that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource or the health of
humans, animals, or ecosystems. (EPA, December 1997)

pollution: Generally, the presence of a substance in the environment
that, because of its chemical composition or quantity, prevents the
.functioning of natural processes and produces undesirable
environmental and health effects. Under the Clean Water Act, for
example, the term has been defined as the manmade or man-induced
alteration of the physical, biological, chemical, and radiological integrity
of water andi other media. (EPA, December 1997)

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): A group of synthetic chemicals
that can exist as oily liquids and waxy solids. Due to their
non-flammability, chemical stability, high boiling point and electrical
insulating properties, PCBs were used in hundreds of industrial and
commercial applications including electrical, heat transfer, and
hydraulic equipment; as plasticizers in paints, plastics and rubber
products; in pigments, dyes and carbonless copy paper, and many
other applications. PCBs can produce toxic effects and are probable
carcinogen. (EPA, OPPT, February 2003)

pressure: 5>ee stressor.

prevalence of disease: That part of the total population affected
by a condition or disease.

prevalence rate: The total number of persons with a given disease
or condition in a specified population at a specified period of time.

production capacity: Chlorophyll per unit area for terrestrial
ecosystems (including wetlands and riparian areas) and per unit
volume for aquatic ecosystems.

productivity: The rate at which ecosystems use energy (principally
solar energy) to fix atmospheric carbon dioxide. (NRC, 2000)
D-12
Glossary of Terms
Appendix D
-------

R
radioactive waste: Garbage, refuse, sludge, and other discarded
material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous
material that must be managed for its radioactive content (DOE, July
1999). Types of radioactive waste include high-level waste, spent
nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, low-level waste, mixed low-level waste,
and contaminated media.

radon (Rn-222): A naturally occurring radioactive gas that has no
color, odor, or taste and is chemically inert. Radon comes from the
radioactive decay of uranium in soil, rock, and ground water and is
found all over the U.S. It has a half-life of 3.8 days, emitting ionizing
radiation (alpha particles) during its radioactive decay to several
radioactive isotopes known as "radon decay products." It gets into
indoor air primarily from soil under homes and other buildings.
Radon is a known human lung carcinogen and represents the largest
fraction of the public's exposure to natural radiation.

rangelands: A National Resources Inventory land cover/use
category on which the climax or potential plant cover is composed
principally of native grasses, grasslike plants, forbs or shrubs
suitable for grazing and browsing, and introduced forage species
that are managed like rangeland. This would include areas where
introduced hardy and persistent grasses, such as crested
wheatgrass, are planted and such practices as deferred grazing,
burning, chaining, and rotational grazing are used, with little or no
chemicals or fertilizer being applied. Grasslands, savannas, many
wetlands, some deserts, and tundra are considered to be
rangeland. Certain communities of low forbs and shrubs, such as
mesquite, chaparral, mountain shrub, and pinyon-juniper, are also
included as rangeland. (USDA, NRCS, 2000).

rare and at-risk species: Rare species are those that are
particularly vulnerable to both human-induced threats and natural
fluctuations and hazards. At-risk species are those classified by the
Association for Biodiversity Information as vulnerable or more rare.

RCRA hazardous waste: Applies to certain types of hazardous
wastes that appear on EPA's regulatory listing (RCRA) or that exhibit
specific characteristics of ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity, or
excessive toxicity.

red tide: A common name for the phenomenon where certain
phytoplankton species contain reddish pigments and "bloom" such
that the water appears to be colored red.

regional and continental areas: Heterogeneous areas at regional
(e.g, Southeast) and continental scales composed of a cluster or
mosaic of interacting ecosystems. Regional and continental
ecosystems are not characterized primarily by a dominant land cover
type such as forests, farmlands, grasslands or urban areas, but rather
include many or all these ecosystems at these larger spatial scales.
Regional and continental ecosystems reflect the underlying
landscape patterns at these larger scales.

relative risk: A measurement of the chance of contracting a disease
in those who have been exposed to a risk factor compared with the
risk for those who have not been exposed.

remediation: Cleanup or other methods used to remove or contain
a toxic spill or hazardous materials from a contaminated site.

reserved forest land: Forested land withdrawn from timber
utilization through statute, administrative regulation, or designation.
(USDA, Forest Service, April 2001)

richness: A measure of species diversity, which usually decreases
with impairment. It is based on the number of distinct taxa (at a level
selected to identify, e.g., order, family, species); can be the total
number of taxa, or the number in an identified group (e.g., number
of mayfly taxa).

rill: A small channel eroded into the soil by surface runoff; can be
easily smoothed out or obliterated by normal tillage. (EPA,
December 1997)

riparian area: The area adjacent to streams and rivers, important as
buffers to runoff. Many riparian areas include wetlands.

riparian wetland: A wetland along a stream or river.

riparian zone: A 30-meter buffer on each side of a stream or river.

risk: The probability that a health problem, injury, or disease
will occur.

risk factor: A characteristic (e.g., race, sex, age, obesity) or variable
(e.g., smoking, occupational exposure level) associated with
increased probability of an adverse effect. (EPA, December 1997)

runoff: That part of precipitation, snowmelt, or irrigation water that
runs off the land into streams or other surface water. It can carry
pollutants from the air and land into receiving waters. (EPA,
December 1997)

rural transportation land: A National Resources Inventory land
cover/use category that consists of all highways, roads, railroads,
and associated right-of-ways outside urban and built-up areas;
including private roads to farmsteads or ranch headquarters,
logging roads, and other private roads, except field lanes. (USDA,
NRCS, 2000)
Appendix D
Glossary of Terms
D-13
-------

s
secondhand smoke: See environmental tobacco smoke.

sediment transport: The movement of sediment in rivers and
streams.

sedimentation: the process of forming or depositing sediment;
letting solids settle out of wastewater by gravity during treatment.

self-supplied water: Water not drawn from the public water supply.

silica: An inorganic compound mined from the earth; has been
found to be associated with lung cancer (Steenland, 1997). Silica is
used in foundries, pottery making, brick making, and sand blasting.

silviculture: The science of producing and tending a forest; the
theory and practice of control/ing forest establishment, composition,
and growth. (Matthews, 1989)

sludge: Solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated from a municipal,
commercial, or industrial waste water facility.

small built-up areas: A National Resources Inventory land
cover/use category consisting of developed land units of 0.25 to
10 acres, which meet the definition of urban and built-up areas.
(USDA, NRCS, 2000)

smart growth: The management of "urbanization"' that seeks to
serve the economy, the community, and the environment. Smart
growth seeks to foster healthy communities, a clean environment,
economic development and jobs, and strong neighborhoods with a
range of housing options.

softwood: Coniferous trees, usually evergreen, that have needles or
scale-like leaves. (USDA, Forest Service, November 2002)

solid waste: Nonliquid, nonsoluble materials ranging from municipal
garbage to industrial wastes that contain complex and sometimes
hazardous substances. Solid wastes also include sewage sludge,
agricultural refuse, demolition wastes, mining residues, and liquids
and gases in containers. (EPA, December 1997)

species richness: The absolute number of species in an assemblage
or community.

spent nuclear fuel: Nuclear reactor fuel that has been used to the
extent that it can no longer effectively sustain a chafn reaction. (EPA,
December 2002)
spray drift: The physical movement of a pesticide through air at the
time of application, or soon thereafter, to any site other than that
intended for application.

sprawl: See urban sprawl.

squamous cell carcinoma: A type of skin cancer, usually curable if
treated in time.

stationary source: A place or object from which pollutants are
released and that stays in one place. These sources include many
types of facilities, including power plants, gas stations, dry cleaners,
incinerators, factories, and houses.

stressor: A physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce
adverse effects on ecosystems or human health. (EPA, December 1997)

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV): Rooted vegetation that
grows under water in shallow zones where light penetrates. (EPA,
CBP, October 2002)

Superfund: The program operated under the legislative authority of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability'Act (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) that funds and carries out EPA solid
waste emergency and long-term removal and remedial activities.
These activities include establishing the National Priorities List,
investigating sites for inclusion on the list, determining their priority,
and conducting and/or supervising cleanup and other remedial
actions. (EPA, December 1997)

Superfund site: Any land in the U.S. that has been contaminated
by hazardous waste and identified by EPA as a candidate for cleanup
because it poses a risk to human health, the environment, or both.

surface eythemal: Sun-burning UV radiation at earth=s surface.

surface water: Water in rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs,
estuaries, and wetlands (found at the surface, in contrast to
ground water).

sustainability: Long-term management of ecosystems to meet the
needs of present human populations without interruption,
weakening, or loss of the resource base for future generations.
(Environment Canada, 1997)
D-14
Glossary of Terms
Appendix U
-------

T
troposphere: The layer of the atmosphere closest to the earth's
surface. (EPA, December 1997)
thermoelectric water use: Use of water for cooling in the
generation of electric power.

threatened and endangered species: Those species that are in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their
range or are likely to become endangered in the future. (Crondahl,
etal, July 1997)

threshold: 1 .The lowest dose of a chemical at which a specified
measurable effect is observed and below which it is not observed.
2.The dose or exposure level below which a significant adverse effect
is not expected. (EPA, December 1997)

timber land: Forest land that is capable of producing crops of
industrial wood (at least 20 cubic feet per acre per year in natural
stands) and not withdrawn from timber use by statute or
administrative regulation. (USDA, Forest Service, April 2001)

total off-site releases: The total annual amount (in pounds) of a
toxic chemical transferred from a facility to publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) or to an off-site location (non-POTW). (EPA, TRI,
November 2002)

total on-site releases: The total annual release quantities (in
pounds) of a chemical to air, water, on-site land, and underground
injection wejls. (EPA, TRI, November 2002)

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI): A publicly available EPA database
that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste
management activities reported annually by certain covered
industries and federal facilities. TRI was established under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986
(EPCRA) and expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. -
(EPA, TRI, December 2002)

toxic substance: Any substance that presents a significant risk of
injury to health or the environment through exposure.

toxic waste: A waste that can produce injury if inhaled, swallowed,
or absorbed through the skin. (EPA, December 1997)

transuranic waste: A category of radioactive waste. It contains
elements that have atomic numbers higher than uranium (92), such
as plutonium; results primarily from past nuclear weapons production
and cleanup of nuclear weapons facilities.

trophic status: Classification of a lake or water body as eutrophic,
oligotrophic, mesotrophic, or hypertrophic.
U
ultraviolet (UV) radiation Radiation from the sun that can be
useful or potentially harmful. UV radiation from one part of the
spectrum (UV-A) enhance plant life. UV radiation from other parts of
the spectrum (UV-B) can cause skin cancer or other tissue damage.
The ozone layer in the atmosphere partly shields earth from UV
radiation reaching the surface. (EPA, December 1997)

underground storage tanks: Tanks and their underground piping
that have at least 10 percent of their combined volume underground.

urban and built-up areas: A National Resources Inventory land
cover/use category consisting of residential/ industrial, commercial,
and institutional land construction sites; public administrative sites;
railroad yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary structures
and spillways; small parks (less than 10 acres) within urban and
built-up areas; and highways, railroads, and other transportation
facilities if they are surrounded by urban areas. Also included are
tracts of less than 10 acres that do not meet the above definition
but are completely surrounded by urban and built-up land. (USDA,
NRCS, 2000)

urbanized areas (UAs) and urban clusters (UCs): Densely settled
areas consisting of core census block groups that have a population
density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and other
surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least
500 people per square mile. UAs contain 50,000 or more people;
UCs contain at least 2,500 people but fewer than 50,000. (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2001)

urban and suburban areas: Places where the land is primarily
devoted to buildings, houses, roads, concrete, grassy lawns, and
other elements of human use and construction. .Urban and suburban
areas, in which about three-fourths of all Americans live, span a
range of density, from the city center-characterized by high-rise
buildings and little green space-to the suburban fringe-where
development thins to a rural landscape. This definition does not
include all developed lands, for example, small residential zones, the
area of rural interstate highways, farmsteads, and the like, which are
"developed but are not sufficiently built up to be considered "urban
or suburban." (The Heinz Center, 2002)

urbanization: The concentration of development in relatively small
areas (cities and suburbs). The U.S. Census Bureau defines "urban"
as areas with densities of people above 1.5 people per acre.
Appendix D
Glossary of Terms
D-15
-------
• • • ••<•• ..•, .-'.:: :.,.i,;: :
V-Z
vehicle miles traveled: A measure of the extent of motor vehicle
operation; the total number of vehicle miles traveled by all vehicles
within a specific geographic area over a given period of time. Vehicle
miles traveled and other variables are used to estimate air pollutant
emissions.
wetland ecosystems: Areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and
similar areas.
vernal pools: Seasonal wetlands that occur under the
Mediterranean climate conditions of the West Coast. They are
covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to spring
but may be completely dry for most of the summer and fall. These
wetlands range in size from small puddles to shallow lakes and are
usually found in a gently sloping plain of grassland. Beneath vernal
pools lies either bedrock or a hard clay layer in the soil that helps
keep water in the pool.

volatile organic compounds: Chemicals, such as gasoline and
perthloroethylene (a dry cleaning solvent) that contain carbon and
vaporize readily.

waste minimization priority chemicals: A group of 30
chemicals—3 metals (lead, mercury, and cadmium) and 27 organic
compounds—identified as the highest priority for reduction in
industrial and hazardous waste.

water clarity: A measure of how clear a body of water is; measured
In the distance light penetrates into the water.

water quality criteria: Levels of water quality expected to render a
body of water suitable for its designated use. Criteria are based on
specific levels of pollutants that would make the water harmful if
used for drinking, swimming, irrigation, fish production, or industrial
processes. (EPA, December 1997)

water qualify standards: State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient
standards for water bodies. The standards define the water quality
goals of a water body by designating the uses of the water and
setting criteria to protect those uses. The standards protect public
health and welfare, enhance the quality of the water, and provide the
baseline for surface water protection under the Clean Water Act.

waterborne disease outbreak: is defined as an event in which (1)
more than two persons have experienced an illness after either the
ingestion of drinking water or exposure to water encountered in
recreational or occupational settings, and (2) epidemiologic
evidence implicates water as the probable source of illness.

watershed: An area of land from which all water that drains from it
flows to a single water body.
D-16
Glossary of Terms
Appendix D
-------
Appendix E
References
-------

Chapter 1:
CJeaner Air
CNN.com. "Asian Brown Cloud" poses global threat. August 12,
2002 (August 12, 2002; http://mm.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/
asiapcf/south/08/12/asia.haze.glb/index.html).

Centers for Disease Control. Blood lead levels in young children -
United States and selected states, 1996-1999. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report 49 (SO): 1133 (2000).

Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics.
Asthma prevalence, health care use and mortality, 2000-2001.
January 28, 2003. (February 14, 2003; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
products/pubs/pubd/hestats/asthma/asthma.htm).

DcMora, S, S. Demers, and M. Vemet The Effects ofUV Radiation in the
Marine Environment, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Friedman, Michael S., K.E. Powell, L Hutwagner, LM. Graham, and
W.G. Teague. Impacts of changes in transportation and commuting
behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympics Games in Atlanta on
air qualify and childhood asthma. The Journal of the American Medical
Association 285 (7): 897-905 (2001).

