United States,-;^;v;«
Environmental ProfeGtion
'-«w^*^;-r-
5SWM;
on the
-------
-------
EPA-260-R-02-006
June 2003
EPA's Draft Report on the Environment 2003
Office of Environmental Information
and the Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable oil-based ink on 100% processed chlorine-free recycled paper.
-------
Disclaimer
This document is an external draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Note to Reader
The data used in this report were collected ovw various time periods.
An explanation of data sources and limitations can be found in each chapter and in the accompanying
Report on the Environment Technical Document.
-------
^ 5 "e* ^ „ **• m ->"**** " "*^~" ~^!~ ^
jiAAessage from the Administrator
i " ~ * " ^ "^ J*"*«L* t'sis-JttW „* ^JSft'K C~ ^TS
s ^r-* «w* * * fejiilr**Vi,-- * s-^—!_!_•£"
f •-•isf •
'*% ^j*tT<,sJ7 ^t
-" --•_iTV" A ,.
1 "" "' •*. ^ J
.*t, ~, if-
n am pleased to present the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ~*
--Draft Report on the Environment, a key step toward building a set of
'environmental indicators that will Help answer Americans' questions about
ithe environment and guide our environmental decision making. This
Report provides a frank discussion of what we know—and what we do not
know—about the condition of our nation's environment.
2~As we look at the past three decades, we see a real record_of success.
By many measures, our environment is healthier today than it was in
1970. The nation's commitment to environmental protection has
.produced cleaner air, safer drinking water for more Americans, and a much
^improved approach to managing waste. Where once we may have taken
:bur environment for granted, we now understand the importance of
^environmental quality for our future. Much work remains to be done,
Jiowever, and we must continue to build on our record of progress.
With EPA's Draft Report on the Environment, we begin an important
j national dialogue on how we can improve our ability to assess the nation's
|:;environmental quality and human health and on how we use that
-Jcnowledge to manage for measurable environmental results. I invite you to participate in this dialogue with us and our
L! partners. Your comments and feedback are essential to our success.
Through his Management Agenda, the President has called for a government focused on priorities and dedicated to
excellence in public service. This draft report helps EPA heed that call, and I thank the many EPA staff members from
every program and region, our federal, tribal, state and local government partners, and the independent scientists and
research staff who contributed to the report's development.
We are all stewards of this planet, and we all share responsibility for protecting and preserving a precious heritage for our
children and grandchildren. As long as we work together and stay firmly focused on our goals, I am confident we will
continue to make our air cleaner, our water purer, and our land better protected for future generations.
Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
-------
-;u;,mmm-• • ;g- } 1';4 jftlT:i|;j;..;t.;;jif.•:,/;[;.,;r• •' • £|.^.^utau:...
^
JHL.
(Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Environmental Protection in Context
.. i
. vii
..x
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air 1-1
Introduction
Outdoor Air Quality.
1-2
1-3
Indoor Air Quality 1-10
Global Issues 1 -11
Limitations of Air Indicators 1-13
Endnotes 1-14
Chapter 2 - Purer Water. 2-1
2-2
Introduction
Waters and Watersheds 2-3
Drinking Water 2-12
Recreation in and on the Water • 2-15
Consumption of Rsh and Shellfish 2-17
Limitations of Water Indicators 2-21
Endnotes 2-23
:^£! Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land.
Introduction
3-1
.3-2
Land Use 3-3
Chemicals in the Landscape 3-8
Waste and Contaminated Lands 3-14
Limitations of Land Indicators 3-22
Endnotes 3-23
ter 4 - Human Health .
BrtutS»Mt»*i
Introduction 4-2
Health Status of the United States 4-3
Environmental Pollution and Disease 4-10
Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution 4-17
Challenges in Developing Human Health Indicators . .4-20
tindnotes .- 4-21
BI!PB"lii"!i "aaHiSSiSSBZ KanpffllBnyii"W"i"llr '"" ™ «'»'!lS't11-T,r«™'.""naiwi~gf '-mi, "in"™™™
apter 5 - Ecological Condition
!!SS^^
Introduction • S-2
Landscape Condition 5-5
Biotic Condition ' 5-7
Chemical and Physical Characteristics 5-9
Ecological Processes 5-10
Hydrology and Ceomorphology 5-12
Natural Disturbance Regimes 5-14
Ecological Condition as an Environmental Result 5-15
Challenges in Developing Ecological Condition
Indicators 5-18
Endnotes 5-20
wronrnen
trn:
Appendix A - Summary of Questions and Indicators A-1
Appendix B - Types of Waste and Contaminated Lands B-1
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations C-1
Appendix D - Glossary of Terms D-1
Appendix E - Sources for Environmental Protection in Context. .E-1
-------
ummm
In this Report on the Environment, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) presents its first-ever national
picture of the U.S. environment. The report describes
what EPA knows—and doesn't know—about the
current state of the environment at the national level,
and how the environment is changing. The report high-
lights the progress our nation has made in protecting its
air, water, and land resources, and describes the meas-
ures that can be used to track the status of the environ-
ment and human health. Key conclusions from this
report are summarized below.
This report is the first step in EPA's Environmental
Indicators Initiative. Launched in November 2001, this
initiative seeks to develop better indicators that EPA can
use to measure and track the state of the environment
and support improved environmental decision-making.
As a first step in developing this report, EPA identified a
series of key questions about the environment—
questions such as: What is the condition of waters and
watersheds in the United States? What is the quality of
outdoor air in the United States? The Agency then
carefully examined data sources, including those from
other federal agencies, to identify indicators (e.g., the
extent of wetlands and the concentrations of criteria
pollutants in air) that could answer these questions on
a national level.
These indicators provide the basis for this report. They
also reveal that-there is much we don't know about the
status of our environment because we currently lack
sufficient information to provide a more complete pic-
ture. An important next step in EPA's initiative will be
working closely with other federal agencies, tribes,
states, local governments, non-governmental organiza-
tions, and the private sector to create a long-term
strategy for developing an integrated system of local,
regional, and national indicators. This work will involve a
number of challenges, including developing better data
to support better indicators, making indicators more
understandable and usable, and more fully elucidating
the linkage between the causes and effects of environ-
mental pollution and stressors.
EPA is issuing this report as a draft to stimulate dialogue
and invite input into developing and improving environ-
mental indicators in the future. EPA welcom.es your sug-
gestions about how well this report communicates
environmental status and trends and how to better
measure and manage for environmental results. To learn
more about the Environmental Indicators Initiative, to
access the Technical Document that provides the
detailed scientific foundation for this report, or to pro-
vide comment and feedback on this report, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/.
txecutive jurnmary
-------
ii,| I : - s ; y • ,
_ _ i
refit Ma
Outdoor Air
Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have
decreased. Over the last 30 years, total emissions of six
principal air pollutants have decreased by nearly 25 percent,
resulting in lower concentrations of these pollutants in ambi-
ent ain Many people live in areas of the country that do not
always meet the health-based standards for certain pollu-
tants. More than 133 million people live in areas where moni-
tored air quality in 2001 was unhealthy at times because of
high levels of at feast one criteria air pollutant. At the same
time, the percentage of days across the country that air qual-
ity violated a health standard dropped from almost 10 per-
cent in 1998 to 3 percent in 2001.
Air toxics emissions have declined. The National Toxics
Inventory, which tracks 188 toxic pollutants, estimates that
nationwide air toxics emissions decreased almost 24 percent
from baseline levels (1990-1993) to 4.7 million tons annual-
ly in 1996. Although data and tools for assessing the impacts
of air toxics are limited, available evidence suggests that emis-
sions of a!r toxics may still pose health and ecological risks in
certain areas of the U.S.
One of the major components of acid rain, wet sulfate
deposition, has declined. Wet sulfate deposition levels for
1999-2001 showed reductions of 20 to 30 percent com-
pared to levels for 1989-1991 over widespread areas in the
Midwest and the eastern U.S., where acid rain has had its
greatest impact. Wet nitrogen deposition decreased slightly
in some areas of the eastern U.S. but increased in others,
including those with significant agricultural activity.
ndoor Air
Indoor air quality remains a concern. Because the
American public spends most of its time indoors, indoor air
quality is a serious issue. While more information is needed
about pollutant exposures and their effects in indoor environ-
ments, national studies have shown that levels of some pollu-
tants indoors can be much higher than outdoor levels. Two
indoor air pollutants of particular concern are radon and
environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), the latter especially for
children. We are achieving, however, decreases in exposure to
ETS. In 1998, young children were exposed to ETS in
approximately 20 percent of homes in the U.S.—down from
approximately 39 percent in 1986.
GloU I
ssues
The stratospheric ozone layer has become thinner in
recent decades, principally over the Antarctic. While
acknowledging high uncertainties in the data, scientists calcu-
late that since the 1980s, ultraviolet radiation levels at 10
stations in both the northern and southern hemispheres have
increased by 6 to 14 percent. However, it is believed that
because of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances, the
stratospheric ozone layer will recover, and ultraviolet radiation
levels frpm human-induced stratospheric ozone depletion are
close tci the maximum they will reach.
Executive Summary
E
-------
f v/s^s, sa;fe drm^^
^^jj^^^^^^^^f^mj^l^j^^^^^^^^^^^
Waters and Watersheds
We know a great deal about the condition of the nation's
waters at the regional, state, tribal, and local levels, but
we do not have enough information to provide a compre-
hensive picture at the national level. The way in which the
nation collects water quality data does not support a com-
prehensive picture of watershed health at the national level.
The nation's estuaries are in fair to poor condition, vary-
ing from poor conditions in the northeast, Gulf, and Great
Lakes regions to fair conditions in the West and Southeast,
based on measurements of seven coastal condition indicators.
Rates of annual wetland losses have decreased from
almost 500,000 acres-a year three decades ago to a loss of
less than 100,000 acres averaged annually since 1986.
Nevertheless, in key parts of the U.S., we continue to lose
valuable wetlands.
Drinking Water
An increasing number of people are served by community
water systems that meet all health-based drinking water
standards. In 2002, states reported that 94 percent of the
population served by community water systems were served
by systems that met all health-based standards, up from 79
percent in 1993. Underreporting and late reporting of data
affect the accuracy of this information.
Recreation in and on the Water
The number of beach closings has increased, but this like-
ly reflects more consistent monitoring, reporting, and use
of state-wide advisories over time, rather than a decline
in the condition of recreational waters. From 1997 to
2001, the percentage of beaches affected by advisories or
closings rose from 23 to 27 percent. During that same peri-
od, the number of agencies reporting to EPA on beach advi-
sories and closings rose from 159 to 237.
C-onsumption of rish and jhellrish
The percentage of U.S. fresh waters under fish consump-
tion advisories has increased in recent years. Similar to
beach closings, these increases may be the result of more
consistent monitoring and reporting, so they do not neces-
sarily indicate that conditions are getting worse. An estimated
14 percent of river miles, 28 percent of lake acreage, and 100
percent of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters were
under fish consumption advisories for at least some portion
of 2001. Following the U.S. ban in the mid-1970s, PCB con-
centrations significantly declined in Lake Michigan fish and
concentrations of PCBs in lake trout declined consistently
through the year 2000 in Lakes Ontario, Huron, and
Michigan.
Executive Summary
-------
LandU
se
The U.S. contains approximately 2.3 billion acres of land.
That total area includes 1,055 million acres of grasslands and
shrublands, 749 million acres of forests, 410 million acres of
agricultural lands, and 98 million acres of developed land.
The majority of land within the U.S. is privately owned.
Almost 1.5 billion acres of private and tribal land are man-
aged solely by their owners, with zoning and other land use
regulations as the only constraints. The federal government
manages nearly 28 percent of the nation's land.
While land conservation efforts continue, the amount and
rate of land development has increased. More than 4 per-
cent of the nation is designated as wilderness, and millions of
other acres are protected in parks, refuges, or other classifica-
tions of reserved land. In 1997, 4.3 percent of U.S. total land
area—98 million acres—was developed, up from 3.2 percent
in 1982. The pace of land development in the 1990s was 1.5
times that in the 1980s.
emicais in
the Land
scape
Industrial releases of toxic chemicals as reported to the
Toxics Release Inventory have declined in recent years.
EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) tracks releases of more
than 650 chemicals. The original set of chemicals (332 of
the 650 TRI chemicals) from industries that have reported
consistently since 1988 shows that total on- and off-site
releases decreased 48 percent between 1988 and 2000, a
reduction of 1.55 billion pounds. In addition, between 1998
and 2000, toxic releases of all 650 TRI chemicals decreased
by approximately 409 million pounds.
Testing of foods for pesticide residues in 2000 found
that no more than 1.4 percent of samples exceeded regu-
latory limits. Each year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
works with states to collect and analyze samples of a variety
of foods for pesticide residues using methods that can detect
concentiations orders of magnitude lower than levels that
might cause health concerns.
Waste and Contaminated Lands
Over the last 40 years, the total amount of municipal
solid waste generated in the U.S. has increased, though
per capita generation has remained relatively constant
over the last decade. While the nation is generating more
waste, it<; waste management practices have improved, partic-
ularly through increased recycling. The amount of municipal
solid waste recovered (recycled or composted) increased
more than 1,100 percent in the last decade.
The nation is making progress in dealing with hazardous
waste. In 1999, EPA estimated that the 20,000 businesses
within the U.S. classified as "large quantity generators"
(defined as those that generate more than 2,200 pounds of
hazardous waste each month) collectively generated 40 mil-
lion tons of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste. Between 1991 and 1998, for 17 of the most
toxic chemicals in hazardous waste, the total amount fell by
44 percent. Between 1998 and 2000, 12 billion pounds—
approximately one third—of all toxic chemicals used in indus-
trial processes were recycled. Today, virtually all hazardous
waste is either recycled, or processed by treatment that
destroys the toxic pollutants or reduces the ability of the pol-
lutants to enter the environment. Once treated, this waste is
disposed of in landfills designed to prevent any releases. This
represents a vast improvement over the disposal practices
used 25 years ago.
txecutive jummary
-** -?~3
ru" *
»fw ,
-------
The nation is making progress in cleaning up contaminat-
ed lands. As of October 2002, there were 1,498 sites on
the Super-fund National Priorities List (NPL)—a list of the
most toxic waste sites in the nation. Of these, 846 sites are
construction completion sites (i.e., sites where physical con-
struction of all cleanup actions are complete, immediate
threats are addressed, and all long-term threats are under
control). This is up from 149 construction completes in
1992. In addition, approximately 3,700 hazardous waste
management sites are subject to RCRA corrective actio'n
which would provide for investigation and cleanup and reme-
diation of releases of hazardous waste and constituents. Of
these, 1,714 high-priority sites are targeted for immediate
action by federal, state, and local agencies.
The health of the American public is generally good and
improving. People are living longer than ever before—in the
last century, life expectancy at birth increased from 51 to
79.4 years for women and from 48 to 73.9 years for men:
Infant mortality has dropped to the lowest level ever recorded
in the United States. Infant mortality is still higher in this
country than in other developed nations, however, and life
expectancy is somewhat lower. The death rate for the nation's
main health threats—heart disease, cancer, and stroke—is
decreasing, although the number of people developing some
diseases, such as childhood asthma, is increasing.
Many studies in people have demonstrated an association
between environmental exposure and certain diseases or
health problems. Examples include radon and lung cancer;
arsenic and cancer in several organs; lead and nervous system
disorders; disease-causing bacteria such as £. co/i O1S7: H7
(e.g., in contaminated meat and water) and gastrointestinal
illness and death; and particulate matter and aggravation of
heart and respiratory diseases.
There are still unanswered questions about the links
between some environmental pollution and health prob-
lems. Factors such as the amount and frequency of exposure
and a person's age, health, genetic make-up, and lifestyle
affect whether a person will show symptoms of exposure or
develop disease. Better disease data that could be linked
directly with environmental monitoring data would support
efforts to determine stronger connections between disease
and environmental exposure.
Some segments of the population, especially children and
the elderly, may be more susceptible to adverse health
effects from some environmental pollutants. People with
existing health problems and with compromised immune sys-
tems may also be at higher risk. Understanding the potential
impacts of pollutants on such sensitive groups is important in
shaping national health standards and policies.
Biomonitoring has helped document the reduction in
blood lead levels of young children in the past 25 years due
largely to the ban of leaded gasoline, as well as the reduction
of cotinine, a measure of the exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke, in children, partly due to declining numbers
of adult smokers. Using biomonitoring to measure pollutant
residues in the body is one way to identify the levels of pollu-
tants that may cause health problems and can help gauge the
success of actions to limit exposure. Biomonitoring involves
taking samples (usually in blood or urine) from people to
measure individual exposure.
Executive Summary
-------
1 f "*'
l,.i
, hcnationVa K)|/atejYland, and livingthings mteractJnidfee^sH arid cbrrti>lex ways to shapitWe'''natior)'s:::ecol
-------
Introduction
How clean are our nation's air, water, and land? How
healthy are its people and ecosystems? How can we
measure the success of policies and programs to pro-
tect health and the environment?
This report provides the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) response to these questions, with the aim of
sparking a broader dialogue and discussion about how to
answer them in the future. The report has two key purposes:
• To describe what EPA knows—and doesn't know—about
the current state of the environment at the national level,
and how the environment is changing.
• To identify measures that can be used to track the status
of and trends in the environment and human health, and to
define the challenges to improving those measures.
This report is the first step in EPA's Environmental Indicators
Initiative. Launched in November 2001, this initiative seeks to
develop an improved set of environmental indicators that will
enable EPA to better manage for results and better communi-
cate the status of the environment and human health. These
indicators will provide critical tools for EPA to define environ-
mental management goals and measure progress toward
those goals. Early drafts of this report have already been
helpful in developing EPA's strategic plan for 2003 to 2008.
An important next step in EPA's initiative will include working
closely with partners—other federal agencies, states, tribes,
local government, non-governmental organizations, and the
private sector—to create a long-term strategy for developing
an integrated system of local, regional, and national indica-
tors. This report is issued as a draft to stimulate dialogue and
invite input into developing and improving environmental
measures in the future. EPA welcomes your suggestions about
how well this report communicates environmental status and
trends and how to better measure and manage for results. To
learn more about the initiative and to provide your comments
and feedback, please visit http://www.epa.gov/indicators/.
Using Indicators to Measure Results
This report uses the lens of environmental and health indica-
tors to bring the current state of the U.S. environment into
focus. Environmental indicators are measures that track envi-
ronmental conditions over time. For example, they help meas-
ure the state of air, water, and land; the pressures on those
resources; the status of human health; and the integrity of
our nation's ecosystems. Examples of environmental indica-
tors include concentrations of criteria air pollutants in ambi-
ent air, the extent of wetlands, and the levels of lead in the
blood of Americans.
Environmental and human health indicators focus on out-
comes—actual environmental results, such as cleaner air and
B Working with Partners
< ' *£*--,' • ~- • „ r - - „ - '
" ^. ^ "^ I>L e-^^y h
protecting the environment and human health is not EPA's task alone". Many federal departments implement legislation and manage
ffigTams that contribute directly to those goals. State, local, and county governments, along with federally recognized tribes, admin-
iistef_enyironmental programs as well. Many other factors influence human and environmental health: individual choices, collective
factions by citizens, and decisions made by industry all contribute to the health of society as a whole, and of its surrounding environ-
ment.
^developing this draft report, EPA learned much from the"experiences of others: the White House Council on Environmental Quality,
"'Other federal departments and agencies, tribes, and states; The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment;
^atureServe; the EPA Science Advisory Board; and the National Research Council. This clraft report is much stronger as a result of
the comments, advice, and data they made available to EPA.
Introduction
-------
EKA* .......... R .....
tress LJ/
in Exhibit i-(: Hierarchy o
"l win n . . -*
Administrative
Environmental
„.„„,_„, LEVELS
EPA, State/Tribal
Ultimate Impacts:
Changes in Human
Health or
Ecological
Condition
Burden/Uptake
Fish and macroinvertebrate
indices of biotic integrity
(Mid-Atlantic Highlands)
1 nutrient loads delivered
to the Chesapeake Bay from
MD. PA, VA, and DC, 1985 and 2000
|T§ew<«t; Rtmvi frotn EiV, CheMfleJice Bay Program. Chesapeake Bay Hierarchy of Indicators,
I , I
water or improved human health or ecosystem condition—
rather than on administrative actions, such as the number of
permits issued. At one time, administrative measures of per-
formance were considered sufficient indicators of progress.
While administrative measures track what actions have been
taken, they don't tell us whether those actions actually
improved the environment or human health. Understanding
the effectiveness of environmental programs, and measuring
actual progress, requires indicators of health and environmen-
tal conditions.
Exhibit i-1 depicts this "hierarchy" of measures. Levels 1 and
2 are indicators of "response"—government administrative
actions, such as the issuing of discharge permits, and
responses to those actions. Level 3 indicators measure pres-
sures on the environment, such as changes in the quantities
of discharges to water. Levels 4, 5, and 6 all measure the
state of the resource—such as changes in ambient levels of a
pollutant or changes in the health of an ecosystem. To link
environmental protection with real-world results, indicators
and performance measures at each level of the hierarchy are
required.
This report focuses, where possible, on indicators that
describe environmental status and trends at a national level.