Hackshaw, A.K. Lung cancer and passive smoking. Statistical Methods
in Medical Research 7 (2): 119-136 (1998).

Mannino, D.M,, J.E. Moorman, B. Ingsley, D. Rose, and J. Repace.
Health effects related to environmental tobacco smoke exposure in
children in the United States: data from the third National Health
and Nutritional Examination Survey. Archives ofPediatric and
Adolescent Medicine 155 (1): 36- 41 (2001).

McConnell, R.K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S.J. London, T. Islam, W.
Gauderman, A, James, M. Edward, H.G. Margolis, and J.M. Peters.
Asthma in exercising children exposed to ozone: a cohort study. The
lancet 359: 386-391 (2002).

Montzka, S A, J.H. Butler, J.W. Elkins, T.M. Thompson, A.D. Clarke,
and L.T. Lock. Present and future trends in the atmospheric burden
of ozone-depleting halogens. Nature 398: 690-694 (1999).

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Acid Deposition: State
of Science and Technology. Volume II. Aquatic Processes and Effects,
Washington, DO National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, 1991.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ozone Levels Over
North America - NIMBUS- 7/TOMS. March 1979 and March 1994.
(January 24, 2003; http://epa.gov/ozone/science/glob_dep.htm\).

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Advanced
Supercomputing Division. August 14, 2002. (August 14, 2002;
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone.html).

National Research Council. Health Effects of Exposure to Radon: BEIR
VI; Sixth Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation,
Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1998.

Northeast Slates for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM).
Why clean air? 2003. (August, 2002; http://www.nescaum.org/
cleanair.html).

Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito,
and G.D. Thurston. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and
long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of
American Medical Association 287: 1132-1141 (2002).

Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Scientific Assessment of Ozone
Depletion: 2002, Executive Summary, Report No. 47. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization, Global Ozone
Research and Monitoring Project, 2003.

The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the
Environment. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the
Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States, New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, September 2002.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration, Climate
Monitoring &. Diagnostics Laboratory. Haolcarbons and other
Atmospheric Trace Species (HATS). 2002. March 18, 2003;
http://www.emdl.noaa.gov/hats/graphs/graphs.html).

United Nations Environment Programme. Environmental Effects of
Ozone Depletion: 1994 Assessment, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations
Environment Programme, Secretariat for The Vienna Convention for
the Protection of the Ozone Layer and The Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, November 1994.

United Nations Environment Programme. Production and Consumption
of Ozone Depleting Substances under the Montreal Protocol 1986-
2000, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme,
Secretariat for The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layeir and The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
the Ozone Layer, April 2002.

United States-Canada Air Quality Committee. Ground-Level Ozone:
Occurrence and Transport in Eastern North America; A Report by the
United States-Canada Air Quality Committee; Subcommittee 1: Program
E-2
References
Appendix t
-------
Monitoring and Reporting, Washington, DC and Ottawa, Ontario:
International Joint Commission, March 1999.

United States Code. Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, Title 1: Air
Pollution Prevention and Control. 42 U.S.C 7408 and 7409.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable
Forests - 2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, 2002.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 1999, NCES
2000-032. June 2000.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for
Health Statistics. Healthy People 2000 Final Review, DHHS Publication
No. 01 -0256. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service, October 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for
Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides, EPA 600-P-82-020a-c. Research
Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office, 1982.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Second Addendum to the Air
Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides (T982):
Assessment of Newly Available Health Effects Information, EPA-4SO- 5-
86-012. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Criteria
and Assessment Office, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis:
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Program, Office of
Program Development, Office of Air and Radiation, August 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Non-occupational Pesticide
Exposure Study, EPA-600-3-90-003. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Atmospheric Research and
Exposure Assessment Laboratory, January 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Residential Radon
Survey: Summary Report, EPA-402- R-92-011. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,
October 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of
Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, EPA 600-6-90-
006 F. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, December 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Oxides of
Nitrogen, EPA 600-8-91 - 049aF-cF Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, August 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Map of radon zones. EPA
402-F-93-013. September 1993. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/
radon/zonemap.html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Standardized EPA Protocol.for
Characterizing Indoor Air Quality in Large Office Buildings, Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development and Office of Air and Radiation, June 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supplement to the Second
Addendum (1986) to the Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and
Sulfur Oxides (1982): Assessment of New Findings on Sulfur Dioxide
Acute Exposure Health Effects in Asthmatic Individuals, EPA 600-FP-93-
002. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office, August 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the Petroleum Refinery-NESHAP, EPA 452-R-9S-004. Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, July 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for
Particulate Matter, EPA 600-P-95- 001 aF-cF.3v. Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
April 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants, EPA 600-P-93-004aF-cF.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment July 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Proposed Regional Haze Rule, Research Triangle Park,
NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, July 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to
Congress, EPA-452-R-97-003. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards and Office of Research and Development, December 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 50: National
ambient air quality standards for particulate matter; final rule. Federal
Register 62 (138): 2-102 (1997).
Appendix £
References
E-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Qualify and
Emissions Trends Reports, 1997, EPA 454-R-98-016. Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, December 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Benefits and Costs of the
Chan AirAci: 1990 to 2010. final Report to Congress, EPA 410-R-99-
001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Radiation, Office of Policy, November 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon
Monoxide, EPA 600-P-99-001F. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S:
Environmental Protection Agency, Office Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment. June 2000.

U.S, Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Quality and
Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA 454-R-01 -004. Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality •
Planning and Standards, March 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on National Air
Quality: 2000 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-01 -002. Research
Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Qualify Planning and Standards, September 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Trends: Metropolitan area
trends, Table A-17. 2001. (February 25, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/
airtrends/metro.html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for
Pariiculate Matter, Third External Review Draft, Volume II, EPA 600-P-
99-002bC Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, April 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Cos Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2000, EPA 430-R-02-003.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, April 2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,
Technology Transfer Network. National air toxic assessment:
summary of results. September 18, 2002 (January 27, 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/risksum.html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on National Air
Quality: 200) Status and Trends, EPA 4S4-K-02-001. Research
Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Acid Rain Program: 2001
Progress Report, EPA 430-R-02- 009. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,
November 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 50: National
ambient air quality standards for ozone: final response to remand;
final rule. Federal Register 68 (3): 614-645 (2003).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Response of Surface Water
Chemistry to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA 620-R-03-
001. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, January 2003.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Pesticides: Use, Effects, and
Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools, CAO/RCED-00-17. Washington,
DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division, 1999.

U.S. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Health Effects of
Indoor Allergens. Indoor Allergens: Assessing and Controlling Adverse
Health Effects, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993.

U.S. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Assessment of Asthma
and Indoor Air. Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures,
Executive Summary, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
E-4
References
Appendix E
-------
^

U.S. International Trade Commission. 7993. Synthetic Organic
chemicals; U.S. Production and Sales, Washington DC: Government
Printing Office, 1994.

Wingo, Phyllis A., Ries, Lynn A.C., Giovino, Gary A., et al. Annual
report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1996, with a
special section on lung cancer and tobacco smoking. Journal of the
National Cancer Institute 91 (8): 675-690 (1999).
(Chapter 2:
"Purer Water
Alley, W.M., T.E. Reilly, and O.L. Franke. Sustainabilify of Ground-water
Resources, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1186. Denver, CO: U.S.
Geological Survey, 1999.

Baker, L.A., A. Herlihy, P. Kaufmann, and J. Eilers. Acid lakes and
streams in the United States: the role of acid deposition. Science
252:1151-1154(1991).

Batiuk, R.A., P. Bergstrom, M. Kemp, E. Koch, L. Murray, J.C.
Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, C.
Gallegos, L. Karrh, M. Naylor, D. Wilcox, K.A. Moore, S. Ailstock, and
M. Teichberg. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Water
Quality and Habitat- Based Requirements and Restoration Targets: A
Second Technical Synthesis, CBP-TRS 245-00, EPA 903-R-00-014.
Annapolis, MD: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake
Bay Program, 2000.

Boesch, D.F., R.B. Brinsfield, and R.E. Magnien. Chesapeake Bay
eutrophication: scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration, and
challenges for agriculture. Journal of Environmental Quality 30: 303-
320 (2001).

Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G.
Farrow. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment Effects of
Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation's Estuaries, Silver Spring, MD:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for Coastal
Ocean Science, 1999.

Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, and E.R. Long. Synoptic measures of
sediment contamination, toxicity, and infaunal community
composition (the sediment quality triad) in San Francisco Bay.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 37: 75-96 (1987).

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National
Science and Technology Council. Integrated Assessment ofHypoxia in
the Northern Gulf of Mexico, Washington, DC: National Science and
Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources, 2000.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Gulf of Mexico
Hypoxia: Land and Sea Interactions, Report 134. Ames, IA: Council for
Agricultural Science and Technology, June 1999.
Appendix
References
E-5
-------

Cowardin, LM., V. Garten EC. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FW/OBS-
79/31. Washington, DO U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979.

Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United
States 1986 to 1997, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000.

Dahl, T.E. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1990.

Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the
Conterminous United States, Mid-1970s to Mid-1980, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991.

Danielson, T. J. Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheets, EPA 843-F-98-
001 a-j. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division,
July 1998.

Davis, D.G. North American Birds - A Rough Assessment of Wetland
Dependency., unpublished. Preparation for a presentation given at
the Wetlands, Migratory Birds, and Ecotourism Workshop in
Newburyport, Massachusetts, October 24, 2000.

Day Boylan, K. and D.R. Maclean. Linking species loss with wetland
loss. National Wetlands Newsletter 19 (6), (Nov/Dec 1997).

Diaz, RJ. and R. Rosenberg. Marine benthic hypoxia: a review of its
ecological effects and the behavioural responses of benthic
macrofauna. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 33:
245-303 (1995).

Duda, A.M. Municipal point source and agricultural nortpoint source
contributions to coastal eutrophication. Water Resources Bulletin 18:
397-407 (1982).

Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
Great Lakes, An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book, Toronto, Ont:
Government of Canada and Chicago, IL: United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, 1995.

Fisher, S.G. Stream ecosystems of the western United States. In
C.E. Gushing, K.W. Cummings, G.W. Minshall (eds.), River and
Stream Ecosystems, Ecosystems of the World 22, New York, NY:
Elsevier Press, 1995.

Prayer, W.E., TJ. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and RA. Graybill. Status and
Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United
States, WSO's to 1970's, Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University,
Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, 1983.
Gilliom, R.J., D.K. Mueller, J.S. Zogorski, and SJ. Ryker. A national look
at water quality. Water Resources Impact 4: 12-16 (2002).

Houser, L.S. a'nd F.J. Silva. National Register of Shellfish Production
Areas, PHS Publication No. 1500. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Division of
Environmental! Engineering and Food Protection, Shellfish Sanitation
Branch, 1966.

Hoxie, N.J., J.P. Davis, J.M. Vergeront, R.D. Nashold, and K.A. Blair.
Cryptosporicliosis - associated mortality following a massive
waterborne outbreak in Milwaukee, Wl. American Journal of Public
Health 87 (12): 2032-2035 (1997).

Kaufmann, PR., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck.
Surface waters: Quantifying Physical Habitat in Wadeable Streams, EPA
620-R-99-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, July 1999.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program, Mercury Deposition
Network. Total Mercury Wet Deposition, 2001. 2001. (March 25,
2003; http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/maps/2001/01 MDNdepo.pdf)

National Atmopheric Deposition Program, National Trends Network.
Nitrate ion wet deposition, 2001. 2001. (March 25, 2003;
http://nadp.swsMiuc.edu/isopleths/maps2001/no3dep.pdf)

National Atmopheric Deposition Program, National Trends Network.
Ammonium ion wet deposition, 2001. 2001. (March 25, 2003;
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps20.01/hh4dep.pdf)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 1990
National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters, Rockville, MD:
ORCA Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, 1991.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 1995
National Shellfish Register of Classified Crowing Waters, Silver Spring,
MD: ORCA, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and
Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, 1997.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Population:
distribution, density and growth, NOAA's State of the Coast Report.
Silver Spring, MD. 1998. (February 2003; http://state-of-coast
noaa.gov/bulletins/html/pop_01/pop.html).

National Research Council. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and
Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution, Washington, DC: National
Academies Press, 2000. ' " _ .

Nixon, S.W. Coastal marine eutrophication: a definition, social
causes, and future concerns. Ophelia 41: 199-219 (1995).
E-6
References
Appendix t
-------
'ocurnem

Paul, J.F., J.H. Gentile, K.J. Scott, S.C Schimmel, D.E. Campbell, and
R.W. Latimer. EMAP - Virginian Province Four-year Assessment Report
(1990-1993), EPA 620-R-99-004. Narragansett, Rl: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Atlantic Ecology Division. October 1999.

Peierls, B.L., N.F. Caraco, M.L. Pace, and JJ. Cole. Human influence on
river nitrogen. Nature 350: 386-387 (1991).

Peterson, S.A., N.S. Urquhart, and E.B. Welch. Sample representativeness:
a must for reliable regional lake condition estimates. Environmental Science
and Technology 33 (10): 1559-1565 (1999).

Rippey, S.R. Infectious diseases associated with molluscan shellfish
consumption. Clinical Microbiology Review 7 (4): 419-425 (1994).

Schindler, D.W. Evolution of phosphorus limitation in lakes. Science
179: 260-262 (1977).

Schlesinger, W.H. Biogeochemistry: An Analysis ofClobal Change, San
Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1997.

Solley, W.B., R.R. Pierce, and H.A. Perlman. Estimated Use of Water in
the United States in 1995, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200.
Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey, 1998.

Smith, R.A., G.E. Schwarz, and R.B. Alexander. Regional interpretation
of water-quality monitoring data. Water Resources Research 33:
2781-2798 (1997).

Stoddard, J. L, A. D. Newell, N. S. Urquhart, and D. Kugler. The TIME
project design: II. Detection of regional acidification trends. Water
Resources Research 32: 2529-2538 (1996).

Stoddard, J. L, C. T. Driscoll, S. Kahl, and J. Kellogg. Can site-specific
trends be extrapolated to a region? An acidification example for the
Northeast. Ecological Applications 8: 288-299 (1998).

Thrush, W.J., S.M. McBain, and L.B. Leopold. Attributes of an alluvial
river and their relation to water policy and management. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 97 (22): 11858-11863 (2000)
Turner, R.E. and N.N. Rabalais. Changes in Mississippi River water
quality this century, implications for coastal food webs. BioScience
41:140-147(1991).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised
December 2000), Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation
Service and Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory,
December 1999, revised December 2000.

U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. 1985 National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine
.Waters, Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Ocean Assessments Division and Kingstown, Rl: Food
and Drug Administration, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Shellfish Register of
Classified Estuarine Waters, 1974, Denver, CO: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement, National Enforcement
Investigations Center, 1975.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Criteria for Water -
1986, EPA 440-5-86-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, November 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's Wetlands: Our Vital
Link Between Land and Water, EPA 843-K-95-001. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds, December 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Preparation of
the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports)
and Electronic Updates, Report Contents and Supplement, EPA 841 -B-
97-002A and EPA 841-B-97-002B. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, September 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Report to Congress,
Volume I, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, December 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Strategy for the
Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, EPA 822-R-98-002.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, June 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Action Plan for Beaches and
Recreational Waters, EPA 600- R-98-079. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development and Office of Water, March 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 25 Years of the Safe Drinking Water
Act: History and Trends, EPA 816-R-99-007. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, December 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Deposition of Air Pollutants to
the Great Waters. Third Report to Congress, EPA 453-R-00-005.
Appendix ;t
References
E-7
-------

Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, June 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams
Assessment, EPA 903-R-OO- 015. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Region 3,
August 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, EPA
822-R-00-012. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, October 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA). June 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. National
listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) Mercury Fish Tissue
Database. June 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition
Report, EPA 620-R-01-005. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office
of Water, September 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Maps: Linking Air
Deposition and Fish Contamination on a National Scale, EPA 823-F-01 -
026. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, November 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Incidence and Severity of
Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States,
National Sediment Quality Survey: Second Edition, DRAFT, EPA 823-R-
01 -01. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, December 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Function and Values of Wetlands
fact Sheet, EPA 843-F-01 -002c. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds, March 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001 National Listing of Fish and
WiWfe Advisories, EPA 823-F-02-010. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, May 2002. 2002b

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Update: National Listing of Fish
and Wildlife Advisories, EPA 823-F-02-007. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, May 2002. 2002a

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 Toxics Release Inventory
Public Data Release Report, EPA 260-S-02-001. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information, May 2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Beach Watch Program:
2001 Swimming Season, EPA 823-F-02-006. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, May 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Consolidated Assessment and
Listing Methodology-Toward a Compendium of Best Practices, First
Edition, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, July 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. National
Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet. March 10, 2003. (February 14,
2003; http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment,
MAIA - Estuafies 1997- 98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003.
Narragansett, Rl: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, May 2003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Safe Drinking
Water Information System/Federal Version (SDWIS/FED). 2003.

U.S. Fish ami Wildlife Service. 2007 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, National Overview,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, October 2002.

U.S. Food aind Drug Administration. 1971 National Shellfish Register of
Classified Estuarine Waters, Davisville, Rl: Public Health Service,
Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Northeast Technical Services Unit, 1971.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. National Shellfish Sanitation
Program Manual of Operations: Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish Crowing
Areas, 1993 Revision, Washington, DC: Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, 1993.

U.S. Geological Survey. Strategic Directions for the U.S. Geological
Survey Ground-Water Resources Program: A Report to Congress. Reston,
VA: U.S. Geological Survey, November 30, 1998.

U.S. Geological Survey. The Qualify of Our Nation's Water, U.S.
Geological Survey Fact Sheet 116-99. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological
Survey, 1999.

U.S. Geological Survey. Report to Congress, Concepts for National
Assessment of Water Availability and Use, U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1223. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 2002.
E-8
References
Appendix t
-------

CJnapter 3:
"Better "Protected Land:
Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. CERCLA priority
list of hazardous substances. 2001. (September 2002;
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/clist.html).

Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Fact Sheet: Land
Ownership in Alaska. March, 2000. (September 2002;
http://www. dnr.state. ak. us/mlw/factsht/land_own.pdf).

Amdur, M.O., J. Doull and C.D. Klassen (Eds.). Toxicology: the Basic
Science of Poisons. NY: Pergamon Press, 1996, 1033

Battaglin W. A., and D.A. Coolsby. Spatial Data in Geographic
Information System Format on Agricultural Chemical Use, Land Use, and
Cropping Practices in the United States, Water Resources Investigations
Report 94-4176. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Geological Survey, 1994.

Beaulac, M.N. and K.H. Reckhow. An examination of land use-nutrient
relationships. Water Resources Bulletin 18 (6): 1013-1024 (1982).

Blondell, J.M. Updated Review of Rodenticide Incident Reports Primarily
Concerning Children, Memorandum to Dennis Deziel and Michael
McDavit, June 3, 1999.

Brewer, Cynthia A. and Trudy A. Suchan. Mapping Census 2000: The
Geography of U.S. Diversity. U.S. Census Bureau, Census Special
Reports, Series CENSR/01 -1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. June 2001.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Pesticide Use
Reporting: An Overview of California's Unique Full Reporting System,
Sacramento, California: California Department of Pesticide
Regulation, May, 2000. (March 12, 2003; http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/
docs/pur/purovrvw/tabofcon.htm)

Calvert, G.M., Barnett, M., Blondell, J.M., Mehler, LN. and Sanderson,
W.T. "Surveillance of pesticide- related illness and injury in humans."
In Krieger, R. (ed.), Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. 2nd edition. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1999.

Council on Environmental Quality. The 24th Annual Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality, 1993. (May 21, 2003;
http://ceq.eh.doe/gov/nepa/reports/1993/toc.htm)
Daberkow, S., H. Taylor, and W. Huang. "Agricultural Resources and
Environmental Indicators: Nutrient Use and Management."
September, 2000. In Agricultural Resources and Environmental
Indicators, Agricultural Handbook No. AH722. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, February
2003, 4.4.1 -4.4.49.

Flemming, M.D. A Statewide Vegetation Map of Alaska Using a
Phenological Classification ofAVHRR Data, Anchorage, AK: 1996
Alaska Surveying and Mapping Conference, February 1996.

General Accounting Office^ Superfund: Extent of Nation's Potential
Hazardous Waste Problem Still Unknown, GAO/RCED-88-44.
Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, December 1, 1987.

General Services Administration. "Summary report on real property
owned by the United States throughout the world." 1999. In
Statistical Abstract of the United States 2001: The National Data Book,
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.

Gianessi, L.P., and J.E. Anderson. Pesticide Use in US Crop Production:
National Data Report, Washington, DC: National Center for Food and
Agricultural Policy, February 1995.

Gianessi, L.P., and M.B. Marcelli. Pesticide Use in U.S. Crop Production:
1997, National Summary Report, Washington, DC: National Center for
Food and Agricultural Policy, November 2000.

Goebel, J.J. "The National Resources Inventory and its role in U.S.
agriculture." In Proceedings of the Conference on Agricultural Statistics
Organized by the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Under the Auspices of the International
Statistical Institute, 1998.

Goldstein, N. 12th annual Biocycle nationwide survey: the state of
garbage in America. Biocycle journal of Composting and Organics
Recycling 41 (4): 30-40 (April 2000).

Goss, D.W. Pesticide Runoff Potential,1990-1995. Pesticide Loss
Database. Temple, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. August
24, 1999. (September 2002; http://www.epa.gov/iwi/1999sept/
ivl2a_usmap.html).

' Hellkamp, A.S., S.R. Shafer, C.L Campbell, J.M. Bay, D.A. Fiscus, G.R.
Hess, B.F. McQuaid, MJ. Munster, G.L Olson, S.L Peck, K.N.
Easterling, K. Sidik, and M.B. Tooley. Assessment of the condition of
agricultural lands in five mid-Atlantic states. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment 51: 317-324 (1998).

Klopatek, J.M., R.J. Olson, C.J. Emerson, and J.L. Jones. Land-use
conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States. Environmental
Conservation 6: 191-199 (1979).
Appendix £
References
E-9
-------

Kniscl, W.G. (ed.). GLEAMS: Gnaundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural
Management Systems, Version 2.JO, Publication No. 5. Tifton, CA:
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, 1993.

Smith, W.B., J.S. Vissage, D.R. Darr, and R.M. Sheffield. Forest Statistics
of the United States, 7997, General Technical Report NC-219. St.
Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North
Central Research Station, 2001,191.

The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the
Environment The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the
lands, Wafers, and Living Resources of the United States, New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, September 2002.

U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States 2001:
The National Data Book, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000: redistricting data (PL 94-171)
summary file. March 1, 2001. (February 26, 2003; http://www.census.
gov/clo/www/redis tricting. html).

U.S. Census Bureau. Corrected Lists of Urbanized Areas and Urban
Clusters. November 25, 2002. (March 2003; http://vfww.census.gov/
geo/www/ua/ua_state_corKtxt and http://Vfww.census.gov/geo/wvw/ua/
ttc_ftate_corr.txt)

U.S. Congress. Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
RevHalbalion Act, Public Law 107- 118 (H.R. 2869),Washington, DC:
January, 2002.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. National Resources Inventory, Washington, DC: Natural
Resources Conservation Service and Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University, Statistical Laboratory. 1992.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. America's Private Land: A Geography of Hope, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1997.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (Revised
December 2000), Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation
Service and Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Statistical Laboratory,
December 1999, revised December 2000. 2000a

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. National Resources Inventory 1997, revised December 2000:
Change in Average Annual Soil Erosion by Water on Cropland and
CRP Land, 1982-1997. 2000 (January 2003;
ht(p://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5060.html). 2000f.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. National Resources Inventory 1997, revised December
2000: Total Wind and Water Erosion, 1997. 2000 (January 2003;
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5083.html). 2000g.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Natural Resources Inventory, 1997, revised December 2000:
Percent Change in Cropland Area, 1982-1997. December 2000b.
(January 2003; http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
land/meta/mS874.html).200Qe

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised December
2000: Acres of Non-Federal Developed Land, 1997. December
2000c. (January 2003;
http://www.nKS.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m4974.html). 2000b

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation
Service. Natural Resources Inventory, 1997, revised December 2000:
Acres of Cropland. December 2000d. (January 2003;
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ technical/land/meta/m4964.html).2QQOd

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised December
2000: Land Development, 1982-1997. December 2000e.
(January 2003;
http://www.ii rcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5009.html). 2000c
i • \
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 1997 National Resources Inventory Highlights. January
2001. (February 2003; http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/
pubs/97highlights.pdf).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. U.S. Forest Facts and
Historical Trends, Brochure #FS-696. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, April 2001.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service.
Pesticide Data Program: Annual Summary Calendar Year 2000,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2002.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Draft Resource
Planning and Assessment Tables. August 12, 2002. (September
2002; http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801 /FIADB/rpaJabler/
Draft_RPA_2002_Forest_Resource_Tables.pdf).
E-10
References
Appendix E
-------
'ocumer
3551

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. GDP
and Other Major NIPA Series, 1929-2002. 2002. (February 2003;
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/ARTICLES/2002/08August/0802GDP_&
Other_Major_NIPAs-.pdf)

U.S. Department of Defense. Fiscal Year 2001 Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress.
2001. (November 2002; http://63.88.245.60/derparcjy01/
derp/irtdexTen. htm).

U.S. Department of Energy. Status Report on Paths to Closure, DOE
EM-0526. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental
Management, March 2000.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management
and Office-of Long-Term Stewardship. A Report to Congress on Long-
term Stewardship Volume I - Summary Report, DOE EM-OS63. January
2001.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
Summary Data on the Radioactive Waste, Spent Nuclear Fuel, and
Contaminated Media Managed by the U.S. Department of Energy,
April 2001.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
United States country analysis brief. November 2002. (January
2003; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html).

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
Central Internet Database. 2002. (January 2003; http://cid.em.doe.gov).

U.S. Department of the Interior. Rangeland Reform '94, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, Washington, DC: Bureau of Land
Management, 1994.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Frequently asked questions on the Abandoned Mine Lands Cleanup
Program. August 9, 2002. (January, 2003; http://wwMblm.gov/aml/
faqs.htm).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Report to Congress, Solid
Waste Disposal in the United States, Volumes l-ll, EPA 530-SW-88-
011 (B). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, October 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium -
National Land Cover Data. 1992. (February 19, 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality 1994
Inventory Report to Congress: Ground Water and Drinking Water
Chapters, EPA 813-R-96-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, June 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality
Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress (305(b)), EPA 841 -R-97-008.
Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, December 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Number of NPL Site Actions and Milestones by
Fiscal Year. March 26, 2003 (April 3, 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfy/htm)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds. Pesticide Runoff Potential - 1990-1995. August
24, 1999. (September 2002;
http://www.epa.gov/iwi/! 999sept/ivl2a_usamap.html)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Sediment
runoff potential-1990-1995. August 24, 1999. (September, 2002;
http://www.epa.gov/iwi/!999sept/iv12c_usmap.html)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Persistent bioaccumulative
toxic (PBT) chemicals; final rule. 40 CFR Part 372: Federal Register 64
(209), October 29, 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RCRA Orientation Manual, EPA
S30-R-0-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, June 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality 1998
Inventory Report to Congress: Ground Water and Drinking Water
Chapters, EPA 816-R-00-013. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, August 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Surface
Impoundments in the United States, EPA 530-R-01 -DOS. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, March 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Biennial RCRA
Hazardous Waste Report, EPA 530-R-01 -009. Washington DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, June 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticide Industry Sales and
Usage 1998 and 1999 Market Estimates, Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances, August 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Biopesticides registration action document: Bacillus thuringiensis
plant-incorporated protectants. October 16, 2001. (January 2003;
http://www. epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad. htm).
Appendix E
References
E-11
-------
£fAs Draft Report
-------

Chapter 4:
Human Health
Adams, P., G.E. Hendershot, and M. Maraho. Current estimates from
the National Health Interview Survey. 1996. Vital and Health Statistics
10: 82, 92, 94 (1999).

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public health
statement for chromium. 2000. (February 27, 2003;
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionsprofiles/ps7.html).

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for
Disease Control. ToxFAQ's: chromium. 2001. (April 21, 2003;;
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts7.html).

Akinbami, L.J. and K.C. Schoendorf. Trends in Childhood Asthma:
Prevalence, Health Care Utilization and Mortality. Pediatrics 110: 315-
332 (2002). ,

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
• Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure
Indices, 6th Edition, Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH. 1991.

American Heart Association. 2007 Heart and Stroke Statistical
Update, Dallas, TX: American Heart Association, 2001, 5-9, 13-16.

American Lung Association. Breathless, in America: background on
COPD. 2001. (April 5, 2002; http://www.lungusa.org/'press/lung_dis/
asn_copdback.html).

American Lung Association, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, and The American Medical
Association. Indoor Air Pollution: An Introduction for Health
Professionals, Publication No. 1994-523-217/81. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994.

Anderson, R.N. Deaths: Leading causes for 1999. National Vital
Statistics Report 49 (11): 8 (2001).

California Department of Developmental Services. Changes in the
population of persons with autism and pervasive developmental
disorders in California's developmental services system: 1987
through 1988: a report to the legislature. 1999. (April 13, 2002;
http://www.cahwnet.gov/autism/pdf7autism_report_1999.pdf).

Caraballo, R.S., G.A. Giovino, T.F. Pechacek, P.O. Mowery, RA. Richter,
W.J. Strauss, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in serum cotinine
levels of cigarette smokers: third national health and nutrition
examination survey. 1988-1991. Journal of the American Medical
Association 280: 135-139 (1998).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing lead
poisoning in young children. 1991. (April 12, 2002; http://aepo-xdv-
www.epo.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000029/p0000029.asp).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Current trends in
autopsy frequency—United States, 1980- 1985. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report 37 (12): 191-194 (1998). 1998a.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gastrointestinal
infections. 1998. (March 27, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/
INFECT/gi_excerpt.htm). 1998b.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: final
1997 reports of notifiable diseases. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 47 (34): 717-718 (1998). 1998c. .