In many cases, however, national-level indicators do ,not yet
exist or are not supported by adequate data. In some of
these ca«;es, local and regional indicators do exist and are fea-
tured as examples in this report; these indicators are valuable
for a number of reasons. They serve as examples of what
national indicators might look like in the future. They provide
important perspective on conditions at the local and regional
levels, they are critical to understanding cause-and-effect
relationships in the environment, and they provide an impor-
tant tool for local decision-making.
Dialogue
nvitation to a Die
*•: -Y I |, 1 .1
j\, ' - I' ' , 'i
~EPA inviies your participation in the discussion about this draft
s; IIIL i i 11 i 111 i 'i
! report. Ve welcome your suggestions about this draft report,
z'ttiefututz directions for EPA's Environmental Indicators
Initiative, how best to measure and manage for results, and how
tlo effectively communicate about environmental status and
' ' ''IIII'W^ |rl|llillll!i!!;illi:;ll!l!;i»"!lllll!lllll:lill!l!iill!!lpll*llSl!li1!!lS"!!, ,i('7!'7'';t™'''r"ISM'S'l'+l!"''!t'l!!'IT''1'
}£ public. To learn more about the initiative and to
ur comments and feedback, please visit
.epa.gov/indicators/.
trends, i
provide
Introduction
-------
About This Report
This report is organized around five core chapters (see chart
below). The first three describe the current state of the pri-
mary components of the physical environment—air, water,
and land—and the principal stressors that can affect their
conditions. The final two chapters present indicators on
human health and ecological condition.
The report was driven by a series of questions, developed by
EPA, that address three themes: what is happening, why is it
happening, and what are the effects. For example, in the area
of outdoor air, the questions address the quality of the
nation's air (wfiot is happening), the factors contributing to
outdoor air pollution (why), and the human health and eco-
Jogical effects of outdoor air pollution (what are the effects).
Once the questions were developed, EPA examined data
sources to identify potential indicators to address these
questions on a national level. Scientists from inside and out-
side EPA then screened these indicators for their scientific
soundness and relevance to the questions. Only indicators
judged to be scientifically sound were included in this report.
The questions posed in each chapter, and the indicators
selected to answer them, are listed in Appendix A. Chapter 6
describes some of the challenges in developing and using
indicators at the national level. The scientific foundation and
more detailed information for the indicators listed in this
report are presented in the accompanying Report on the
.Environment Technical Document (available online'at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/).
This report provides significant information about the
nation's environment; however, its scope is limited in several
ways. First, the report focuses primarily on the U.S.; it does
not address international environmental conditions or issues
that may affect environmental quality in this country. Second,
the report provides information on status and condition, but
does not describe the many important initiatives that EPA
and its partners are undertaking to protect the environment
and human health. More information about specific program
initiatives and other indicator-related background'materials, as
well as links to EPA partners, can be found online at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/.
Air Ifc, , Chapter 2 - Purer Water £kapter_3 - Better Protected Land j
:'' lKf*";"''-!j^3*' ^.-ywK^-CTva.- Wjfe&tZfK3f*r;f>^n^^;Z£ _-•-:
ys;r-1-- -%jjijg^~^^-*J:"i~~*1* ^"^"*ris'^^Sir-:: §jgr?^;^>^'"~'""'* ^^w;ia*^j-*iHJ
napter 5 - tcological Condition "
Ecological Condition as an
Environmental Result
Chapter 6 - Working Together for Environmental Results
introduction
-~~^u
-------
txnibit i-2: tnvironmental Protection in Context
EPA recognizes the importance of quality of life and sustainability in any effort to measure outcomes. The nation's
environmental protection laws aim to improve Americans' quality of life by simultaneously protecting health and
environmental resources and promoting economic prosperity. This exhibit provides some statistical context for
understanding environmental progress. See Appendix E for all source information.
2000 Census recorded 281
million people in the U.S.
far 2600'poputation
~ ~—
{*"/-!_ Children
"--
26%
Life expectancy for
The population increased by 38%
between 1970 and 2000
Life expectancy for men
and women increased 8%
since 1970
More than half of
the U.S. population
lives within 50
miles of the coast
In the mid 1990s, there werelOS.S million acres of
wetlands in the lower 48 states; based on estimates
in the late 1980s, there were 170 million acres in
Alaska, 52,000 acres in Hawaii.
The Great Lakes are 60.2 million acres and
contain 18% of the world's fresh water
3.7 million rtiles of
iky"' rivers atjd streams, fnn
the lower 48* Stated *™:
Fresh water withdrawals - millions
of gallons per day, 1995
66,645 miles of coastline
Total water Public Rural Irrigation Thermo-
wrthdrawals supply domestic electric
& power
livestock
Introduction
-------
txnibit \-2: tnvironmental Trotection in Context
Energy consumption
increased 43%,
1970-2001
1970: increased
$3,578* 160%,
1970-2001
Change in energy
used per unit of GDP,
1970^2001
-^t'£s^__^ ('billions of chained
(1996) doljars)
("thousand Btu per
chained (1996) dollar)
Vehicle miles traveled increased f / (
149%, 1970-2001 / __ £_ .,
Coastal waters support more
than $54 billion in goods
and services each year
Area: 2.3 billion acres of U.S. land, 28% federally owned
1,066 million
acres of grasslands
530 million acrqs of agricultural land*J
*does not include Hawaii """includes cropland, pastureland, and Conservation
Reserve Program land; does not include Alaska
More than 4% of the nation is designated as wilderness and millions of other acres are protected
in national parks, state parks, wildlife refuges, or other classifications of conserved land.
Introduction
-------
J fi'wiiiife'i! it.!!! IK:,!: .. i!i"'.., .7 :"l ki.i 'Iiil:::" I'"."! i '> JITE'": JIT" i ""i": iliTi i"": J'!: I'i! ::"7''.I.?'":'.'!'":!:.'! iiiT! • ii 1'1> ''i'll::,: Sitl;!:!" li • "til;
t ••
-------
ii-i
-------
Introduction
ow clean is the air we breathe outdoors? How does
pollution in the air affect the quality of land and
water? How healthful is the air in our homes and
offices?
The air we breathe today is cleaner and more healthful than it
was 3 decades ago. Since 1970, total national emissions of
the six most common air pollutants have been reduced 25
percent Remarkably, this improvement in national air quality
has occurred even while, during the same 30-year period, the
U.S. Gross Domestic Product increased 161 percent, energy
consumption increased 42 percent, and vehicle miles traveled
increased 149 percent (Exhibit 1 -1 J.1
Building on this progress, work remains to ensure steady
improvements in air quality. For example, certain areas of the
country at times exceed national health-based air quality
Chapter I: Cleaner Air
lExhibit 1-1: Comparison of growth measures and
emission trends, 1970-2001
. ' ,\ * , ». .. I !
IS, 96^97^ J8.; J9_ 00 01
"•Ill'lir'W'jjl I fwixl'ln* I'ril'i!'!'"!*!! III!1'! I'1** IK! !l« fif"' n!«lj!iiii||ii'i!!NMlXi"'%*»:lj!i]]|v; «i ,*i,*,hjii« "MJL")'!'!) ,;»!l»i»>,IK'lVlll!!lll!|l|lt '
lity Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National :^
f^/VQua//t>|20orStfltus and Trends. September 2002.
i iir
standards. We have much to learn about the levels of toxic air
pollutants and the quality of air indoors.
This chapter has three main sections: outdoor air quality,
indoor air quality, and global issues. Each section tries to
answer two general questions: What are the current condi-
tions? What are the major contributors to change? Questions
about health and ecological effects are posed and explored
for a number of air quality issues. The chapter concludes
with a seiction on the limitations of the indicators to address
these questions.
1-2
C-napter 1 - CJeaner Air
Introduction
-------
_
Outdoor Air G)uality
In the 1970s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) identified six common—or "criteria"—air pollutants
for which it established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act: ground-level
ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
dioxide (NC>2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead.
At elevated ambient levels, these pollutants—both alone and
in combination—are associated with adverse effects on
human health and on the environment. Breathing those pollu-
tants at harmful levels can result in respiratory problems, hos-
pitalization for heart or lung disease, and even premature
death. They can also harm
aquatic life, vegetation, and
Ajl* Quality' animals, as well as create
locators'* •'"• * I 'laze anc' rec'uce visibility. In
*fft •
: tf.
i*5- » •••ir,!,^.)..™)tj^. m°y ^ ' ^ J*
er and percentage of days mat
opolttan statistical areas have
Duality Index (AQI) values
"greater than 700
of people living in areas witr,
"(8 -hour) and particulate
(PMj 5) levels above the
* jt ~ ^' ~ i*
nbient concentrations of
ozone, 8-hour
^Ambient concentrations of
^particulate matter (PM2 5)
Visibility
i Deposition' wet nitrogen and
wet sulfate
_ Ambient concentrations of
selected air toxics
Emissions of particulate matter,
f^sulfur dioxide nitrogen oxides, and
*•"- volatile organic compounds
L ' Lead emissions
t Air toxics emissions
'Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide
; and nitrogen oxides
setting the national primary
standards for each of the
pollutants, EPA intended to
protect public health and
the environment, as required
by the Clean Air Act. By law,
the standards are to be peri-
odically reviewed and revised
as appropriate.
i
° Information on air quality
trends for criteria air pollu-
^ tants is based on actual
* measurements of pollutant
* concentrations in the ambi-
* ent air at more than 5,000
monitoring sites across the
country. The data from
.; those readings support EPA's
j- key indicators for measuring
4 outdoor air quality trends
j and determine which areas
~, meet Clean Air Act stan-
dards.
tCpncentrations
lyersus
Emissions
^Ambient—or surrounding—-air concentration levels are the key meas-
I are. of air quality and are based on the monitored amount (e.g., in
f units ofmicrograms per cubic meter [ng/ms] or parts per million
f[ppm])ofa pollutant in the air. Emissions levels are based on esti-
' mates and monitored measurements of the amount (e.g., in units of
feions) of a pollutant released to the air from various sources, such as
^[vehicles and factories. Some emissions travel far from their source to
£. be deposited on distant land and water; others dissipate over time and
"^distance. The health-based standards (National Ambient Air Quality
^'Standards) for criteria pollutants are based on concentration levels.
-.The pollutant concentration to which a person is exposed is just one of
IJibeJactors that determines if health effects occur—and their severity
tjf they do occur.
What is the quality of the
outdoor air in the United
States?
Trends in criteria air pollutants, visibility, acid deposition, and
toxic air pollutants provide a picture of the nation's air quali-
ty. The nation's air quality is generally improving as measured
by declining concentrations of criteria air pollutants. Acid
deposition levels of sulfate are declining in the eastern U.S.,
the area most affected by deposition. Toxic air pollutants,
though not as widely measured as criteria pollutants, also
appear to be declining. Visibility in parks and other protected
areas remained relatively steady over the last decade, and
challenges remain in improving visibility.