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Decline in Deaths from
Heart Disease and Stroke, United States, 1990-1999, Washington,
DC: Centers for Disease Control, 1999. 1999a.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: final
1998 reports of notifiable diseases. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 48 (36): 804-805, 815-822 (1999). 1999b.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic diseases and
their risk factors: the nation's leading causes of death (1999), Atlanta,
GA: NCCDHP, 2000. 2000a.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Consequences of delayed
diagnosis of Rocky Mountain spotted fever in children-West Virginia,
Michigan, Tennessee, and Oklahoma, May-July 2000. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report 49 (39): 885-888 (2000). 2000b.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: final
1999 reports of notifiable diseases. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 49 (37): 841 (2000). 2000c.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: West Nile virus
activity—Eastern United States, 2000. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report 49 (46): 1044-1047 (2000). 2000d.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cholera. 2001.
(November 19, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/
. diseaseinfo/cholera_g.htm). 2001 a.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli
O157:H7. 2001. (November 19, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
dbmd/diseaseinfo/escherichiacoli_g.htm). 2001 b.
Append
x
References
E-13
-------

_Jt
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Report on
Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. 2001. (May 21, 2002;
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report/PDF/CompleteReport.pdf). 2001 c.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: final
2000 reports of notifiable diseases. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 50 (33): 712 (2001). 2001 d.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of disabilities and
associated health conditions among adults—United States, 1999.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report SO: 120-125 (2001). 2001 e.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Salmonellosis. 2001.
(November 19, 2002; http://wvfw.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/
salmoneltosK_g.htm). 2001 f.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shigellosis. 2001.
(November 19, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/
shigelhsis_g.htm). 2001 g.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Typhoid fever. 2001.
(November 19, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/
typhoidfever_g,htm). 2001 h.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact
sheet 2002. (February 26 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/
pubs/cstimatesMm). 2002a.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: final
2001 reports of notifiable diseases. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 51 (32): 710 (2002). 2002b.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rocky Mountain spotted
fever, epidemiology. 2002 (June 6, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
dvrd/rmsf/epidemlology.htm). 2002c.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Viral hepatitis. 2002.
(November 19, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncedod/diseases/
hepaUth/index-htm). 2002d.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Viral hepatitis
surveillance: disease burden from hepatitis A, B, and C in the United
States. 2002. (November 19, 2002: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
diseases/hepatitis/resource/dz_burden02.htm) 2002e.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. West Nile virus update:
current case count, 2002. 2002. (November 14, 2002:
http://wwvf.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/wncount.htm). 2002f.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Asthma's impact on
children and adolescents. 2002. (March 25, 2002;
http;//www.cdc,gov/nceh/airpollution/asthma/children.htm). 2002g.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Second National Report
on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, NCEH Publication No.
03-0022. Atlanta, CA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
January 2003. 2003a.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Asthma prevalence,
health care use and mortality, 2000-2001. 2003. (April 21, 2003;
http://vfiHw.cdc.gov/nchs/producis/pubs/pubd/hesiats/asthma/
asthma.htm). 2003 b. '.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Birth defects. Undated.
(April 21, 2003; http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/bd). 2003c.

Centers for Disease Control. Radiation facts. (May 17, 2003;
http://www.btcdc.gov/radiation/facts.asp). 2003d.

Checkoway, H. and Nelson, L. Epidemiologic approaches to the study
of Parkinson's disease etiology. Epidemiology 10: 327-336 (1999).

Churchill,}., and W. Kaye. Recent chemical exposures and blood
volatile organic compound levels in a large population-based sample.
Archives of Environmental Health 56 (2): 157-166 (2001).

Clayton, CA., E.D, Pellizzari, R.W. Whitmore, R.L Perritt, and J.J.
Quackenboss. National Human Exposure Assessment Survey
(NHEXAS): distributions and associations of lead, arsenic and
volatile organic compounds in EPA region 5. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9: 381 -392 (1999).

Craun, G.F. "Chapter 5: Statistics of Waterborne Outbreaks in the
U.S. (1920-1980)" In G.F. Craun, (ed.) Waterborne Diseases in the
United States, Boca Raton: FL, CRC Press, Inc., 1986, 74-155.

Craun, G.F. and R.L Calderon. "Waterborne Outbreaks in the United
States, 1971 -2000." In Frederick W. Pontius (ed.), Drinking Water
Regulation and Health, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2003,
40- 56.

Crinnion, W.J. Environmental medicine, part one: the human burden
of environmental toxins and their common health effects. Alternative
Medicine Review 5 (1): 52-63 (2000).

Dockery D.W. and Pope, C.A. "Outdoor Air I: Particulates." In K.
Steenland and D.A. Savitz (eds.), Topics in Environmental Epidemiology,
New York, NY: Oxford.University Press, 1997, '

Doll, R., and R. Peto. The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of
Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1981.

Eberhardt, M.S., D.D. Ingram, D.M. Makuc, et al. Health, United
States, 2001: With Urban and Rural Health Chartbook, Hyattsville,
MD: Natiorial Center for Health Statistics, 2001,161-163.
E-14
References
Appendix £
-------
eqn n i cat
l ocu rneii
pG ti ron
Eiseman, E., and S. Haga. A National Resource of Human Tissue
Samples, ISBN 0-8330-2766-2. Arlington, VA: RAND, 1999.

Fombonne, E. Is there an epidemic of autism? Pediatrics 107:
411 -412 (2001).

Fox, K. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, personal
communication, 2003.

Franzen, C, and A. Muller. Cryptosporidia and microsporidia—
waterborne diseases in the immunocompromised host. Diagnostic
Microbiology and Infectious Disease 34: 245-262 (1999).

Friis, R.H. and T.A. Sellers, Epidemiology for Public Health Practice,
Second Edition. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc., 1999.

Gayle, A. and E. Ringdahl. Tick-borne diseases. American Family
Physician 64: 461 -466 (2001).

GLOBOCAN 2000. Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence
Worldwide, Version 1.0., IARC CancerBase No. J. [Computer software.]
Lyon: IARC Press, 2001.

Guerrant, R.L. Cryptosporidiosis: an emerging, highly infectious
threat. Emerging Infectious Diseases 3 (1):-51-57 (1997).

Hanzlick, R. National autopsy data dropped from the National
Center for Health Statistics Database. Journal of the American Medical
Association 280 (10): 886 (1998).

Holman, R.C, CD. Paddock, A.T. Curns, J.W. Krebs, J.H. McQuiston,
and J.E. Childs. Analysis of risk factors for fatal Rocky Mountain
Spotted Fever: evidence for superiority of tetracyclines for therapy.
Journal of Infectious Diseases 184: 1437-1444 (2001).

Horga, M. A. and A. Fine. West Nile virus. Pediatric Infectious Diseases
Journal 20: 801 -802 (2001).

Hoyert, D.L. and H.M. Rosenberg. Mortality from Alzheimer's disease:
an update.National Vital Statistics Report 47: 5 (1999).

Hoyert, D.L, E. Arias, B.L Smith, S.L Murphy, and K.D. Kochanek. Deaths:
Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Report 49: 6-9 (2001).

International Center for Tropical Disease Research Network. 10th
Anniversary: tropical diseases. 2002. (November 19, 2002;
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/pdf/factsheet.pdf).

International Programme on Chemical Safety. Global Assessment of the
State-of-the-Science of Endocrine Disrupters, WHO/PCS/EDC/02.2.
Geneva: World Health Organization, International Programme on
Chemical Safety, 2002.
Iversen, P. Autism: what does the future hold for, what can we learn
from the past, and what can we do right now? California Pediatrician
Fall: 1 -3 (2000).

Kay, D., A. Pruss, and C Corvalan. Methodology for assessment of
environmental burden of disease; report on the ISEE session on
environmental burden of disease, Buffalo, August 22, 2000. (May
19, 2002; http://www.who.int/peh/burden/methodohgyhtm.htm).

Kramarow, E., H. Lentzner, R. Rooks, J. Weeks, S. Saydah. Health,
United States, 1999: With Health and Aging Chartbook, Hyattsville,
MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1999.

Macintosh, D.L, L.L. Needham, K.A. Hammerstrom, and RB. Ryan. A
longitudinal investigation of selected pesticide metabolites in urine.
Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9:
494-501 (1999).

Mannino, A.M., and B.L Smith. Deaths: preliminary data for 2000.
National Vital Statistics Report 53 (49): 3 (2001).

.Mannino, D.M, D.M. Huma, L.J. Akinbami, et al. Surveillance for
asthma - United States, 1980-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report Surveillance Summaries 51 (SS-1): 8, 9, 13 (2002).

Martin, J.A., B.E. Hamilton, S.J. Ventura, F. Menacker, and M.M. Park.
Births: Final data for 2000. National Vital Statistics Report 50 (5):
16,79 (2002).

Moore, G.W., J.J. Berman, R.L. Hanzlick, J.J. Buchino, and G.M.
Hutchins. A prototype internet autopsy database: 1625 consecutive
fetal and neonatal autopsy facesheets spanning twenty years. 1996.
(March 1, 2002; http://www.autopsydb.org/protoiad.htm).

Nadakavukaren, A. Our Clobal Environment: a Health Perspective, Fifth
Edition, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc, 2000.

National Academy of Engineering. Greatest engineering achievements
of the 20th century. 2000. (February 28, 2003;
http://greatachievements.org).

National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:
Managing the Process, Washington, DC: National Academies Press,
1983.

National Research Council. Measuring Lead Exposure in infants,
Children, and Other Sensitive Populations, Washington DC: National
Academies Press, 1993.

National Research Council. Arsenic in Drinking Water. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press, 1999.
Appendix EL
References
E-15
-------
lecnnica
JSL
National Research Council. Toxkological Effects of Methylmercury,
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2000.

National Cancer Institute. Health disparities. 2002. (January 30,
2003; fittp://surveillance.cancer.gov/disparities).

National Cancer Institute. Dictionary. Undated. (April 18, 2003;,
http://cancer.gov/dictionary).

National Center for Educational Statistics. Digest of education
statistics. 2001. (February, 18, 2003; http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2002/digest2001 /tables/dt052.asp).

National Center for Environmental Health. CDC's lead poisoning
prevention program. 1998. (April 12, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/
nceh/Lead/fadsheeis/leadfacts.pdf).

National Center for Health Statistics. Healthy People 2000 Final
Review, PHS 2001 -0256 ed. Hyattsville, MD: Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Health Statistics, 2001.

National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Particulate air pollution
and cardiovascular morbidity. 2000. (April 3, 2002;
hUp://wvm.arb,ca.gov/research/cardio/cardio.htm).

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Kidney and urologic diseases statistics for the United States. 2001.
(April 5, 2002; http://wwv.niddk.nih.gov/health/kidney/pubs/kustats/
kustats.htm).

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Parkinson's
disease backgrounder. 2002. (May 13, 2002; http://www.ninds.nih.
gov/health_and_medical/pubs/parkinson's_disease_backgrounder.htm).

Orban, J.E., J.S. Stanley, J.G. Schwemberger, and J.C. Remmers. Dioxins
and dibenzofurans in adipose tissue of the general U.S. population
and selected subpopufations. American Journal of Public Health 84:
439-445 (1994).

Orloski, KA, E.B. Hayes, G.L. Campbell, and D.T. Dennis. Surveillance
for Lyme disease-United States, 1992-1998. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries 49 (SS-1): 4 (2002).

Paddock, C. D., P.W. Greer, T.L Ferebee, J. Jr. Singleton, D.B.
McKechnie, TA Treadwell, et al. Hidden mortality attributable to
Rocky Mountain spotted fever: immunohistochemical detection of
fatal, serologically unconfirmed disease. Journal of Infectious Diseases
179:1469-1476 (1999).

Pastor, P.N., D.M. Makuc, C. Reuben, and H. Xia, et al. Chartbook on
Trends in tiie Health of Americans. Health, United States, 2002,
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2002.
Pellizzari, E.D1., R. Fernando, G.M. Cramer, G.M. Meaburn, and K.
Bangerter. Analysis of mercury in hair of EPA region V population.
Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9:
393-401 (1999).

Peterson, C.A. and R.L Calderon. Trends in enteric disease as a cause
of death in the United States, 1989-1996. American Journal of
Epidemiology 57: 58-65 (2003).

Pirkle, J.L, K.M. Flegal, J.T. Bernert, D.J. Brady, R.A. Etzel, and K.R.
Maurer. Exposure of the U.S. population to environmental tobacco
smoke: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
1988 to 19S1 .Journal of the American Medical Association 275: 1233-
1240 (1996).

Pirkle, J.L, R.B. Kaufmann, D.J. Brody, T. Hickman, E.W. Gunter, and
D.C Pashal. Exposure of the U.S. population to lead: 1991-1994.
Environmental Health Perspectives 106: 745-50 (1998).

Pruss, A., C.F. Corvalan, H. Pastides, and A.E. De Hollander.
Methodologic considerations in estimating burden of disease from
environmental risk factors at national and global levels. International
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 7: 58-67
(2001).

Rappole, J. H., S.R. Derrickson, and Z. Hubalek. Migratory birds and
spread of West Nile virus in the Western Hemisphere. Emerging
Infectious Diseases 6: 319-328 (2000).

Ries, L.A.G., M.P. Eisner, C.L. Kosary, et al., eds. SEER Cancer Statistics
Review, 1973-1998. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2001.

Rom, W.N. Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2nd Edition,
Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. 1992

Schmidt, C. W. Poisoning young minds. Environmental Health
Perspectives 107: A302-A307 (1999).

Shapiro, E. D. and M.A. Gerber. Lyme disease. Clinical Infectious
Diseases 31: 533-542 (2000).

Smith, K.R., Corvalan, C.F., and Kfellstrom, T. How much global ill
health is attributable to environmental factors? Epidemiology 10:
573-584 (1999).

The Pew Environmental Health Commission, The Johns Hopkins
University School of Public Health. Transition report to the new
administration: Strengthening our public health defense against
environmental threats. 2001. (May 27, 2002;
http://pewenvirohealth.jhsph.edU/html/reports/5 Pager.pdf).
E-16
References
Appendix t
-------
Teen ft icy Do^
United Nations. Demographic Yearbook 1999, New York: United
Nations, 2001,479-506.
Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Children's Health Protection,. December 2000. 2000c.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Eliminating
childhood lead poisoning: a federal strategy targeting lead paint
hazards. 2000. (February 20, 2003; http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/
reports/fedstrategy2000.pdf).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulation of fuels and fuel
additives: control of lead additives in gasoline. Federal Register 38
(234): 33733-33741 (December, 6 1973).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Lead.
EPA 600-8-83-028aF. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of
Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, EPA 600-6-90-
006 F. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, December 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's report on environmental
health threats to children. 1996. (May 23, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/
epadocs/child.htm).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Plan for Microbial
Pathogens and Disinfection Byproducts In Drinking Water, EPA 600-R-
97-122. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, November 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Children's Environmental
Health Yearbook, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Children's Health Protection. June 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 10-12, 1999,
M/DBP (microbial/disinfection byproducts) stage 2 FACA: health
effects workshop meeting summary. 1999. (November 21, 2002;
http://www. epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/st2feb99 .html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radiation: risks & realities -
what is radiation? 2000. (June 2, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/
radiation/docs/risksandrealities/rrpage2.html). 2000a.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon
Monoxide, EPA 600-P-99-001 F. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment. June 2000. 2000b.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, America's Children and the
Environment - a First View of Available Measures, EPA 240-R-00-006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Handbook of Croundwater
Policies for RCRA Corrective Action (updated 4/20/2000), EPA 530-
D-00-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
April 2000d.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fact sheet: drinking water
standard for arsenic, EPA 815-F-OO- 015. 2001. (November 24, 2002;
http://wwwepa.gov/safewater/ars/ars_mle_fadsheet.html). 2001 a.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticides: regulating
pesticides—Persistent organic pollutants (POPs). 2001. (May 21,
2002; http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/pops.htm). 2001 b.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Priority
Rulemaking: Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules, EPA 816-F-01 -
012. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, June 2001 a.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Quality and
Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA 454-R-01 -004. Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, March 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ionizing radiation. 2002.
(February 18, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/
radon/radon.htm). 2002a.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. Radon. 2002. ()une 6,
2002; http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/radon/radon.htm). 2002b.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking water contaminants:
disinfection by-products. 2002. (November 21, 2002;
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/hfacts.html). 2002c.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for
Particulate Matter, Third External Review Draft, Volume II, EPA 600-P-
99-002bC Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, April 2002. 2002d.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Current Drinking Water
Standards, EPA 816-F-02-013. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, July 2002. 2002e.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria: 2002, EPA 822- R-02-047. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, November 2002f.
Appendix t
References
E-17
-------
.r*.n.A^iF*\ •§ r '-"J?"!!^^
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Consumer factsheet on
hexachlorobenzene. 2002. (May 8, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/
safewater/dwh/c-soc/hexachh.html). 2002g.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radiation information:
common questions, clear answers. (May 17, 2003;
hUpt//www.epa.gov/radiatfan/faqs.htm). 2002h.

US. Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding radiation: _
ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. (May 17, 2003;
bllp;//wvw.epa.gov/radiation/understand/ionize_nonionize.htm). 20021

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding radiation:
health effects. (May 17, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/radiation/
undentand/healthjsffectsMm). 2002).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding radiation:
exposure pathways. (May 17, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/radiation/
undmtand/pathwaysMm). 2002k.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, America's Children and the
Environment - Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses,
Second Edition, EPA 240-R-03-001. Washington, DC: Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Children's Health Protection, National
Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation, February 2003. 2003a.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hexachlorobenzene. 2003. (May
8,2003; hUp://wwY.epa,gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hexa-ben.htmI). 2003b.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hexachlorobenzene. 2003.
(May 8, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt/hexa.htm). 2003 c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA map of radon zones.
2003. (February 27, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/iaq/
radon/zonemap.html). 2003d.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for Cumulative Risk
Assessment, EPA-630-P-02- 001 F. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment
- Forum, 2003, (Available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=54944) 2003e.

Walker, D. H. tick-transmitted infectious diseases in the United
States. Annual Review of Public Health 19: 237-269 (1998).

Whipple G.C. Influence of Public Water-Supplies on the Typhoid fever
Death-Rates of Cities. In Typhoid Fever - Its Causation, Transmission and
Prevention, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1908, 228-270.

World Health Organization. Typhoid fever, 1997. Fact sheet N149.
(February 1, 2003; http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/factl49.html)

World Health Organization. Environmental burden of disease. 2002.
(April 11, 2002; http://www.who.int/peh/burden/burdenindex.htm).

World Resources Institute, United Nations Environment Programme,
United Nations Development Programme, and World Bank. World
Resources 1998-99, London: Oxford University Press, 1998, 10.

Yazbak, F.E. Autism 99: a national emergency. 1999. (April 13, 2002;
http://www.garynull.com/Documents/autism_99.htm).
E-18
References
Appendix t
-------An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------

Ef/\s Draft "Rifaprt oil the Ehvirbrirnent 20(3-3 II Tlcnnical Docurnefit
1 "I : " . M . ' , . i i ' • I 'II : ' « '111 i a-ti; •. • ;...'•. ; :'••'•• • . '.,..:;';. : ..; i:N 1
Forman, T.T. and M. Godron. Landscape Ecology, New York:
Wiley, 1986.

Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and F.A. Craybill. Status and
Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United
States, WSO's io 7970's, Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University,
Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, 1983.

Gallagher, E., and K. Keay. "Organism sediment contaminant in
Boston Harbor." In K. Stolzenbach and E. Adams (eds.). Contaminated
Sediment in Boston Harbor, Boston, MA: MIT Sea Grant Press, 1998.

Galloway,]., and E. Cowling. Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200
years of change. Ambio 31: 64-71 (2002).

Grime, J.P. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the debate deepens.
Science 277:1260-1261 (1997).

Grimm, N.B., L Baker, and D. Hope. "An ecosystem approach to
understanding cities: familiar foundations and uncharted frontiers."
In A.R. Berkowitz, K.S. Hollweg, and C.H. Nilon (eds.). Understanding
Urban Ecosystems: A New Frontier for Science and Education, Springer-
Verlag: New York, 2002,95-114.

Hadidian, J., J. Sauer, C. Swarth, R Handly, S. Droege, C. Williams, J.
Huff, and G. Didden. A citywide breeding bird survey for Washington,
DC Urban Ecosystems 1: 87-102 (1997).

Hellkamp, AS., J.M. Bay, C.L Campbell, K.N. Easterling, D.A. Fiscus,
G.R. Hess, B.F. McQuaid, M.J. Munster, G.L. Olson, S.L. Peck, S.R.
Shafer, K. Sidik, and M.B. Tooley. Assessment of the condition of
agricultural lands in six mid-Atlantic states. Journal of Environmental
Quality 29: 79-804 (2000).

Herlihy, A.T., D. Larsen, S. Paulsen, N. Urquhart, and B. Rosenbaum.
Designing a spatially balanced, randomized site selection process for
regional stream surveys: the EMAP mid-Atlantic pilot study.
Environmental Monitoring Assessment 63: 95-113 (2000).

Hess, G.R., A.S. Hellkamp, S.R. Shafer, B.F. McQuaid, M.J. Munster, S.L.
Peck, and C.L Campbell. A conceptual model and indicators for
assessing the ecological condition of agricultural lands. Journal of
Environmental Quality 29 (3): 728-737 (2000).

Hodgson, J.G., K. Thompson, P.J. Wilson, and A. Bogaard. Does
biodiversity determine ecosystem function? The Ecotron experiment
reconsidered. Functional Ecology 12: 843-848 (1998).

Holland, A.F., A. Shaughnessey, and M.H. Heigel. Long-term variation
in mesohaline Chesapeake Bay benthos: spatial and temporal
patterns. Estuaries 10: 227-245 (1987).
Holland, A.F., A.T. Shaughnessey, LC. Scott, V.A. Dickens, J.A.
Ranasinghe, and J.K. Summers. Progress Report: Long-term Benthic
Monitoring and Assessment Program for the Maryland Portion of the
Chesapeake Bay (July 1986-Octoberl987), Maryland Power Plant
Research Program and Maryland Department of the Environment,
Office of Environmental Programs PPRP-LTB/EST-88-1. Columbia,
MD: Versar Inc., ESM Operations, 1988.

Judy, R.D., Jr., P. Seeley, T. Murray, S. Svirsky, M. Whitworth, and L.
Ischiger. 7982 National Fisheries Survey, FWS/OBS-84/06.
Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984.

Kaiser, J. Great Smokies species census underway. Science 284
(5421): 1747-1748 (1999).

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser.
Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters, A Method and Its
Rationale, Special Publication No. 5. Champaign, IL: Illinois Natural
History Survey, 1986.

Karr, J.R., L.S, Fore, and E.W. Chu. Making Biological Monitoring More
Effective: Integrating Biological Sampling with Analysis and Interpretation,
Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Policy Planning and Evaluation, 1997.

Kaufmann, RR., A.T. Herlihy, M.E. Mitch, and W.S. Overton. Chemical
characteristics of streams in the Eastern United States: I: Synoptic
survey desig;n, acid-base status and regional chemical patterns. Water
Resources Research 27: 611-627 (1991).

Kaufmann, FIR., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck.
Surface Waters: Quantifying Physical Habitat in Wadeable Streams, EPA
620-R-99-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, July 1999.

Kinzig, A.P. and J.M. Grove. "Urban-suburban ecology." In S. Levin
(ed.). The Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, New York, NY: Academic Press,
2001, 733-746.

Klemm, D.J., K.A. Blocksom, W.T. Thoeny, F.A. Fulk, A.T. Herlihy, P.R.
Kaufmann, I5.M. Cormier. Methods development and use of
macroinvertebrates as indicators of ecological conditions for streams
in the mid-Atlantic Highlands region. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 78 (2): 169-212 (2002).

Klemm, D.J., K.A. Blocksom, F.A. Fulk, A.T. Herlihy, R.M. Hughes, P.R.
Kaufmann, D.V. Peck, J.L Stoddard, W.T. Thoeny, M.B. Griffith, and
W.S. Davis. Development and evaluation of a Macroinvertebrate
E-20
References
Appendi
x
-------

Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) for regionally assessing Mid-Atlantic
Highlands streams. Environmental Management 31 (5): 656-669
(2003).

Klopatek, J.M., R.J. Olson, CJ. Emerson, and J.L. Joness. Land-use
conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States. Environmental
Conservation 6: 191 -199 (1979).

Knight, R. and P. Landres. (eds.). Stewardship Across Boundaries,
Washington, DC: Island Press. 1998.

Landers, D.H., W. S. Overon, R. Linthurst, and D. Brakke. Eastern lake
survey - regional estimates of lake chemistry. Environmental Science
Technology 22: 128-135 (1988).

Lindenmeyer, D.B., C Margules, and D. Botkin. Indicators of
biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management.
Conservation Biology 10: 941-950 (2000).

Linthurst, R.A., D.H. Landers, J.M. Eilers, RE. Kellar, D.F. Brakke, W.S.
Overton, R. Crowe, E.P. Meier, P. Kanciruk, and D.S. Jefferies. Region
chemical characteristics of lakes in North America - II: eastern United
States. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 31: 123-129 (1986).

Liu, B.Y., M.A. Hearing, C. Baffaut, and J.C. Ascough II. The WEPP
watershed model: III. Comparisons to measured data from small,
watersheds. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, 40(4):945-951 (1997),

Matson, PA, W.}. Parton, A.C., Power, and M.J. Swift. Agricultural
intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277: 504-509 (1997).

McCormick, FH., R.M. Hughes, P.R. Kaufmann, D.V. Peck, J.L
Stoddard, and A.T. Herlihy. Development of an index of biotic
integrity for the mid-Atlantic Highlands region. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 130: 857-877 (2001).

McQuaid, B.F., and Olson, G.L "Indices of Piedmont soils under
different management systems." In R. Lai et al. (eds.), Advances in Soil
Science - Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle, Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press, 1998, 427-434.

Messer, J.J. "Indicators in regional ecological monitoring and risk
assessment." In D. H. McKenzie et al. (eds.), Ecological Indicators,
Volume 1, Essex, England: Elsevier Science, 1992, 135-146.

Messer, J.J., D.H. Landers, R.A. Linthurst, and W.S. Overton. Critical
design and interpretive aspects of the National Surface Water Survey.
Journal of Lake Reservoir Management 3: 463-469 (1986).

Messer, J.J., C.W. Ariss, J.R. Baker, S.K. Drouse, K.N. Eshlemann, A.J.
Kinney, W.S. Overton, J.J. Sale, and R.D. Schonbrod. Stream chemistry
in the southern Blue Ridge: feasibility of a regional synoptic stream
sampling approach. Water Resource Bulletin 24: 821 -829 (1988).
Moore, K.A., DJ. Wilcox, and R.J. Orth. Analysis of the abundance of
submersed aquatic vegetation communities in the Chesapeake Bay.
Estuaries 23 (1): 115-127 (2000).

Naeem, S., D. Byers, S.F. Tjossem, C. Bristow, and S. Li. Plant
neighborhood diversity and production. Ecoscience 6: 355-365 (1999).

Naiman, R.J. and M.G. Turner. A future perspective on North
America's fresh water ecosystems. Ecological Applications 10: 958-
970 (2000).

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Acid Deposition: State of
Science and Technology. Volume II. Aquatic Processes and Effects, Washington,
DC: National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, 1991.

National Research Council. Striking a Balance: Improving Stewardship
of Marine Areas, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1997.

National Research Council. Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward
Sustainability, Washington DC: National Academies Press, 1999.

National Research Council. Ecological Indicators for the Nation,
Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000.

MatureServe. NatureServe Explorer, an online encyclopedia of life.
2002. (February 2003; http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/).

Nixon, S.W., Hunt, C.D., and Nowicki, B.L. "The retention of nutrients
(C, N, P), heavy metals (Mn, Cd, Pb, Cu), and petroleum
hydrocarbons by Narragansett Bay." In P. Lasserre and J.M. Martin
(eds.), Biogeochemical Processes at the Land-Sea Boundary, New York,
NY: Elsevier, 1986, 99-122.

Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and
Restoring Biodiversity, Washington, DC: Island Press, 1994.

Nowak, D., K. Civerelo, S.T. Rao, G. Sistla, C.,Luley, and D. Crane. A
modeling study of the impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmospheric
• Environment 34: 1601 -1613 (2000).

O'Connell, T.J., L.E. Jackson, and R.P. Brooks. A bird community index
of biotic integrity for the mid- Atlantic Highlands. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 51: 145-156 (1998).

O'Connell, T.J., L.E. Jackson, and R.P. Brooks. Bird guilds as indicators
of ecological condition in the central Appalachians. Ecological
Applications 10: 1706-1721 (2000).

O'Connell, T.J., J.A. Bishop, and R.R Brooks. The North American
Breeding Bird Survey as Source Data for Assessments of Ecological
Condition with the Bird Community Index, Final Report to the U.S.
Geological Survey - Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Report No.
2002-03. University Park, PA: Penn State Cooperative Wetlands
Center, 2002.
Appendix t
References
E-21
-------
"T~7:™r . ; ! El" :,' '~!l:i! '•,**:• ;:;;: '•'''••• '|:| >'*-f*t**&te.s,&t laMs law |:,:.^j;...'}-.•:.:.;,•,j': .;•;£;!; ;; ...&£:
Odum, E.P. Fundamentals of Ecology, Third Edition, Philadelphia, PA:
W,B. Saunders Company, 1971.

Olsen, A.R., J. Sedransk, D. Edwards, C.A. Gotway, W. Liggett, S.
Rathbun, K.H. Reckhow, and LJ. Young, Statistical issues for
monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United States.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54:1-45 (1999).

O'Neill, R.V., T.f. Allen, and D.L Deangelis. A Hierarchical Concept of
Ecosystems, Princeton, Nj: Princeton Press. 1986.

Paul, J.F., J.H. Gentile, K.J. Scott, S.C. Schimmel, D.E. Campbell, and
R.W. Latimer. EMAP - Virginian Province Four-year Assessment Report
(1990-1993), EPA 620-R-99-004. Narragansett, Rl: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, October 1999.