C-riteria Air Pollutants
Average ambient concentra-
tions of the six criteria pollu-
C^napter 1 - CJeaner Air
Outdoor Air Quality
-------
tants have shown improvements over the past 20 years.2 For
most parts of the country, the average ambient levels of lead,
CO, SO2, and NOj are lower than the standards. But many
people live in areas of the country that do not always meet
the health-based standards for certain pollutants, especially
ozone and particulate matter.
In fact, more than 133 million people lived in areas where
monitored air quality in 2001 was unhealthy at times because
of high levels of at least one criteria air pollutant (Exhibit
1 -2).3 Based on EPA's Air Quality Index (AQI) data the per-
centage of days across the country on which air quality
exceeded a health standard dropped from almost 10 percent
in 1988 to 3 percent in 2001 (Exhibit 1 -3).4-5 Also, EPA has
conducted an analysis of 260 metropolitan statistical areas
(MSAs) for the 1990 to 1999 time period. This study shows
that in 212 MSAs the average ambient concentrations for at
least one of the criteria pollutants had downward trends, and
in 57 MSAs there were upward trends for at least one pollu-
tant (with 34 of the 57 MSAs showing significant upward
Cxhioit 1-2: People living in areas with air quality
concentrations at times above the level of the National
Ambient Ar Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 2001
Nitrogen
Dioxide °
Ozone
Sulfur Dioxide
PartkuUte
Matter (SI Ofim)
Pwiicufate
Matter (S2.5Hm)
Carbon
Monoxide
Lead 1 2.7
Any
NAAQS
(8-hour)
T 33.1
50 100
Millions of People
150
Soorte; EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National
) StJlui and Tnsnds. September 2002.
i
" t.
fie Air ( uality Index (AQI) is used for daily reporting of air quality as
frelated ti ozone I'M CO, SO2, and NC>2. It describes the heafth
or a pot
Air Quality Index
{effects f| Jrt may be associated with exposure to different levels of these
i- pollutani . the groups likely to be most sensitive to the pollutant, and
sunple ntdsuresThat can ~be" taken to re Juce exposure.
r r IB I'M", \ (>,), " h «, . -, *
5
, . ,
I* n k , , H « I (1. "1 * I*
,AQI valil s range from 0 to 500. The higher the AQI value, the greater
he level^ ffqir pollution — and the greater the health danger. An AQ/ j
|ya(ue o/^ "00 generally corresponds to the national air quality sianciaref -
itant Thus, AQIt values of less than 700 are usually consid-
jjbit JjS: pumper ^d percentage of days witK _| _
jality Index (AQI) greater than 100, IQ88-2001
Number of Days
Percent of Total Days
-20
Source:"
Plannin|
Table A-f
Air trem
-12
I
2001
|ata used to create graphic are drawn from EPA, Office of An Quality
i^d Standards National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1997.
IP" December 1998; ERA, Office, of Air Quality Planning and Standards
;': Metropolitan area trends, Table A-17 2001 (February 25, 2003,
"epa gov/airtrends/metro html).
'!i!J 1 111 ' I II It
ti factory. When AQI values are higher than 700, air quality is
\n\ed unhealthy for certain sensitive groups of people; as values rise, ;
"everyonejoecomes at ris£ "However, unusually sensitive people may expe- !
rignce health effects when AQI values are between !>0 and TOO. ,
-IP ^ * .
2/'|co/e is dividedjnto six categories, each of which is identified '
'ith a ptMicular color that corresponds to a level of concern for I
Health. jfOae orange," for example, means that the air is "unhealthy !
for sensit lye groups," and "code red" means that the air mag be I
unhealthy rfor everyone. The highest of the AQI values for the individual
po//utanj| become^ the^AQl value for that day. For example, if one day \
a certamujrea haaAQI^ values of 750 for ozone and 720 for particu-
late matlp: the AQI value would be 150 for the pollutant ozone on i
§|i' i r t f i i t T ii / r , ^ in
'that dayfAppropriate sensitive groups are always cautioned about any ,
~AQl valwHiigher tdan 155. "" " """ * |
"In a receM "Roper Green Gauge Report," based on a nationwide poll of' '-
'more them 2,000 people, 54 percent of those surveyed said they had
heard off ozone days" or "code orange'V'code red" air quality days, i
and 46 i tercent said tKey had reduced their exposure to air pollution by <
modifying "outdoor exercise or work habits.7 "• £
1
1
••»
I
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
Outdoor Air Quality
-------
trends). Taken as a whole, the results of the study demon-
strate significant improvements in urban air quality over the
past decade.6
Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but formed by the
reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and other chemical compounds in the pres-
ence of heat and sunlight, particularly in hot summer weather.
Chemicals such as those that contribute to formation of
ozone are collectively known as ozone "precursors." Particu-
late matter is emitted directly, and is also formed when emis-
sions of NOX, SO2, and other gases react in the atmosphere.
With decreases in emissions of VOCs and other ozone pre-
cursors, 8-hour ozone concentrations fell by 11 percent
nationally between 1982 and 2001.8 All regions experienced
improvement in 8-hour ozone levels during the last 20 years
except the North Central region, which showed little change
(Exhibit 1-4). However, in 2001 more than 110 million .people
lived in counties with concentrations higher at times than the
8-hour standard for ozone.9 Southern California, the eastern
U.S., and many major metropolitan areas have continuing
ozone problems.
In 2001, some 73 million people lived in counties where
monitored air quality at times exceeded the standard for fine
particulate matter (PN/^.s)—those particles less than or equal
to 2.5 micrometers (jam).10 Concentrations of PM2.s vary
regionally. California and much of the eastern U.S. have annu-
al average PM2 5 concentrations higher than the level of the
Exhibit 1-4: Trends in ozone levels, I982-2QO1, averaged across EFA Regions
.112
.090
fe. i
ffi EPA Region 1 0
C3 EPA Region 9
1E1 EPA Region 8
CH EPA Region 7
El EPA Region 6
•I EPA Region 5
C3 EPA Region 4
I—-I EPA Region 3
• EPA Region 2 "' - "
88 EPA Region 1
Based on annual 4th maximum 8-hour average
Concentrations are in ppm
Note: Alaska levels are included in EPA region 10 averages; Hawaii levels are included in EPA region 9 averages; and Puerto Rico levels are included in EPA region
2 averages.
Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest findings on National Air <3ualiiy: 2001 Status and Trends. September 2002.
Chapter I - Cleaner /Air
Outdoor Air Quality
-------
annual PM2.s standard (Exhibit 1 -5). The number of people
living in counties with air quality levels that exceed the stan-
dards for ozone and PM signals continuing problems.
Visibility
Pollution is impairing visibility
in some of the nation's parks
and other protected areas. In 1999, average visibility for the
worst days in the East was approximately IS miles. In the
West, average visibility for the worst days was approximately
50 miles in 1999.11 Particulate matter is the major contribu-
tor to reduced visibility, which can obscure natural vistas.
Without'the effects of pollution, the natural visibility in the
U.S. is approximately 47 to 93 miles in the East and 124 to
186 mihis in the West. The higher relative humidity levels in
the East result in lower natural visibility.
Acid Deposition
Two of the key pollutants
that contribute to the forma-
tion of particulate matter—SO2 and NOX—react in the
atmosphere with water, oxygen, and oxidants to form acid
droplets, Rain, snow, fog, and other forms of precipitation
containing the mixture of sulfuric and nitric acids fall to the
._ _ _.. __
Exhibit 1-5: 2001 annual average particulate matter (PrAz.5' concentrations
Micrograms per Cubic Meter (ug/
>20
HIS -20
012-15
a Do not meet minimum data completeness.
Minimum 1 1 samples per calendar quarter required.
D Data unavailable.
PM2.5 Standard (annual arithmetic mean) is
Source: EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2J
'01 Status and Trends. September 2002.
J
•1-6"
Chapter 1 - CJeaner Air
Outdoor Air Quality
-------
earth as acid rain (wet deposition). The particles also may be
deposited without precipitation, known as "dry deposition."
Wet sulfate deposition has decreased substantially—20 to
30 percent—throughout the Midwest and Northeast, where
acid rain has had its greatest impact, between the periods
1989-1991 and 1999-2001 (Exhibit 1 -6). During the same
period, wet nitrogen deposition decreased slightly in some
areas of the eastern U.S. but increased in other areas, includ-
ing those with significant agricultural activity (Exhibit 1 -7).12
Toxic Air Follutants
In addition to the six criteria
pollutants, the Clean Air Act
identifies 188 toxic air pollutants to be regulated. Among
•those pollutants are benzene, found in gasoline; perchloro-
ethylene, emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and meth-
ylene chloride, used as a solvent by a number of industries.
Often referred to as "air toxics," these are pollutants that may
cause cancer or other serious health effects—reproductive
effects or birth defects, for example—and may also cause
adverse ecological effects.
Exhibit 1-6: Wet sulfate deposition, IQ89-1991 vs. 1999-2001
|-: Source: EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Clean Air Markets Program. EPAAci^Rain Program: 200 f Progress Report. November 2002,
li, _._.:.
Exhibit 1-7: Wet nitrogen deposition, 1989-1991 vs. 1999-2001
Average of 1 999-2001
Average of 1989-1991
Source: EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Clean Air Markets Program. EPA Acid Rain Program; 2001 Progress Report. November 2002
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
Outdoor Air Quality
-------
Because there is currently no national monitoring network for
toxics, concentrations of toxic air pollutants cannot be quan-
tified on a comprehensive, national level. Data from several
metropolitan areas do show downward trends in selected
toxic air pollutants. For example, the levels of benzene meas-
ured at 95 urban monitoring sites decreased 47 percent from
1994 to 2000.13 Although data and tools for assessing the
impacts of air toxics are limited, available evidence suggests
that emissions of air toxics may still pose health and ecologi-
cal risks in certain areas of the U.S.14 '
What contributes to outdoor
air pollution?
Both manmade and natural sources contribute to criteria and
toxic air pollutants. Emissions from factories, electric utilities,
oil refineries, waste incinerators, smelters, dry cleaners, agri-
cultural facilities, construction equipment, woodstoves, slash
pile burning, cars, buses, planes, trucks, trains, and lawn mow-
ers—among many other sources—contribute to outdoor air
pollution. Applying commercial products such as paints and
strippers can also produce air pollution through the release
of VOCs. Air pollution can also stem from natural processes
such as volcanoes, windblown dust, and wildfires.