Pearson, T.H., and R. Rosenberg. Macrobenthic succession in relation
to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment.
Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 16: 229-311 (1978).

Peterson, SA, D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen, and N.S. Urquhart. Regional
lake trophic patterns in the northeastern United States: three
approaches. Environmental Management 22 (5): 789-801 (1998).

Pickett, S.T.A., M.L Cadenasso, J.M. Grove, C.H. Nilon, R.V. Pouyat,
W.C. Zipperer, and R. Costanza. Urban ecological systems: linking
terrestrial ecology, physical, and socioeconomic components of
metropolitan areas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:
127-157 (2001).

Rabalais, N.N., and R.E. Turner, (eds). Coastal Hypoxia: Consequences
for Living Resources and Ecosystems, Coastal and Estuarine Studies 58.
Washington DO American Geophysical Union, 2001 :

Reed, R.C. and L Young. Seasonal vegetation characteristics of the
United States. Ceocarto International 12: 65-71 (1997).

Renard, K.G, G.R. Foster, GA Weesies, O.K. McCool, and D.C Yoder.
Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the
Raised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), Agriculture Handbook No.
703. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997.

Rhoads, D.C, RL McCall, and J.Y. Yingst. Disturbance and
production on the estuarine sea floor. American Scientist 66:
577-586 (1978).

Riiters, K.H., J.D. Wickham, R.V. O'Neill, K.B. Jones, E.R. Smith, J.W.
Coulston, T.G. Wade, and J.H. Smith. Fragmentation of Continental
United States Forests. Ecosystems 5: 815-822 (2002).
Rosswall, T., Ft. Woodmansee, and P. Risser. Scales and Global Change:
Spatial and Temporal Variability in Biospheric and Geospheric Processes,
Scope 35. New York City, NY: John Wiley, 1988.

Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hampson, L.S. Morse, S. Garner-Price,
and C.C. Jones. Anatomy of an oil spill: long-term effects from the
grounding of the barge Florida off West Falmouth, Massachusetts.
Journal of Marine Research 38: 265-380 (1980).

Skelly, J.M., D.D. Davis, W. Merrill, E.A. Cameron, H.D. Brown, D.B.
Drummond, and L.S. Dochinger. Diagnosing Injury to Eastern Forest
Trees'™, University Park, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service and Penn State University, 1987.

Skidmore, E.L., and N.P. Woodruff. Wind Erosion Forces in the United
States and Their Use in Predicting Soil Loss, Agriculture Handbook No.
346. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1968, 42.

Smith, W.B., J.S. Vissage, D.R. Darr, and R.M. Sheffield. Forest Statistics
of the United States, 1997, General Technical Report NC-219. St.
Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North
Central Research Station, 2001, 191.

Stein, B.A. States of the Union: Ranking America's Biodiversity,
Arlington, VA: NatureServe, 2002.

Stoddard, J, L, A. D. Newell, N. S. Urquhart, and D. Kugler. The TIME
project design: II. Detection of regional acidification trends. Water
Resources Research 32: 2529-2538 (1996).

Stoddard, J. L, C. T. Driscoll, S. Kahl, and J. Kellogg. Can site-specific
trends be extrapolated to a region? An acidification example for the
Northeast. Ecological Applications 8: 288-299 (1998).

Stoddard, J.L, D.S. Jeffries, A. Lukewille, T.A. Clair, P.J. Dillon, C.T.
Driscoll, M. Forsius, M. Johannessen, J.S. Kahl, J.H. Kellogg, A. Kemp,
J. Mannip, D. Monteith, P.S. Murdoch, S. Patrick, A. Rebsdorf, B.L
Skjelkvale, M. Stainton, T.S. Traaen, H. van Dam, K.E. Webster, J.
Wieting, arid A. Wilander. Regional trends in aquatic recovery from
acidification in North America and Europe. Nature 401 (6753):
575-8 (1999).

Stoddard J.L., T.S. Traaen, B.L. Skjelkvale, and M. Johannessen.
Assessment of nitrogen leaching at UN/ECE ICP-Waters sites
(Europe and North America). Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 130:
781-86(2001).

Stolte, K., B. Conkling, S. Campbell, and A. Gillespie. Forest Health
Indicators - Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, FS-746. Research
Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
October 2002.
Suter, G.W. Ecological Risk Assessment, Chelsea, Ml: Lewis Publishers, 1993.
E-22
References
Appendix t
-------
Sutton, R.F. So/7 Properties and Root Development in Forest Trees: A
Review, Information Report O- X-413. Sault Ste. Marie, Ont: Forestry
Canada, Great Lakes Forestry Centre, 1991.

The H. John Heinz 111 Center for Science, Economics, and the
Environment. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the
Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States, New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, September 2002.

Tilman, D. and J.A. Downing. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands.
Nature 367: 363-365 (1994).

Turner, M.G. Landscape Ecology: The effect of pattern on process.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171 -197 (1989).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000 Census of Population and Housing
Characteristics, PCH-1 -1. Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Resources Inventory:
Highlights, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, January 2001.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. U.S. Forest Facts and
Historical Trends, Brochure #FS-696. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, April 2001.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable
Forests - 2003, Final Draft, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, November 2002.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on Sustainable
Forests - 2003, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Forthcoming, 2003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Quality of our Nation's Waters,
A Summary of the National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to
Congress, EPA 841 -S-00-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, June 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Criteria for Water -
1986, EPA 440-S-86-001. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, November 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants, EPA 600-P-93-004aF-cF.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment. July 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Special Report on
Environmental Endocrine Disruption: An Effects Assessment and Analysis,
EPA 630-R-96-012. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, December 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Condition of the Mid-Atlantic
Estuaries, EPA 600-R-98-147. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
September 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Birds Indicate Ecological
Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, EPA 620-R-00-003.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, June 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams
Assessment, EPA 903-R-OO- 015. Philadelphia, PA: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 3, Office of Research and
Development, August 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition
Report, EPA 620-R-01 -005. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office
of Water, September 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Framework for Assessing and
Reporting on Ecological Condition, EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science
Advisory Board, June 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality
Inventory - 2000 Report, EPA 841 -R- 02-001. Washington DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, August 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment,
MAIA - Estuaries 1997- 98, Summary Report, EPA 620-R-02-003.
Narragansett, Rl: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, May 2003.
/Appendix t
References
E-23
-------

U.S. General Accounting Office. Western National Forests: Nearby
Communities Are Increasingly Threatened by Catastrophic Wildfires,
GAO/T-RCED-99-79. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting
Office, 1999.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Water Quality: Key EPA and State
Decisions limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data, GAO/RCED-00-
54. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 2000.

U.S. Geological Survey. National Water-Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) Program, national synthesis. 2002. (February 2003;
hUp://water.usgs.gov/nawcia/natsyn.html).

Valigura R., R. Alexander, M. Castro, T. Meyers, H. Paerl, P. Stacey,
and R. Turner (eds.) Nitrogen Loading in Coastal Water Bodies - An
Atmospheric Perspective, Washington, DC: American Geophysical
Union, 2000.

Van Dolah, R.F., J.L Hyland, A.F. Holland, J.S. Rosen, and T.R. Snoots.
A benthic index of biological integrity for assessing habitat quality in
estuaries of the southeastern United States. Marine Environmental
Research 48:269-283 (1999).

Vitousek, P., H. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. Melillo. Human
domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277: 494-499 (1997).

Vitousek, P., S. Hattenschwiller, L Olander, and S. Allison. Nitrogen
and nature. Ambio 31: 97-101 (2002).

Vogelmann, J., S.M. Howard, L Yang, C.R. Larson, B.K. Wylie, and N.V.
Driel. Completion of the 1990s national land cover data set for the
conterminous United States from Landsat Thematic Mapper data and
ancillary data sources. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing 67 (6): 650-662 (2001).
Wardle, D.A., M.A. Huston, J.P. Grime, F. Berendse, E. Gamier, W.K.
Lauenroth, H. Setala, and S.D. Wilson. Biodiversity and ecosystem
function: an hisue in ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of
America. 81: 235-239 (2000).

Weathers, K.C., M.L Cadenasso, and S.T.A. Pickett. Forest edges as
nutrient and pollutant concentrators: potential synergisms between
fragmentation, forest canopies, and the atmosphere. Conservation
Biology 15: 1506-1514 (2001).

Weisberg, S.B., J.A. Ranasinghe, D.M. Dauer, L.C. Schaffner, R.J. Diaz,
and J.B. Frith<;en. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-
IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20: 149-158 (1997).

Wickham, J.D,, R.V. O'Neill, K.H. Riitters, E.R. Smith, T.G. Wade, and
K.B. Jones. Geographic targeting of increases in nutrient export due
to future urbanization. Ecological Applications 12 (I): 93-106 (2002).

Winter, T.C. The concept of hydrologic landscapes. Journal American
Water Resources Association 37: 335-349 (2001).

World Resources Institute. World Resources 2000-2007 People and
Ecosystems: the Fraying Web of Life, Washington, DC: World Resources
Institute, 2000.

Yoccoz, N.G., j.D. Nichols, and T. Bouliner. Monitoring biological
diversity in space and time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 446-
453 (2001)._
E-24
References
Appendix E
-------
Techri tal Document
Jt feport orv the Ehvijronrnent 2003
- ', - :-"• " I '-".''"'. '"-'• "-;":' .". ';. ':'. ..'-• : "'. :•..-.''":- "-" :: "•-<'.-..--".-.. -" -
erences ror
fc
Appendix U: Culossary of
lerms
Atomic Energy Act of 19*54, Public Law 83-703.

Barber, M.C., (ed.). The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program: Indicator Development Strategy, EPA 620-R-94-022. Athens,
GA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, March 1994.

chained dollars - A measure used to adjust for the effects of inflation
in the U.S. currency from year to year, such that a consistent
monetary value can be understood over time. A chained dollar is
based on the average weights of the cost of goods and services in
successive pairs of years. It is "chained" because the second year in
each pair, with its weights, becomes the first year of the next pair.
(DOE, 2001) Ref: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Review 1999 - Chained Dollars.
February 8, 2001. (June 2, 2003;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/recs/natgas/chained.html).

Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
State of the Great Lakes 1997. October 27, 1998. (August 13, 2002;
http://www. epa.gov/docs/grtlakes/solec/96/stofgl/mdex. htm).

Garcia, L.S. Flagellates and ciliates. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 19:
vii, 621 -638 (1999).

Green, L. W. and Kreuter, M. S. Health promotion planning: An
educational and ecological approach. (3rd edition), Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Co, 1999.

Grondahl, C. and Martin, K. North Dakota's endangered and
threatened species. North Dakota State Game and Fish
Department's Nongame Program, Version 16JUL97. July 1997.
(February 3, 2003; http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/
endanger/endanger.htm).

Health Insurance Commission. HIC annual report 2000-1 glossary.
2000-2001. (February 24, 2003; http://www.hic.gov.au/annualreport/
glossary.htm).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001:
The Scientific Basis A Contribution of Working Croup I to the Third
Assessment Report-of the IPCC, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, 2001.
International Union pf Pure and Applied Chemistry, Clinical
Chemistry Division Commission on Toxicology. Glossary for
Chemists of Terms Used In Toxicology. 1993. (March 6, 2003;
h tip://www. sis.nlm. nih.gov/Clossary/main.html).

Jackson, Laura E., J.C. Kurtz, and W.S. Fisher. Evaluation Guidelines for
Ecological Indicators, EPA 620-R-99-005. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, May 2000.

Matthews, John D., Silvicultural Systems, Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, 1989.

Moffett, M. W. What's "up"? A critical look at the basic terms of
canopy biology. Biotropica 32:569-596 (2000).

Nadakavukaren, A. Our Global Environment: A Health Perspective, Fifth
Edition, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 2000.

National Cancer Institute. Asbestos exposure: questions and
answers. 2001. (April 5, 2002; http://cis.nci.nih.gOV/fact/3_21 .htm).

National Public Health Partnership. National response to passive
smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces: a background
paper (Commonwealth of Australia). 2000. (November 1, 2002;
http://www. dhs. vic.gov. au/nphp/legtools/smoking/passive/section2 .htm).

National Research Council. Ecological Indicators for the Nation,
Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000.

Odum, E.P. Fundamentals of Ecology, Third Edition, Philadelphia, PA:
W.B. Saunders Company, 1971.

Pidwirny, Michael. Fundamentals of physical geography,
online glossary of terms. 1999-2001. (August 13, 2002;
http://www.geog. ouc. be. ca/physgeog/physgeoglos/glossary. html).

Schneider, D. and N. Freeman. Children's environmental health risks:
a state-of-the-art conference. Archives of Environmental Health 56:
103-110(2001).

Steenland, K. and L. Stayner. Silica, asbestos, man-made mineral
fibers, and cancer. Cancer Causes Control 8: 491 -503 (1997).

Texas Environmental Center. Encyclopedia of water terms. 1991.
(November 25, 2002; http://www.tec.org/tec/terms2.html).

The H.John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the
Environment. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the
Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States, New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, September 2002.
Appendix t
References
E-25
-------

U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States 2007:
The National Data Book, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.

U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division. Cartographic boundary
files: geographic area description. July 2001. (August 13, 2002;
bltp://www.census,gov/geo/www/cob/ma_metadata.html#ma).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. U.S. Forest Facts and
Historical Trends, Brochure #FS-696. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, April 2001.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nematology Lab. Nematode basics.
June 5, 2001. (August 13, 2002; http://www.barc.usda.gov/
psi/nem/what-nem.htm).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern '
Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis. Forest inventory -
definition of terms. November 12, 2002. (December 3, 2002;
hUp://www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/fidef2.htm).

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
Environmental Management manages four types of radioactive waste.
November 10,1997. (March, 7 2003: http://www.em.doe.gov/
empr!mer/emws2.html).

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Radioactive Waste Management.
Order 435.1. July, 1999.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
Fact Sheet: Department of Energy Announces Its Preferred
Alternatives for Disposal of Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level
Radioactive Waste. December 10,1999. (March, 7 2003;
http://www.em.doe.gov/emprimer/emws2, html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Terms of Environment: Glossary,
Abbreviations, and Acronyms, EPA 175-B-97-001. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Communications,
Education, and Public Affairs, Revised December 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure Factors Handbook,
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment March 1998.