Most of the six criteria air pollutants show declining emis-
sions since 1982 (Exhibit 1 -1). But as reported in Latest
Findings on National Air Quality. 2001 Status and Trends, emis-
sions of NOx, a contributor to ozone, particulate matter, and
acid rain formation, increased by 9 percent between 1982
and 2001, with a slight decrease (3 percent) between 1992
and 2001.1S A significant amount of that increase is attrib-
uted to growth in emissions from non-road engines, including
construction and recreation equipment and diesel vehicles.16
Data from the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) are used
for tracking trends in emissions over time. State and local
agencies, tribes, and industry provide input to the NEI data-
base, which includes estimates of annual emissions, by source,
of air pollutants in each area of the country, on an annual
basis. EPA continuously reviews and improves estimates of
pollutant emissions. Emissions estimates for criteria pollutants
are currently under such evaluation and may be updated.
Actual emissions of SO2 and NOX from electric utility plants,
which are significant sources of both pollutants, are moni-
tored for a program designed to reduce acid rain. Sulfur diox-
ide emissions from sources affected by the Acid Rain Program
declined from nearly 16 million tons in 1990 to 10.6 million
tons in 2001,17 NOX emissions from utility sources decreased
from 6.7 million tons in 1990 to 4.7 million tons in 2001,18
The National Toxics Inventory, which uses data from the
Toxics Release Inventory and other sources, estimates that
nationwide air toxics emissions dropped approximately 24
percent between their baseline (1990 to 1993) and 1996 to
4.7 million tons annually.19
What human health effects are
associated with outdoor air
pollution?
i
Outdoor air pollution can cause a wide variety of adverse
health problems. Some of the criteria pollutants, particularly
ozone, N|O2, and SO2, are primarily associated with respirato-
ry-related effects, including aggravation of asthma and other
respiratory diseases, irritation of the lungs, and respiratory .
symptoms (e.g., cough, chest pain, difficulty breathing).
Short-term exposure to ozone has also been linked to lung
inflammation and an increased number of hospital admissions
and emergency room visits.20'21.22-23,24 Repeated short-term
exposures to ozone may damage children's developing lungs
and may lead to reduced lung function later in life, whereas
long-term exposures to high ozone levels are a possible cause
of an increased incidence of asthma in children who engage in
outdoor sports.25 Carbon monoxide, on the other hand, pri-
marily affects people with cardiovascular disease by reducing
oxygen in the blood, which aggravates angina.26
Particulaie matter is associated with both respiratory-related
and cardipvascular effects, exhibiting a broader range of
effects. Fbr example, short-term exposures to particulate mat-
ter may ciggravate asthma and bronchitis and have been asso-
ciated with heartbeat irregularities and heart attacks.27 Such
exposures have been linked to increased schpol absences and
lost workdays, hospital admissions, and emergency room vis-
its, and even death from heart and lung diseases.28 Long-term
exposures have also been linked to deaths from heart and
lung disease, including lung cancer.29'30
People exposed to certain toxic air pollutants at sufficient
concentrations may also experience harmful health effects,
including cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular effects, dam-
C-napter 1 - CJeaner1 Air
Outdoor Air Quality
-------
age to the immune system,'and neurological, reproductive,
and developmental problems. Even at low doses, lead—both
a criteria and toxic air pollutant—is associated with damage
to the nervous systems of fetuses and young children, result-
ing in learning deficits and lowered IQ.31 Exposure to ben-
zene, a widely monitored air toxic, has been linked to
increases in the risk of two types of cancer: leukemia and mul-
tiple myeloma.32 (For additional information on health effects
associated with outdoor air pollution, see Chapter 4 —
Human Health.) .
What ecoiogical effects are
associated with outdoor air
pollution?
Many health effects are associated with breathing polluted air,
but air also transports pollutants and deposits them onto
soils or surface waters, where they can potentially affect
plants, crops, property, and animals. Toxic substances in
plants and animals can move through the food chain and
pose potential risks to human health. Airborne mercury from
incineration, for example, can settle in water and contaminate
fish. People and other animals higher on the food chain (e.g.,
bald eagles, bears, and cougars)
that eat contaminated fish are
then exposed to potentially
harmful levels of mercury, which
is known to affect the nervous
system. (For additional informa-
tion, see the section on
"Contaminated Fish and
Shellfish" in Chapter 2 - Purer
Water.) :
Direct exposure to ozone under
certain conditions can be harm-
ful to plants and forests; it
reduces overall plant health and
interferes with the ability of
plants to produce and store
food. Such weakened plants are
in turn more susceptible to
harsh weather, disease, and
pests. Through its effects on
plants, ozone can also pose
risks to ecological functions such as water movement, cycling
of mineral nutrients, and habitats for various animal and plant
species. Airborne particles also can have an adverse impact
on vegetation and ecosystems.33
Increased acid levels damage soils, lakes, and streams, render-
ing some waterbodies unfit for certain fish and wildlife
species. Indirect effects of acid deposition are also responsi-
ble for damage to forest ecosystems. Excess deposition of
acid ions in the soil causes calcium and other essential plant
nutrients to be leached from the soil, and thus no longer
available to sustain normal plant growth and maintenance.
The calcium depletion also causes a scarcity of worms and
other prey, affecting the ability of some birds to lay eggs and
bring them to term.
Acid ions also can increase the movement of aluminum in soil,
which competes with calcium and other nutrients in plant
roots during absorption, further limiting plant growth. Acid
deposition can also produce elevated levels of aluminum in
waterbodies. This results either from direct deposits acidify-
ing the waterbody itself or from water passing through soil
that is high in aluminum and then entering the waterbody
from adjacent terrestrial systems. Those elevated levels of alu-
minum in water can be toxic to fish and other aquatic life.34
The nitrogen in acid rain is one of
the sources contributing to the total
amount of nitrogen in terrestrial and
aquatic systems. Although nitrogen
is a necessary nutrient in productive
ecosystems, too much nitrogen in
terrestrial systems can cause
changes in biodiversity. In aquatic
systems, it fuels excessive growth of
algae in coastal waters. When the
dense algal blooms die, bacteria
decay them. That process uses up
the oxygen that is needed by fish to
survive. (For additional information
on the effects of nitrogen on water-
bodies, see the section on "Waters
and Watersheds" in Chapter 2 -
Purer Water.)
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
Outdoor Air Quality
-------
IMf
Sill
Indoor Air Ouality
A ir pollution is also an issue indoors. There are many
'/ \ potential sources of indoor pollution, such as tobacco
/ \smoke, building materials, cleaning fluids, pesticides,
and outdoor air pollution that seeps inside. But few studies
have examined the overall presence of indoor pollutants or
the extent of human exposure to them. Scientists know that
indoor air pollutants can cause long- and short-term health
effects, but experts face challenges in determining the conse-
quences of exposure to various indoor air pollutants at low
levels for long periods of time.
What is the quality of the air in
buildings in the United States?
There is no comprehensive monitoring of the quality of
indoor air in the U.S., and the actual levels for many pollu-
tants are not well understood. Nonetheless, studies have
demonstrated that indoor levels of some pollutants can be
much higher than outdoor levels. Because most people spend
the majority of their time indoors, the indoor air quality of
the nation's homes, work places, and schools is a serious
issue.
?ffliiilliMil!f»S
pSyeqtegeofTiomes where young
fhildren are exposed to environmental
tobacco smoke
Two indoor air pollutants of
particular concern are envi-
ronmental tobacco smoke
(ETS) and radon. A 1998
survey estimated that young
children were exposed to
ETS in approximately 20
percent (if homes in the
U.S.—down from approxi-
mately 39 percent in
1986.35 Based on a repre-
sentative 1991 survey of all
homes iu the U.S., an estimated 6 million homes had high
radon levels—levels equal to or greater than EPA's action level
of 4 picocuries per liter.36 Those homes represented about 6
percent of housing units in the U.S.
What contributes to indoor air
pollution?
i
Indoor air pollutants include naturally occurring radon, ETS,
particula'te matter, asbestos, molds, dust mites, lead and other
toxic air pollutants, VOCs, pesticides, and gases emitted from
,:^
Indoor Air Quality in Office Buildings
77te goal of the EPA's Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation (BASE) Study was to dej
air quality and occupants' perceptions of that quality. In this study, conducted between IS
characterize the central tendency—mean or median levels—of indoor air quality in comnr
ne the status of U.S. office buildings with respect to indoor
94 and 1998, a sample of 100 office buildings was used to
rcial or public office buildings, representing the size building
in which 73 percent of all office employees work. In a subset of the first 56 of those buildings, EPA measured the indoor concentrations of 48 VOCs. In
a preliminary analysis, 34 VOCs were detected in 81 percent or more of the samples. All i
-------
inadequately vented heaters and pilot lights. Sources also
include certain furnishings and improperly stored solvents,
cleaners, pesticides, paints, and other household chemicals.
Concentrations of certain
chemical compounds and radon
can become particularly prob-
lematic when homes or build-
ings are tightly sealed and have
little exchange of indoor and
outdoor air. Like many other air
pollutants, concentrations of
indoor radon vary widely from
one location to another, and
around the country as well.
What human health effects are
associated with indoor air
pollution?
Poor indoor air quality can cause short-term problems, includ-
ing headaches, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, and a scratchy
throat. But its other effects include cancer—particularly from
long-term exposures to high ETS and radon concentrations—
and aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases such as asth-
ma. Exposure to naturally occurring radon gas is the second
leading cause (after smoking tobacco) of lung cancer among
Americans.39 The most sensitive and vulnerable population
groups—older people, the young, and the chronically ill—
tend to spend the most time indoors and may therefore face
higher-than-usual exposures.
ssues
Ozone depletion has global consequences for human
health and the environment. Ozone depletion takes
place when pollution damages the thin layer of ben-
eficial ozone in the stratosphere, about 6 to 30 miles above
the Earth, which protects living beings from harmful ultraviolet
(UV) radiation from the sun.
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 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 Our Changing Planet: The Fiscal Year
2003 U.S. Global Climate Research Program (November 2002)
at http://www.usgcrp.gov and the Draft Ten-Year Strategic
Plan for the Climate Change Science Program at http://www.
climatescience.gov.
Ozone depletion in the
stratosphere and climate
change are separate environ-
mental issues but are related
in some ways. Specifically,
some substances that
deplete the stratospheric
>zpne -levels pyerbiorth.Atnerica
iridwide and U.S. production
i- of ozone-depleting substances
(Chapter 1 - CJeaner Air
Global Issues
srr-^r-rr-it
*^."-^2
-------
ozone layer also are potent and very long-lived greenhouse
gases that absorb outgoing radiation and warm the atmos-
phere. Ozone itself is a greenhouse gas when it absorbs
incoming solar radiation and its depletion in the stratosphere
over the polar zones results in localized cooling at times.
What is happening to the
Earth's ozone layer?
In recent decades, the Earth's stratospheric ozone layer has
become substantially thinner. The thinning has occurred prin-
cipally over Antarctica and is referred to as the "ozone hole."
The ozone layer over the Northern Hemisphere's middle lati-
tudes is about 2 percent below normal
during summer and autumn
and about 4 percent below
normal in winter and
spring.40 Between
1979 and 1994, the
ozone layer thinned
8 percent over
Seattle, 10 percent
over Los Angeles, and
2 percent over
Miami.41
Scientists generally agree that a
thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer causes an increase
in the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. While acknowl-
edging high uncertainty in the data, scientists have calculated
that UV radiation levels at more than 10 sites in both hemi-
spheres have increased by 6 to 14 percent since the 1980s.42
EPA, in partnership with the National Weather Service, pub-
lishes an index that predicts UV intensity levels for different
cities on a scale of 0 to 10+, where 0 indicates a minimal risk
of overexposure and 10+ means a very high risk.
What is causing changes to the
ozone layer?
Stratospheric ozone depletion is associated with the use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons used to extinguish fires,
and other chemicals used as solvents. Air conditioners, refrig-
erators, insulating foams, and some industrial processes all
emit those substances. Air currents carry molecules with chlo-
rine and bromine from those pollutants into the stratosphere,
where they react to destroy ozone molecules.
The U.S. virtually ceased production of most ozone-depleting
substances in January 1996, because of its participation in an
international agreement, the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Nonetheless, ozone-depleting
substances are still being released into the environment, as
reported in the Toxics Release Inventory. Along with other
developed countries, the U.S. makes substitutes for the
strong ozone-depleting CFCs. These substitutes are them-
selves lesis ozone-depleting than the substances they replace.
Also, because the Montreal Protocol controls production but
not use, emissions continue from materials made before
January 1996. Even though scientists believe that recovery is
under way, full restoration of the stratospheric ozone layer will
take decades because of the continued use of products man-
ufactured before the ban.
What are the human health and
ecological effects of strato-
spheric ozone depletion?
Thinning !of the stratospheric ozone layer allows more of the
sun's UV radiation to reach Earth, where it contributes to
increasec incidences of human skin cancers, the most com-
mon of all cancers. Cataracts and suppression of the human
immune system may also result from increased exposure to "
UV radiation. In addition, productivity of some marine phyto-
plankton, essential to the ocean's food chain, may be unduly
stressed by high levels of UV radiation.43
Chapter 1 - Cleaner; Air
Global issues
-------
Limitations of /Yir Indicators
Many sources of data support indicators that help to -
answer questions about the trends in outdoor and
indoor air quality and stratospheric ozone. But
there are limitations in using the indicators to fully answer the
questions.
Outdoor Air
In general, there are some very
good measures of outdoor air
quality. Although the national air monitoring network for the six
criteria air pollutants is extensive, there are far more monitors in
urban areas than in rural areas. That helps to characterize popu-
lation exposures, because population tends to be concentrated
in developed areas, but it may make it more difficult to assess
effects associated with the transport of air pollutants and eco-
logical effects. Recently, EPA and states have begun evaluating
and planning a nationwide monitoring network for air toxics.
With a few notable exceptions such as power plants, emissions
quantities for both the criteria pollutants and air toxics are
based on engineering estimates derived from more limited actual
data. There is a need for measures to compare actual and pre-
dicted human health and ecological effects related to exposure
to air pollutants.
oor
Air
Although environmental indica-
tors have been developed for
some aspects of indoor air, significant gaps exist in knowledge
about the conditions inside the nation's buildings. For schools
and residences, a large amount of information on indoor air
quality is available, but it comprises primarily case studies and
small, at best, regional studies. More comprehensive data from
national exposure studies for schools and residential indoor
environments, including multiple-family residences, would be
helpful in understanding the condition of indoor air environ-
ments. Ideally, such studies would collect exposure data on air
toxics and particulate matter in those indoor environments, as
well as data for molds and other biological contaminants found
in indoor air.
Global I
ssues
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 lev-
els, comprehensive 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 carcinoma, the non-melanoma skin cancers caused
by increased UV 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 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 measure-
ments 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
exposure. Third, increased UV levels have been associated with
other human and non-human endpoints including immune sup-
pression and effects on aquatic ecosystems and agricultural
crops. However, additional research on these topics 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 interac-
tion between climate and stratospheric ozone could provide
more accurate predictions of ozone recovery and the human
health effects resulting from ozone depletion.
CJiapter 1 - CJeaner Air
Limitations of Air Indicators
fl-13
-------
tndnotes
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on
National Air Quality. 2007 Status and Trends, EPA 454-K-02-
001. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, September 2002.
2 Ibid.
s Ibid.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Quality
and Emissions Trends Report, 1997. Table A-15. EPA 454-R-98-
016. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, December 1998.
s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Trends:
Metropolitan area trends, Table A-17. 2001. (February 25,
2003; http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/metro.html).
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on
National Air Quality: 2007 Status ana" Trends, September
2002. op. cit.
7 Roper A.S.W. Roper Green Gauge Report. 2002. (February
14, 2003; http://www.roperasw.com).
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on
National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, September
2002. op. cit.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
» Ibid.
12 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.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on
National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, September
2002. op. cit. :
14 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://w\vw.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/risksum.html).
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on '.
National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, September
2002. op. cit.
16 Ibid. '
I
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ERA Acid Rain
Program: 2001 Progress Report, November 2002. op. cit.
18 Ibid.
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on
National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, September '
2002. op. cit.
20 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.
21 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 oir Research and Development, Environmental Criteria '.
and Assessment Office, August 1993.
22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria
for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides, EPA 600-P-82-020a-
c. Reseai'ch Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, 1982.
1-1 £
Chapter I - CJeaner Air
Endnotes
-------
23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Second Addendum to
the Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides
(1982): Assessment of Newly Available Health Effects .
Information, EPA-450-5-86-012. Research Triangle Park, NC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
1986.
24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supplement to the
Second Addendum (1986) to 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.
25 McConnell, R., K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S.J. London, T. Islam,
W. Cauderman, 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).
26 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.
27 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.
28 Ibid.
29 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.
30 F'ope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski,
K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary.mor-
tality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution.
Journal of American Medical Association 287: 1132-1141
(2002).
31 LI.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on
National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, September
2002. op. cit.
32 LI.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP, EPA 452-R-95-
004. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, July 1995.
33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on
National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, September
2002. op. cit.
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Acid Rain
Program: 2001 Progress Report, November 2002. op. cit.
35 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.
36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Residential
Radon Survey: Summary Report, ERA-402-R-92-011.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, October 1992.
37 Girman, J.R., G.E. Hadwen, L.E. Burton, S.E. Womble, and J.F.
McCarthy. "Individual volatile organic compound prevalence
and concentrations in 56 buildings of the building assess-
ment survey and evaluation (BASE) study." In Proceedings of
the 8th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and
Climate. Indoor Air 2: 460-465 (1999). London, UK:
Construction Research Communications, Ltd.
Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air
Endnotes
-------
53 Burton, LE, J.G. Girman, and S.E. Womble. "Airborne par-
ticulate matter within 100 randomly selected office buildings
in the United States (BASE)." In Proceedings of Healthy
Buildings 2000 1:157-162 (2000). Helsinki, Finland: SIY
Indoor Air Information OY.
39 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.
*"•* 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.
41 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ozone
Levels Over North America - NIMBUS-7/TOMS. March 1979
and March 1994. (January 24, 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/glob_dep.html)^
42 Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002, Executive Summary,
2003. pp. cit.
43 DeMora, S., S. Demers, and M. Vernet. The Effects ofUV
Radiation in the Marine Environment, Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Chapter I - Cleaner Air
Endnotes
-------
-------
introduction
FNristine waterways, safe drinking water, lakes for swimming
T^and catching fish, and aquatic life habitat are treasured
I resources. The nation has made significant progress in
protecting these resources in the last 30 years. Many
Americans remember the burning of the severely polluted
Cuyahoga River in the late 1960s, and the strong actions
taken by many to reduce pollution to the nation's waters in
the years since.
These actions have resulted in real progress, but water pollu-
tion problems and threats to surface and drinking water
remain. For example, the aging of the nation's wastewater and
drinking water infrastructure has highlighted the need to
ensure tlhat these critical resources are managed in a sustain-
able way. Other threats to water resources include landscape
modification, invasive species, changes to water flow, overhar-
vesting offish and shellfish, and deposition of pollutants from
the air.
This chapter describes what is known about the condition of
waters, watersheds, coastal waters, and wetlands nationwide;
the qual ity of the nation's drinking water; the condition of
waters used for recreation; and the condition of waters sup-
porting fish and shellfish consumption. Because the data are
lacking—and often inconsistent—the picture is not com-
plete. The chapter, therefore, also discusses the shortcomings
of the data and the challenges that remain.
C-napter 2:
::;:;:,::i:|
-4B :: ^ SI
Recreation in and
on the Water
Consumption of
Fish and Shellfish
2-2
Chapter 2 - 'Purer Water
Introduction
-------
Waters and Watershed
A watershed is a geographic area in which all the water
1 / \ drains to a common waterbody (e.g., river, lake, or
/ \stream). Watersheds may be as small as a few acres or
larger than several states. For example, the Chesapeake Bay
watershed extends across six
states and the District of
Columbia, whereas a small
$ stream running through a
I farmer's field in Pennsylvania
may drain only a few acres
Waters and
Watershed
Indicators
Water clarity In coastal waters
[ifsolved oxygen in coastal waters
^enthic Community Index (coastal)
Wetland extent and change
'^Sources of wetland change/loss
Altered fresh water ecosystems
Percent urban land coyer in
riparian areas
1 within the larger
| Susquehanna River water-
| shed, which is a portion of
I the even larger Chesapeake
j Bay watershed.
Healthy watersheds lead to
$ cleaner water. Maintaining
* that health requires careful
Agricultural lands in riparian areas ! identification and manage-
,_, •'.-"••' a * ment of human and natural
Changing stream flows -~ :•.
: •...-.. I activities that affect water.
•Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen • .... , r , , ...
5~ • I Although federal and state
^Nitrate in farmland, forested, and j governments provide techni.
s cal and financial support for
i watershed protection and
restoration efforts, local
Durban streams and ground water
—Total nitrogen in coastal waters
Phosphorous in farmland, forested,
and urban streams
Tial phosphorous in coastal waters
p Phosphorous in large rivers
fe-~ -
i: Atmospheric deposition of mercury
Chemical contamination in streams
Sediment contamination of
inland waters
Sediment contamination of
coastal waters
Pesticides in farmland streams and
ground water
Toxic releases to water of mercury,
dioxin, lead, PCBs, and PBTs
stakeholders have led many
such efforts.