U.S, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Report to Congress, Solid
Waste Disposal in the United States, Volumes l-ll, EPA 530-SW-88-
011 (B). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, October 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board. A
Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition, EPA
SAB-EPEC-02-009. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Science Advisory Board, June 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds. Wetlands: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Now
wetlands are defined and identified. July 2, 2002. (August 13,
2002; http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/factn.html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment: glossary. August 8, 2002.. (August 13, 2002;
http://www. epa.gov/maia/html/glossary. html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National primary drinking
water regulations; consumer fact sheet on: Cadmium. September 23,
2002. (August 13, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/c-ioc/
cadmium.htm\).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.
Global warming site: glossary of climate change terms. October 8,
2002. (November 25, 2002; http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/
globalwarming.nsf/content/glossary.html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
Office. Glossary of terms. October 25, 2002. (February 24, 2003;
http://chesapeakebay. net/glossary, htm).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division.
Glossary. October 29, 2002. (August 13, 2002;
http://www. epa.gov/airmarkets/glossary. html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TRI Explorer: releases reports
metadata. November 12, 2002. (December 9, 2002;
http://yosentitel .epa.gov/oiaa/explorers_fe.nsf/7c77bcd2e66feb048S2
S677b006ae6cf/871 c6234f2 bd8ab3852S69SO,OOS231 df
?OpenDocument).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. What is up
with our nation's waters? Technically speaking - glossary of terms.
November 2:0, 2002. (December 3, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/
owow/'monitoring/'nationswaters/'glossary, html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Groundwater
Drinking Water. Groundwater and drinking water: drinking water
glossary. November 26, 2002. (December 3, 2002;
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/glossary.htm).
E-26
References
Appendix t
-------

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radiation information:
radiation terms. December 3, 2002. (December 3, 2002;
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/terms/index.html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
Program.; What is TRI? December 9, 2002. (December 9, 2002;
http://www.epa.gov/tri/).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics. PCBs Home Page. February 3, 2003. (March 7, 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment: habitat loss. 2003. (August 13, 2002;
http://www. epa.gov/maia/html/habitat. html).

U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, Office of Seafood. National Shellfish Sanitation
Program Model Ordinance, 1999 revision. November 3, 2000.
(August 13, 2002; http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/flear/nssporpd.html).

U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated use of water in the United States
in 1990, glossary of water - use terminology. April 10, 1996.
(November 25, 2002; http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wuglossary.html).
Appendix £
References
E-27
-------
-------
Appendix P: I
/ .; .-••;• • • : '• - •'.:•• • I '.• ;-. ' , -.' '; '!' . : •: '' ."•'•" '".:;^ '•' '••;-'"!:-'-t;
Background amf
-------
——. „ —i—--— ^- ~"~" • .i i _. i«^^^^^^ rW^PiiPi
On November 13, 2001, Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
undertake an Environmental Indicators Initiative (Ell), bringing
together national, regional, and program office indicator efforts to
produce a Draft Report on the Environment (ROE)and a Draft
Report on the Environment Technical Document (ROE TD). This
report is the first step In a multi-year process to identify indicators
indicators to measure progress toward environmental and human
health goals, to identify data gaps and discuss challenges in filling
those gaps, and to ensure the Agency's accountability to the public
The ROETD contains the scientific and technical information from
which the ROE was developed.
Report leadership/Partnerships

Administrator Whitman's chief of staff assembled and chaired a
steering committee, comprising senior career officials from EPA
program, support, and regional offices, to guide the report
development. The Offices of Environmental Information (OEI) and
Research and Development (ORD) were charged with leading an
integrated process to produce the ROE and the ROE TD. Key staff
representatives acted as "theme" or chapter leads, serving as liaisons
with subject matter experts throughout EPA. Other federal agencies
and tribal and state governments also assisted in reviewing the
report and draft development.

Report Foundation-Trie Questions

The process began with a concerted effort across EPA to identify
significant environmental questions both of interest to the public
and fundamental to EPA's mission to protect the environment and
human health. A series of six workshops was held in early 2002
across EPA program and regional offices for six themes: human
health, ecological condition, air, water, land, and global issues. The
workshops identified key questions and proposed indicators (both
those supported by existing data and potential future indicators),
and noted challenges to implementation and limitations of the
indicators.

The questions focused on "outcomes" - actual environmental results
such as the quality of outdoor air - rather than on more process-
oriented "outputs" such as numbers of permits written. The
questions included in this report represent a first set that can be
refined and expanded. For some questions, one to several indicators
were identified; for other questions, there were no indicators
available or recommended.
-Indicator Selection

By May 2002, the process had identified key questions and
associated indicators to address them. The questions were organized
into five report chapters: Cleaner Air, Purer Water, Better Protected
Land, Human Health, and Ecological Condition. Indicators to
respond to the questions were recommended from across EPA,
states, tribes, and other federal agencies. The indicators and their
supporting data sets were documented in accordance with a
standard format, which is allowed for technical review of data quality,
sampling design, coverage, data analysis, and data accessibility.
An example of the' quality review form is presented in Appendix C.
For the national indicators that were identified, there was a wide
' variation in the availability of data, as the lack of data was a major
challenge and limitation in writing the chapters.

An expert review was held to review and assess the potential
indicators. External EPA experts were invited to participate in a two-
day workshop,'in .mid-June 2002 in the Washington, D.C. area, to
discuss and record their assessments of the Indicators: The reviewers
were asked to evaluate the quality review forms for the proposed
indicators in advance of the workshop and then to discuss their
assessments in small groups of other reviewers at the workshop (an
expert review evaluation form is presented in Appendix H).

Guidance was given to the expert reviewers asking that they review
the proposed indicators to evaluate:

a Quality of the data set supporting the indicator;

• Scientific basis for the use of the indicator as a measure of the
quality of the environment;
• Utility of the indicator in measuring the quality of the
environment; and
m Limitations in using the indicator to measure the quality of the
environment.
F-2
Background and Chronology
Appendix F
-------
.^^M'-^^f^-^!'-i^f:^'":-&.-i-4-.!:"i:/i'i':'-^../t' '•••>::'!.•':-. "i:,:..;; ;.'::'?.:t'.;:".K:X-.: ••'-.; :•'•<••'.•'

Draft Report Development and Review

After determining a set of indicators, EPA developed and refined
several drafts of the report. In November 2002, EPA shared a draft
with federal and state agencies and the Environmental Council of
States (ECOS) and took their comments into consideration in
developing the content of the ROE technical document. That draft
was the basis for final review and comment by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).

This current draft report is now available to the public.
Chronology of jignificant Events for Document

Development

A chronology of significant milestones in the development of the
draft Report on the Environment Technical Document is presented
below.
November 200T
Administrator's Memo Launching the
Environmental Indicators Initiative
January-February 2002 ' Theme Workshop Meetings - Initial
Identification of Questions and
Potential Indicators
March-April 2002

April 2002 .„.

May 2002

June 2002

July 2002-May 2003
Development of Report Outlines

ECOS-Sponsored Meeting with
Interested States

Quality Review Process

External Expert Review Workshop

Drafting of ROE and ROE Technical
Document
Nov. 2002-May 2003 State/Federal Interagency/OMB/CEQ
Review Meetings
June 2003
Release of Draft ROE and ROE
Technical Document
Appendix r
Background and Chronology
F-3
-------
-------
Appendix G:
Review Form
-------
i , I
ErAs Draft Report on tne Envjrpnment 200J • Technical Document
1C
/v vDeneral Background
1. What is the theme this indicator is part of (e.g., land, water, air, global change, human health, ecological health)?
2. What is the name of the Indicator/data set?
3. What is the question the indicator set is being proposed to address?
4. How does this indicator address the questions? (conceptual relevance)
5. Does this indicator/data set require additional processing to optimally address this question and if so, what?
6. Has this indicator previously been peer reviewed? If so, please provide details. This question has been moved from1 Data Processing
and Analysis section.
G-2
Indicator Quality Review Form
Appendix G
-------
Teem

D. Data Quality
1. What is the known quality of the entire data set?
2. Has any standard data documentation, such as FCDC metadata, been developed to support these data?
(If yes, please provide reference or source.)
3. Why were the data originally collected (e.g., what is being measured or monitored)?
4. Were data collected under a single program or were data from multiple programs combined? If multiple data sets were combined
please address the quality for each data set independently.
5. What was (were) the program or programs under which the data were collected?
6. Did these programs have quality assurance plans to verify, corroborate, ground truth or otherwise assess the accuracy of the data?
Appendix
Indicator Quality Review Form
G-3
-------

7. If yes, are the quality assurance program plans available (and where)?
8. Were the quality assurance plans followed?
9. Were the analytical methods used consistent throughout the data set?
10. If not what effects could the different analytical methods have on the indicator results?
11. Are you aware of any sources of error that may affect the findings developed from these data? Error types could include errors of
omission, commission, mis-classification, incorrect georeferencing, mis-documentation or mistakes in the processing of data.
This question is revised from "What are some of the uncertainties of the data and on the findings."
G-4
Indicator Quality Review Form
Appendix'
-------
fchhical Document
' "' "'
ralt l\e^
/•:.,.:•:• • .;..;• •'•'.( .-:..-.- "•,,:"-:•<•" •.;::•••":':. rXv>:- S:^2^S;%;'.i:i*(::i ..... i'SSS" -.>];•.;:•:• ::v: -.
. jample Design
1. Generally describe how the data are/were collected (Research, general monitoring, compliance monitoring, regulatory requirement)?
If collected under a regulatory requirement, please specify the regulation and links to the regulation and associated guidance.
2. What was the sample design or the monitoring plan?
3. Were any specific strata omitted from the sampling plan (e.g., small systems not in the sampling plan, roads less than 2 miles long,
habitat types less than 20 acres)?
4. Which of the processes below was used to select the sites where information is/was collected?
a) Sites selected using a statistical design that enables generalization to entire resource (e.g., probability survey design to select sample of
lakes or streams for the United States, such as NRI, NASS, FHM, FIA)

b) Sites determined to meet administrative or regulatory requirements such as sources of or water supply systems.

c) Sites chosen to address suspected or known problems (e.g., Hot spots).

d) Randomly selected sites.

e) Sites selected in unknown way.
Append
ix
Indicator .Quality Review Form
C-5
-------
oAs Draft "Report on the tnvironhient 2Q03 • Iqcnnical Document
rr ' - ' • i ' i •• • .• •:. ...:']•'! i.;Ti'i' •. - ' " . . •. • i.ii:"j
5. When did the monitoring begin?
6. When did the monitoring end?
7. What was the periodicity of the sample (yearly, seasonally, quarterly, monthly, weekly, daily, etc.)?
8. Were there any major gaps in the data either spatially or temporally (please explain)
G-6
Indicator Quality Review Form
Appendix G
-------
Q^^
' -~ "' •'-.'-- --"--. --- --,:-- -.'-..-, •. •-i-.r:'..- -v.A.v-:- <.'•'... . *.' :-:-: ••:--'.* -.--.•'• '-••'•'. ..' ':'•". '•'•';- -.- •"-.'-' ^.'.,.^ .••••/, .'•". .-•-..; 'f:.-. ,••--'- -:, .,.,-:. •'" ••". '• - •'•

D. C
overage
1. Is there uniform national coverage of information for this indicator?
2. Were data collected in some areas but not others?
3. Was the data collected using remote sensing? If yes please specify the sensor, date and the resolution of the data.
4. If the data are derived from mapped information, what was the original map scale or resolution?
Appendix G
Indicator Quality Review Form
C-7
-------
-fenr—-—.—ns~
t. Data "Processing and Analyses
1. What kinds of analyses have been performed on the data? Please explain.
2. Are the values used in the indicator raw data? Aggregated data? Calculated data? Inferred data? Last sentence deleted,
redundant with 1.
3. Are these analyses standard methods? Please reference.
4. Were these results published? If yes please give reference or link.
5. Were these results peer reviewed? If yes by whom? Give references.
6. How were the values calculated or determined?
C-8
Indicator Quality Review Form
Append
ix
-------
lechlilca! L}^
•-.•.-.-••-• -:••' - •"• -' - ' ,- - -•".:;."•." -- ,..« .•.-:•.<;••.:.-• .•!]•.,.,'., v: ;•••;. ••:.•• •.-':; Kv'v .I.-'-..:/.-. ;:- 5 . IV;.. •• ... '. ;•: . .:•'... •'•.. • i :: ' ••• ....'.'-' :"•• :.••:•..•>.. •." •.

7 .Please describe the basis of the classification scheme? Why was this scheme chosen?
8. , How are the values interpreted?
9. Are there established ranges that indicate the state of the environment? If yes how were these values established? Are the values

consistent across the spatial extent of the data set?
10. Is the Indicator developed based on a model? If so, what is this model?
11. Has the model been published?
12. Has the model been peer reviewed?
13. How are data gaps handled when the model is applied?
14. What is the scientific inference process used to generalize from site-specific information to the national coverage?
Appendix G
Indicator Quality Review Form
C-9
-------
] i
tlAs Draft Mport on the tnvjronment 20OS • lacnnical Document
!r I . : • : .. : I 1 I : •
15. Which of the following was used to generalize or portray data beyond the specific sampling points?
a) Defensible statistical survey analysis inference procedures used to generalize to entire United States, (e.g., current OW National Lake
Fish tissue contaminant survey, FIA, FHM, NRI)

b) Defensible statistical model inference procedures used to generalize to entire United States (e.g., generation of wet deposition maps
for US or generation of air quality information using kriging).

c) Semi-empirical environmental/ecological model predictions, (e.g., USGS use of SPARROW model to predict nutrients in rivers based on
statistical relationships and simple hydrologic flow models)

d) Generalization is restricted to sites visited and it is possible to give a well- defined, meaningful definition of the portion of the ecological
resource covered.

e) No generalization possible and no meaningful way to identify the subset of the ecological resource represented by the collection of sites.
G-10
Indicator Quality Review Form
Append
x
-------
technical 13^ Draft Report on the Environment 2O03
r. Uata Accessibility
1. Are the data readily available? If yes, please give reference, link or contact.
2. Are the summary reports available? If yes, please give reference, link or contact.
3. Have these results been published? If yes, please give reference.
Appendix G
Indicator Quality Review Form
G-1 1
-------
EPAs Draft Report on tne Envij-oijirtient 200 j
Documdrtt
' PI !
Jib.
CD. AAessage or Interpretation
1. Are the messages or answers to the questions appropriate, sound, and understandable?
G-12
Indicator Quality Review Form
Append:
x
-------
Appendix H:
EPA Draft Report
on the
Envirohment
Expert Review
Workishop
Evaluation Form
-------
tPAs Draft "Report on the Tlnvirbhrnent 2003
1 • :''!;•' I '' : 'I ' '• :•'
lecnnica
4 ;
\ r\ :: - 'Ml
1 LJocurrMnfc
EFA Draft Report on the Environment txpert "Review
Workshop Evaluation Form
Name of Theme:
Name of Indicator.
Associated Question:
Reviewer Name:
Please provide brief answers of one to three paragraphs for each question in the following sections. Under the "Primary Questions" section,
please provide a summary evaluation of the indicator's data quality and coverage, suitability, and fit. Evaluations shall be based on a scale from
1 to S (Excellent - 5; Adequate - 3; Poor = 1).
"Primary Questions
Data Quality and Coverage
.
1. Do the indicator and the supporting data provide adequate geographic coverage for national reporting?
H-2
Workshop Evaluation Form
Appendix H
-------
lecnnical L^dcLimeht • t-Tvlis Drart Txeport on the tnvfrdnrnent 2O03
2. What is the quality of the data set supporting the indicator? What is known about the quality? (In your response, please address the ade-
quacy of the data to support the indicator; whether there is uniform national coverage, quality assurance/quality control issues, documenta-
tion, consistent analytical methods, and sample design issues.)
*Summary Evaluation of Data Quality and Coverage (Excellent = 5; Adequate = 3; Poor = 1):
juitability or Indicator