Details on the extent of the
nation's water resources
(e.g., lakes, ponds, reservoirs,
streams, rivers, wetlands,
Great Lakes, and coastal
areas) can be found in the
Introduction of this report
(see Exhibit 1-2, "U.S.
Environmental Protection in
Context").
Water Quality Standards
f The Clean Water Act sets a,national goal to restore and protect the
^biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the nation's waters.
-: Meeting that goal involves maintaining water quality that protects bal-
a meed Indigenous populations offish, shellfish, and wildlife and pre-
- serves recreational use of those waters. States, territories, and
^authorized tribes have the authority and responsibility to establish
: water Cjuality standards for their waters. EPA assists by developing rec-
ommendations for criteria to protect human health and aquatic life.
_Pollutant standards are not the same from state to state because they
address different designated uses and government policies, variations
"^in natural conditions and ecosystem characteristics, and geological
^influences on the natural chemistry of water.
Ground Water
Of all the fresh water that '
exists, about 75 percent is
estimated to be stored in polar ice and glaciers, about 25
percent is estimated to be stored as ground water, and less
than 1 percent is stored as surface water. Ground water is the
source of much of the water used for irrigation, is the princi-
pal reserve of fresh water, and represents much of the poten-
tial future water supply. It is a major contributor to flow in
many streams and rivers. Indeed, hydrologists estimate that
the ground water contribution to stream flow in the eastern
.U.S. may be as large as 40 percent.1 Underground aquifers
(or ground water) supply drinking water to about 50 percent
of the U.S. population.2
Approximately 77 billion gallons per day of fresh ground
water was pumped in the U.S. in 1995.3 This amounts to
about 18 percent of the estimated 1 trillion gallons per day
of natural recharge to the nation's ground water systems.4
The availability of ground water varies widely on a local scale.
(Chapter 2 - Turer Water
Waters and Watersheds
-------
J&SBiUtn
131111:
JlSii1!!1 i,! I',.;!], :
BB:!"Hrt!';' '
What is the condition of waters
and watersheds in the United
States?
At this time, there is not sufficient information to provide a
national answer to this question with confidence and scientif-
ic credibility. A great deal is currently known, however, about
the condition of regional, state, and local waters due to the
tremendous monitoring efforts of state and local authorities
and watershed groups and citizens. What they have learned
from these efforts has been useful in managing water
resources.
States, territories, and authorized tribes have major responsi-
bilities under the Clean Water Act, including the task of
assessing the quality of their waters. That information is com-
piled by EPA and sent to Congress every two years in the
National Water Quality Inventory. The assessments performed
under Section 305 (b) of the Act are to determine if water
qualify is supporting "designated uses" in state water quality
standards. Typically, water quality is protected for use by
aquatic life, for use as drinking water supplies, to support
water for fish and shellfish for consumption, and for recre-
ational, agricultural, industrial, and domestic uses.
Yet a number of factors limit what the Section 305 (b) data
can say about condition at the national level. Most states,
territories, and tribes collect data and information on only a
portion of their waterbodies. Also, their programs, sampling
techniques, and standards differ. Many have targeted their
monitoring programs to known problem areas. Although the
use of tcirgeted sampling informs local decision-making, it
does not present a comprehensive understanding of the con-
dition of water resources.
To confidently assess the condition of the nation's waters
using regional and state information, a consistent, representa-
tive sample design and comparable data collection and analy-
sis procedures are needed. A number of states are
implementing such programs (see box, "New Directions in
State Water Quality Assessment Programs").
A number of other programs collect information that con-
tributes to our understanding of the condition of the nation's
waters (see box "Who Is Assessing Water and Watershed
Conditions?"). Many of them specifically address the impor-
New Directions in State Water Quality Asse
i
• In its "2002 State of the Environment Report,"5 the Indiana Department ofEnvironi
survey to report stream-water quality assessments by major watersheds. Since 1996,1
Program has assessed 20 percent of the state's streams each year for their ability to i
the first comprehensive assessment of more than 99 percent of its streams and rivers
assessed, approximately 64.5 percent were estimated to fully support the maintenanc
• Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) uses a probability-based survey design to
in Maryland's non-tidal streams. In the fifth year of the survey, it intends to (1) chan
>sment Programs
• ii ii
ental Management used a statistical
le department's Watershed Monitoring
< upport aquatic life. Indiana completed
•i 2007. Of the 35,430 stream miles
"of well-balanced aquatic communities.
dssess the status of biological resources
-.terize biological resources and ecologi-
cal conditions, (2) assess their condition, and (3) identify the likely sources of degradation. The state has developed an inter-
im framework to apply "biocriteria" in its water quality inventory (its 305 [b] report)"and list of impaired waters (its 303 [d]
list). To date, the proposed biocriteria rely on two biological indicators from the MBSSj the Fisfaand^Benthic Indices fofBiotic
Integrity. (Benthic organisms include worms, clams, and crustaceans that live at the bmtpni of streams,Jakes, ponds, estuaries,
and the sea.) A preliminary evaluation using MBSS 2000 data was conducted to ide\jfify watersheds that fail to meet the
requirements of UK interim biocriteria framework. Fora portion of the state, three larjer watersheds that were assessed passed,
and six assessments were inconclusive, Of the 123 sub-watersheds studied, 69 failed, 32 passed, and 22 were inconclusive.
Kentucky has published the results of probabilistic surveys on the first three of its has n management units. The state's 2004 water quality report
is expected to include results of additional surveys covering the watersheds of the entitz state.
• Other statistical^ designed studies are under way in Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,
New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The studies will allow those states to provide statewide characteriza-
tions of the waters being sampled. |L
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
Waters and Watersheds
-------
tance of watersheds as geographical groupings of waters and
landscapes. This allows a better characterization of conditions
than focusing on the waters alone, as well as a better under-
standing of how stressors affect water qualify and the plants
and animals that depend on waten An improved ability to
report nationally on the condition of surface waters would
also require a collaboration of states, tribal authorities, and
federal agencies.
What is the condition of coastal
waters?
The 2001 National Coastal Condition Report found the
nation's estuaries to be in "fair" to "poor" condition, varying
from region to region (Exhibit 2-1). The study determined
the overall condition of the estuaries based on measurements
of seven coastal condition indicators: eutrophication, dis-
solved oxygen, water clarity, sediments, benthic condition,
fish contamination, and loss of coastal wetlands. No overall
assessments were completed for Alaska, Hawaii, or the island
territories.
Estuaries are the most productive surface waters for plant
and animal life. Near-coastal habitats provide critical spawning
grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food for fish, shellfish, birds,
and other wildlife. Coastal areas also provide essential nest-
ing, feeding, and breeding habitat for 85 percent of the
nation's waterfowl and other migratory birds.6 Benthic organ-
isms are important to the food chain. They are also key indi-
cators of the health of coastal waters because they do not
migrate and tend to have more concentrated interactions with
their surroundings (e.g., sediment, water) than do many fish
(Exhibit 2-1).
All seven indicators can help describe the condition of the
nation's estuaries and near-coastal waters in more detail; this
' report focuses on three of them: eutrophication, dissolved
oxygen, and water clarity.
tutropnication
Eutrophication is a natural
process characterized by a
high rate of algal production. In recent years, human activities
have substantially increased the delivery rate of nutrients to
Who Is Assessing Water and Watershed
fei Conditions?
'
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 state and trends in some of
the largest and most important streams and aquifer systems of the
nation and to link the status and trends with an understanding of
the natural and human factors that affect the quality of water. The
studies cover 42 large hydrologic systems; however, the sampling for
surface waters may not present statistically valid data for those sys-
tems.
is:.
... .- ..
|_p EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
J^ has conducted representative sampling ofestuarine and stream
lie resources, and then incorporated biological measures in estimates of
p;. condition. In most cases, however, those were one-time only assess-
jgv' ments. In addition, geographic coverage for fresh water resources is
Ifr limited to the mid-Atlantic region and the western states. Also,
I? studies ofestuarine resources were primarily limited to eastern areas
ips -south of Cape Cod, Culf of Mexico coastal areas, and some western
e=- states.
t- .--.'••- • '••• -' "- •- : ' ' - -;
fji The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's)
|; National Status and Trends Program collects information on the
^chemical contamination of sediments and organisms, and on poten-
pr=- tial biological effects in the nation's coastal areas. Although the
j£f V NOAA coastal studies of chemicals in sediments and bivalve tissues
Jj; are muttiyear in nature, most of the detailed chemical and toxicity
%iK- -assessments ofestuarine areas are single point-in-time studies that
|B were not meant to be repeated.
ft
sTi The Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS's) National
| Resources Inventory (NRI) is a statistically based sample of land
•T. use and natural resource conditions and trends on U.S. non-federal
Irr-' lands. NRI periodically collects data on land cover and use, soil
fp -erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity, selected
conservation practices, and related resource attributes. No samples
are taken on federally owned land.
[The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS's) National Wetlands
Inventory produces information on the characteristics, extent, and •
status of the nation's wetlands.
I Other major watershed protection programs collect data of local
significance. The EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, for
example, conducts statistically based monitoring of the open waters
of the five Great Lakes covering trophic (nutrient level) conditions,
nutrient concentrations, and biological indicators. Similar programs
are found in the Chesapeake Bay, the Florida Everglades, Long
island Sound, and other areas. Atmospheric deposition of nutrients
and toxic contaminants is monitored in many of these watersheds as
well.
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
Waters and Watersheds
-------
^Overall National
Condition of Estuaries
and Great Lakes
Exnibit2-I: Overall condition of estuaries and Great Lakes, 2000
l; _ , ^ n_, _-.rn ,.-,__. 1-T^.-r._-l-m,- ~.rwwm.Mw^-~ ~. JJ ,1,,;^-^^^^ -... ~
Water Clarity
O,| Dissolved Oxygen"
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
No indicator d)U avalable. " Does not include the hypoxic zone in offshore Gulf of Mexico waters.
Sourct; EPA, OrFrcij of Research and Development and Office of Water. National Coastal Condition Report. September 2001
Note: no assessments were completed for
Hawaii, or island territories.