3. Is there a credible scientific basis for this indicator?
Appendix H
Workshop Evaluation Form
H-3
-------

4. What are the limitations of this indicator? (e.g., guidance relevant to using the data supporting the indicator, including challenges and
gaps)
•Summary Evaluation of Suitability of Indicator (Excellent = 5; Adequate - 3; Poor - 1):
Question and Indicator Fit

S. How well does the indicator answer or fit the associated questions?
'Summary Evaluation of Question and Indicator Fit (Excellent=S; Adequate=3; Poor="l):
H-4
Workshop Evaluation Form
Appendix H
-------

-------
8. Are there other questions and associated indicators that better address the issue? (Please use draft document outline as the basis for
developing a short answer.)
H-6
Workshop Evaluation Form
Appendix H
-------
Appendix I:
Summary Tables
of Questions
Indicators
-------

HjlF
CJnapter 1: CJeaner Air - Cj>)uestiora and Indicators
Outdoor Air Quality t.
i • •
What is the quality of outdoor air in the United States?
(See also following four questions)
- How many people are living in areas with particulate matter
and ozone levels above the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)?
- What are the concentrations of some criteria air
pollutants: PMjj, PM10, ozone, and lead?
- What are the impacts of air pollution on visibility in
national parks and other protected lands?
— What are the concentrations of toxic air pollutants in
ambient air?
What contributes to outdoor air pollution?
(See also following three questions)
— What are contributors to particulate matter,
ozone, and lead in ambient air?
- What arc contributors to toxic air pollutants in
ambient air?
- To what extent is U.S. air quality the result of pollution
from other countries, and to what extent does U.S. air
pollution affect other countries?
What human health effects are associated with
outdoor air pollution?
What ecological effects are associated with outdoor
1 air pollution?
Number and percentage of days that metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs) have Air Quality Index (AQI) values
greater than 1 00
Number of people living in iareas with air quality levels
above the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) and ozone
Ambient concentrations of particulate matter: PM2 5 and
PM10
Ambient concentrations of ozone: 8-hour and 1 -hour
Ambient concentrations of lead
Visibility
Ambient concentrations of selected air toxics
See emissions indicators
Emissions: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10)
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
volatile organic compounds
Lead emissions
Air toxics emissions
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Human Health chapter
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Ecological Condition chapter
2
1
1
1
1
1
2

2
2
2

1.1.1
1.1.1.3
1.1 .1.b
1,1 .l.b
1.1. l.b
1.1. l.c
1.1 .1.d
1.1.2
1 .1 .2.3
1.1.2.3
1.1 .2.b
1 .1 .2.c
1.1.3
1.1.4
Acid Deposition

What are the deposition rates of pollutants that cause
acid rain?
What are the emissions of pollutants that form acid rain?
What ecological effects are associated with
acid deposition?

Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen
Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Ecological Condition chapter
2
2

1 .2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1-2
Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators
Appendix I
-------
L-hapter 1: (-leaner/\ir —- wuestions and Indicators (continued)
Indoor Air (Duality

What is the quality of the air in buildings in the United States?
What contributes to indoor air pollution?
What human health effects are associated with
indoor air pollution?
HgBiliiM^Wffl^MsiJiiiHMB8eSiisJISg!g!i$ff^WgBgteMJ^^ ^"W^*s^*"*^"p"'Mw^LW1Ifrrft-'a^**?31
U.S. homes above EPA's radon action levels
Percentage of homes where young children are
exposed to environmental tobacco smoke
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Human Health chapter
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Human Health chapter
2
2

1.3.1
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
jtratospneric Ozone
":"^:t:;v'::^
What are the trends in the Earth's ozone layer?
What is causing changes to the ozone layer?
What human health effects are associated
with stratospheric ozone depletion?
What ecological effects are associated with stratospheric
ozone depletion?
Ozone levels over North America
Worldwide and U.S. production of ozone-depleting
substances (ODSs)
Concentrations of ozone-depleting substances (effective
equivalent chlorine)
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
1
2
2

1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
fell •_
Appendix I
Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators
1-3
-------
ElAs Draft "Report on the Envirpnment 2003 • Technical Document
ILxniDit 2-1: Water - Questions and! Indicators
1 11 ,,

i
Waters and Watersheds
i
i
F"
t
•
I
i
t
What is the condition of fresh surface waters and
watersheds in the U.S.?
What are the extent and condition of wetlands?
What is the condition of coastal waters?
What are pressures to water quality?
What ecological effects are associated
with impaired waters?
Altered fresh water ecosystems
Lake Trophic State Index
Wetland extent and change
Sources of wetland change/loss
Water clarity in coastal waters
Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters
Total organic carbon in sediment:.
Chlorophyll concentrations
General pressures
Percent urban land cover in riparian areas
Agricultural lands in riparian areas
Population density in coastal areas
Changing stream flows
Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in
grassland/shrublands
Sedimentation index
Nutrient pressures
Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen
Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and
ground water
Total nitrogen in coastal waters
Phosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams
Phosphorus in large rivers
Total phosphorus in coastal waters
Chemical Pressures
Atmospheric deposition of mercury
Chemical contamination in streams and ground water
Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water
Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams
Toxic releases to water of mercury, dioxin, lead, PCBs,
and PBTs
Sediment contamination of inland waters
Sediment contamination of coastal waters
Sediment toxicity in estuaries
Fish Index of Biotic Integrity in streams
Also see Ecological Condition chapter
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity index for streams
Also see Ecological Condition chapter
Benthic Community Index for coastal waters
Also see Ecological Condition chapter
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
1
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.3!
2.2.3
2.2.3

2.2.4.a
2.2.4.a
2.2.4.a
2.2.4.a
2.2.4.a
2.2A.3

2.2.4.b
2.2.4.b
2.2.4.b
2.2.4.b
2.2.4.b
2.2.4.b

2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
2.2.4-c
2.2.4.C
2.2.5
2.2.5
2.2.5
1-4
Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators
Appendix I
-------
technical Document ||fcr7^ Draft Report on the environment 2003
Drinking Water
su
What is the quality of drinking water?
Population served by community water systems
that meets all health-based standards
2.3.1
What are sources of drinking water contamination?
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
2.3.2
What human health effects are associated .with drinking
contaminated water?
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Human Health chapter
2.3.3
Recreation in and on the Water
. !_'.._. .".-... ;.,Laussti8d./>':Cm'^';;im?3^ .''•»'- ~'.':,i;L"L.,,:XM?i^^£$<$&$
What is the condition of waters that support consumption
offish and shellfish?
What are contaminants in fish and shellfish, and where
do they originate?
What human health effects are associated with consuming
contaminated fish and shellfish?
Percent of river miles and lake acres under fish
consumption advisories
Contaminants in fresh water fish
Number of watersheds exceeding health-based
national water quality criteria for mercury and PCBs
in fish tissue
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Human Health chapter
2
2
2

2.5.1
2.5.1
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3

Appendix I
Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators
1-5
-------

Chapter 3: Better T rotected Land - (.Questions and Indicators
Land Use

••plPi11!111 '! I1 ^'^^^^^ J4 ii; HJIIlilll!.'.^ l^g^iew ''fiili'iiTBl " w«s**w**«2uestions and Indicators (continued)
Waste and Contaminated Lands ... ..
^•4 •'• " ' '. • - Question- -raaMffisasassa^
t
e
t-~
i
f
i
1
i
i
How much and what types of waste are generated and
managed ?
What is the extent of land used for waste management?
What is the extent of contaminated lands?
What human health effects are associated with waste
management and contaminated lands?
What ecological effects are associated with waste
management and contaminated lands?
Quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated and managed
Quantity of RCRA hazardous waste 'generated and managed
Quantity of radioactive waste generated and in inventory
Number and location of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills
Number and location of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities
Number and location of Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites
Number and location of RCRA Corrective Action sites
No Category 1 or 2 indicator identified
No Category 1 or 2 indicator identified
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3.3.1
3.3.1
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
.-. • • , - -, ..,:•.'- .. - -„ v .»,,„.-;.,„=, -•-.- ;-..-.-„ ,-.„. ,~-- ,......-
.si
Appendix I
Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators
1-7
-------
' - ,

EPAs Draft "Report on the Environment 2003
What are the trends for life expectancy?
What are the trends for cancer, cardiovascular disease,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma?
What are the trends for gastrointestinal illness?
What are the trends for children's environmental health issues?
Cancer mortality
Cancer incidence
Cardiovascular disease mortality
Cardiovascular disease prevalence
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality
Asthma mortality
Asthma prevalence
Cholera prevalence
Cryptosporidiosis prevalence
E. coli O1S7:H7 prevalence
Hepatitis A prevalence
Salmonellosis prevalence
Shigellosis prevalence
Typhoid fever prevalence
Infant mortality
Low birthweight incidence
Childhood cancer mortality
Childhood cancer incidence
Childhood asthma mortality
Childhood asthma prevalence
Deaths due to birth defects
Birth defect incidence
. ,
txosure to tnvironmentai Tollultion: Indicators and trend
What is the level of exposure to heavy metals?
What Is the level of exposure to cotinine?
What is the level of exposure to volatile organic compounds?
What is the level of exposure to pesticides?
What is the level of exposure to persistent
organic pollutants?
What art; the trends in exposure to environmental
pollutants for children?
What is the level of exposure to radiation?
What is the level of exposure to air pollutants?
What is the level of exposure to biological pollutants?
What is the level of exposure to disinfection by-products?
Indicator Name,
Blood lead level
Urine arsenic level
Blood mercury level
Blood cadmium level
Blood cotinine level
Blood volatile organic compound levels
Urine organophosphate levels to indicate pesticides
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Blood lead level in children
Blood mercury level in children
Blood cotinine level in children
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
Also see Cleaner Air chapter <
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
No Category 1 or 2 indicators identified
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
.4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.3.4
4.4.3
4.4.3
4.4.3
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4,7
4.4.8
4.4.8
4.4.8
4.4.9
4.4.9
4.4.9
4.4.9

Appendix 1
Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators
1-8
-------
S Question J
t
i
5
3 :
^
1
i
j What is the ecological condition of forests?
«
1
1

3
i
i
j
8?"^ " , ,..
Indicator Name
Extent afforest area, ownership, and management - .
Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban ftreams and ground water
Deposition: wet sulfate and wet nitrogen
Changing stream flows . -
Extent of area by forest type : •. •
Forest age class . , . . i '•
Forest pattern and fragmentation
At-risk native forest species , .
Populations of representative forest species
Forest disturbance: fire, insects, and disease
Tree condition , j
Ozone injury to trees . | . - - . -
Carbon storage . .
Soil compaction •
Soil erosion ' .
Processes beyond the range of historic variation
' , - *, -«-,**- ,*.^^'~
Category
7
. 2
2
7
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
Section
S.I. 4
2.2.4.b
7.2.2
2.2.4.a
S.2
5.2
5.2 ,
5.2
5.2
5.2
S.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2

IP
Oiapter 5: tcological C-onaition • Questions ana InaicatQrs
1 • • >

> * Forests
rarmianos
» -•- Question .'[-•-. . indicator Name Category - Section
%
•i
"i
I What is the ecological condition of farmlands?
af
3
i
^
Extent of agricultural land uses ,
The farmland landscape , .
Nitrate in farmland, forested, and urban streams and ground water
Phosphorus in farmland, forested and urban streams . . \
Pesticides in farmland streams and ground water
Potential pesticide runoff from farm fields
Sediment runoff potential from croplands and pasturelands
Pesticide leaching potential ^ i
Soil quality index , , . T '
Soil erosion
• 7
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3.7.2
3.7.2
2.2.4.fc
2.2.4.i
2.2.4.C
3.2.4
3.7.6
S.3
5.3
5.3
e^t=- & / l -* J
W -r 'H «- Ci-
tlrassiancls and jhruDianas
Question '
" - ' ; , • :.!..(.'-

•
and shrublands?

Iridicatdl- Name . :
- • . • • . ' ' ••.-.•If:',
Extent of grasslands and shrublands : . . , .
Number/duration of dry stream flow periods in grasslands and shrublands
At-risk native grassland and shrubland species
Population trends of invasive and native non-invasive bird species
Category
7
2
2
1
Section
3.7.3
2.2.4.0
5.4
5.4
1-9
Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators
Appendix I
-------

1 1
-_. PI 1 /^" I " S~\ — ^^f?l^^T7*^e*i'^f?.^i<''if!fi#!&i>&ifff^
Chapter 5: tcological Condition - Cyuestiort| and Indicators tcontinued)

Urban and Suburban Lanas

Extent of urban and suburban lands
Ambient concentrations of ozone 8-hour and 1-hour
What is the ecological condition of urban
and suburban areas?
Nitrate in farmland, forested and urban streams, and ground water
Phosphorus in farmland, forested, and urban streams
Chemical contamination in urban streams and ground water
Patches of forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland in urban/suburban areas
7.1.7.1)
2.2.4.B
2.2 4 b
2.2.4 c
5.5
Fresn Waters

What is the ecological condition of fresh waters?
Wetland extent and change
Altered fresh water ecosystems ll! ' ' ni1
Contaminants in fresh water fish '
Phosphorus in large rivers '' '•
Lake Trophic State Index
Chemical contamination in streams and ground water '' !
Acid sensitivity in lakes and streams ' ! ": "•"
Changing stream flows i j
Sedimentation index ; l"1"""'"' ' ' 1"""11'1
Extent of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs \ ' ' '•
At-risk native fresh water species , .
Non-native fresh water species , !
Animal deaths and deformities : '
At-risk fresh .water plant communities !
Fish Index of Biotic Integrity in streams
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index for streams
i
2
. 2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2.2
2.2.1
2.5.7
2.2.4.b
2.2.1
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.0
2.2.4.0
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
ttflif

• ' j^fEtiHf^P^ ji »^^^

What Is the ecological condition of coasts

f~ i x-x • W^f'-^-^'ViiAK^K'.^^^^,
L-oasts and wceaiiis ' ; ' ;•;; '•_' '• '"_'••"• •'••'•• • • "••"ii •'•••••'••••'•

Chlorophyll concentrations
Water clarity in coastal waters '
Total nitrogen in coastal waters i
Total phosphorus in coastal waters
Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters . '
Total organic carbon in sediments
Sediment contamination of coastal waters
Sediment toxtciiy in estuaries
Extent of estuaries and coastline
Coastal living habitats
T'l i" " "'
Shoreline types
Benthic Community Index
Fish diversity,
Submerged aquatic vegetation ' ''
Fish abnormalities
Unusual marine mortalities
SS'li!:

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2'
2
2
2
2
?3*S$»;

2.23|
2.2.3
2.2.4.fc
2.2.4.b
2.2.3
2.2.3
2.2.4.C
2.2.4.C
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.7
js/ote: Italicized indicators are presented in other chapters.
Appendix 1
Summary Tables of Questions and Indicators
MO
-------

I, ^aj
E^_^J'
Cnapter 5: Ecological Condition - Questions and Indicators (continued)
The Entire Nation
fe

What is the ecological condition of the
entire nation?
Nntfl' \\fi\\r\70A \inAir-fi4-f\vr- «•*„ .... j. j
— •— , ^^ ^ ^^^BJBTOP^
-------
-------
-------
^ i -»
,,,.,,.,,,.„.,„.
•••a^ -s
-------