Alaska,
many coastal waters, resulting in greater algal production than
would have occurred naturally. A NOAA survey between 1992
and 1998 assessed symptoms of eutrophication, including
high levels of algae and toxic algal blooms, lack of oxygen,
and loss of aquatic plants that provide shelter and habitat for
many species of bottom-living organisms (Exhibit 2-2)7
Although the assessments were more a subjective determina-
tion of expert opinion than a systematic data analysis, they
suggest that 40 percent of U.S. estuarine waters—as meas-
ured by surface area—are degraded by excess nutrients. That
condition can lead to high levels of algae, and eventually to
lower levels of oxygen in the water.
| pllil 1 | ' n '' "' " -r; •-'." :; 1
|' txnibjt 2-2: Tercent or estuaries with nign, moderate, and
* • If- low levels or eutropnic condition, 1998
i| J ' r ' r - -~ : !-T!r:i3~d
25%
40%
35 %
Source; E
Nutrient &
.er,SB etal Motional Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment Effects of
j---1>ui,ra,ii.^,,r/cf?ment/n the Nation's Estuaries 1999, EPA, Office of Research and
•' Development and Office of" \Vater National Coasted Condition Report September
' 2001 "
2-6
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
Waters and Watersheds
-------
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is a funda-
mental requirement for aquatic
life. Low levels of dissolved oxygen, a condition called "hypox-
ia," are a problem in some coastal areas. This condition
occurs when too many nutrients flow into coastal waters,
overstimulating the growth of algae. The organic matter pro-
duced by the algae eventually decomposes, using up oxygen
in the process. Hypoxia can contribute to algal scums, fish
kills, noxious odors, habitat loss, and diminished aesthetic
values. During hypoxic periods—which usually occur in the
summer when high temperatures impede the mixing of oxygen
from surface to deeper layers—dissolved oxygen levels fall
below 2 parts per million (ppm, or 2 milligrams per liter
[mg/L]), well below the 5 ppm needed to support healthy
populations of aquatic life.8 As oxygen levels fall, the effects
on aquatic life become more severe. At about 3 ppm, bottom-
living fish start to leave the area and the growth of some
species is reduced. At levels less than 2 ppm, some juvenile
fish and crustaceans start to die. At levels less than 1 ppm,
fish totally avoid the area or begin to die in large numbers.
Generally, dissolved oxygen conditions in the nation's estuar-
ies are good, judging from data gathered through EMAR
Similarly, according to the National Coastal Condition Report,
80 percent of sampled estuaries were in good condition with
respect to levels of dissolved oxygen (more than 5 ppm dis-
solved oxygen), and 4 percent were in poor condition (less
than 2 ppm dissolved oxygen). Low dissolved oxygen levels,
however, are a seasonal problem in many estuarine systems
such as the Neuse River Estuary in North Carolina and parts
of Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, and Tampa Bay.
Further, although the report describes dissolved oxygen con-
ditions in Gulf of Mexico estuaries as good, it also describes a
hypoxic zone about the size of Massachusetts in the offshore
waters of the northern Gulf (see box, "Hypoxia in the Gulf of
Mexico and Long Island Sound").
Water Clarity
Water clarity, measured as the
distance light penetrates into
water, is another important characteristic of estuarine and
coastal habitats and of all surface waters. Reduced light pene-
tration is often the result of rainstorms, runoff from farmland
and urban areas, eutrophic conditions, and algal blooms.
Reduced clarity can impair normal algal growth and both the
extent and vitality of submerged aquatic vegetation, which is
a critical habitat component for many aquatic animals. EMAP
data indicate that, overall, the nation's estuaries have good
water clarity.
What are the extent and
condition of wetlands?
Wetlands provide critical habitat, breeding grounds, resting
places, and sources of food for fish, shellfish, birds, and other
wildlife. They also filter pollutants, which helps protect water
quality, limit flooding, and buffer coastal areas from storm
damage. An estimated 95 percent of commercial fish and 85
percent of sport fish spend a portion of their lives in coastal
wetlands.9 Shellfish—shrimp, crab, and oysters—also rely on
healthy wetlands for food and habitats.
Wetland extent serves as a partial surrogate to address wet-
land condition. The loss of wetlands in the landscape has a
negative impact on the condition of the remaining wetlands
by decreasing the physical connections among aquatic
resources and decreasing diversity of the landscape, which
lead to diminished opportunity for biological exchange and
increased habitat fragmentation.
In 1997, the conterminous U.S. had approximately 105.5
million acres of wetlands, less than half the 220 million acres
that likely existed in 1600. Nearly 95 percent, or 100.2 mil-
lion acres, of those wetlands are fresh water, and about 5 per-
cent—5.3 million acres—are intertidal marine and estuarine
water.10 Based on estimates made in the late 1980s, Hawaii
had 51,800 acres of wetlands, and Alaska had 170 million.11
Exhibit 2-5 portrays the loss of wetlands since the mid-
1950s. Until the 1970s, conversion to agricultural lands was
the predominant cause of wetland loss. Since then, rates of
annual wetland losses have been dropping—from almost
500,000 acres to less than 100,000 acres averaged annually
since 1986. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National
Wetlands Inventory survey estimated the annual rate of loss
at 58,500 acres per year between 1986 and 1997. That rep-
resents an 80 percent reduction in the rate of loss from the
previous decade.12
Chapter 2 - furer Water
Waters and Watersheds
-------
ill El iiiiiiiiiiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and Long Island Sound
The area and duration ofhypoxia are tracked in the Gulf of Mexico and Long Island Soujjj
bodies to determine whether actions to control nutrients are having the desired effect ant
The largest zone of oxygen-depleted coastal waters in the U.S. is in the northern Gulf of
waters are most prevalent from late spring through late summer and are more widesprea^
liver fhvt winds, and other environmental variables. Hypoxia occurs mostly in
two-thirds of the entire column.
The midsummer bottom areal extent ofhypoxic waters in the Gulf of Mexico increased ft
to 8,500 square miles (22,000 square kilometers) in July 2002 (Exhibit 2-3). The prl
eutrophkation of those waters from nutrient enrichment delivered to the Gulf by the ML
as indicators of the natural variability in those water-
how local species are affected.
Mexico on the Louisiana/Texas continental shelf. Hypoxic
and persistent in some years than in others, depending on
the lower venter column, but can encompass as much as the lower half to
3,500 square miles (9,000 square kilometers) in 1985
•nary cause of the hypoxic conditions is probably the
Mississippi River and its drainage faasw.13'14
'Exnioit 2-3: Areal extent or midsummer nypoxia in tre
Gulf of Mexico, 1985-2002
25,000
(9,702 square miles)
20,000
(?,7TH square nitei)
| 15,000
i (S.792 square rates)
1 10,000
3 (5,861 jquweraitcs)
5,000
(1,930 square nltes)
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 19*
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Note: Hypoxia in the Gulf is defined as less than 2.0 parts per million (ppm). i |ii|!*' ;: : - ...... •' ....... ;:; ....... ! ...... • .......... ;:i
ion or nypoxia in Long Island jound, 1987-2001
Area ofhypoxia Duration ofhypoxia
1987 1989 1991
Note: Hypoxia in Long Island Sound is defined as
Source: EPA, Long Island Sound Office. Sound Health
2-8
C_-hapter 2 - Turer Water
Waters and Watersheds
-------
txhibit 2-5: Average annual wetland loss,
1954.1974,1974-1983,1986-1997
1954-74
1974-83
1986-97
Source: Prayer, W.E. et al. Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwaier Habitats In
ptfe Conterminous United States 1950s to, ] 970s, ,1333; J2ahl,.T.E,.and CE. Johnso.n.
Wetland Status and Trends in the Conterminous United States 1970's to 7 980's.
; 1991; Dahl, T.E. Stnttis and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous UnitedStates .-
' 1986 to 7997. 2000. '"--'. '".". "'.'.'..'.....
Between 1986 and 1997, 98 percent of all wetland losses in
the conterminous U.S. were fresh water wetlands. Since the
1950s, fresh water emergent wetlands (marshes) have
declined by nearly 24 percent, and 10.4 million acres of fresh
water forested wetlands have been lost. Coastal and estuarine
losses during the same time were much lower on an absolute
scale—about 1.4 million acres—but that loss represents a
nearly 12 percent decline in coastal and estuarine wetlands.16.
Loss of land to open water is a particular problem in
Louisiana, whose 3.5 million acres of coastal wetlands repre-
sent about 40 percent of all of the coastal wetlands in the
continental U.S. The state has lost more than 600,000 acres
of coastal vegetated wetlands and is now losing coastal wet-
lands at an average annual rate of 16,000 to 19,000 acres
per year.17 In addition to flood controls and altered channels
to facilitate navigation, rising sea level, marshland sloughing
(sections breaking off) into deeper bays and sounds, and
land subsidence (sinking) may have contributed to those
losses.18
Additionally, major ecological effects have occurred from the
conversions of one wetland type to another: clearing trees
from a forested wetland or excavating a shallow marsh to cre-
ate an open water pond, for example. Such conversions
change habitat types and community structure in watersheds
and have an impact on the plant and animal communities that
depend on them.
What are stressors to waters
and watersheds?
Stressors affecting waters include alteration of natural water
ecosystems, excess nutrients, toxic chemicals, and viruses and
bacteria (pathogens, which are described in the following sec-
tions covering Drinking Water, Recreation in and on the Water,
and Consumption of Fish and Shellfish). Some human activi-
ties associated with these stressors are illustrated in Exhibit
2-6. The indicators presented here to identify water stressors
are drawn from national surveys or assessments. There are,
however, strong indications from state-reported causes of
impaired waters that stressors responsible for locally degrad-
ed water quality include sediments from non-point sources,
nutrients from point and non-point sources, pathogens from
point and non-point sources, and metals—largely as a result
of point source discharges from years ago and atmospheric
deposition.19 All these conditions and situations may harm
humans and aquatic species, reduce recreational opportuni-
ties, and increase the treatment costs for drinking water.
Under the Clean Water Act, states evaluate their waters and
list impaired waters for potential reductions in point and non-
point sources or for habitat restoration. In 1998, more than
20,000 waterways were identified as impaired under Section
303 (d) of the Clean Water Act.20 States have identified the
principal causes of such impairments as siltation, pathogens,
metals (particularly mercury), nutrients, habitat alteration,
pesticides, organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen, thermal
modifications, low or high pH, and fish consumption advi-
sories. The major transport mechanism for mercury is atmos-
pheric deposition, which is also a significant source of
nitrogen to waters.
Losing natural areas adjacent to waterbodies—and forested
areas to development and agricultural activities—raises con-
cerns about both water quality and quantity, especially in
fast-growing areas such as the southeastern U.S. When imper-
vious surfaces—asphalt and concrete, for example—impede
or accelerate natural flows, water cannot percolate through
soil. As a result, rain water rushes off, picking up pollutants
and overwhelming local streams. Recent trends toward low-
density development leave fewer pristine natural areas and
Chapter 2 - Furer Water
Waters and Watersheds
-------
Exhibit 2-6: Selected activities affecting water, watersr
eds, and drinking water resources
fewer trees and expose more land to pesticides and chemical
fertilizers. (For a more detailed discussion of those stressors,
see the "Land Use" section of Chapter 3 - Better Protected
Land.)
Physical alteration of a waterbody—damming or cutting
channels in a river, or developing along shorelines or on adja-
cent wetlands—can have significant effects on water and on
aquatic life. Although waterbodies are usually modified to
achieve some gain—flood control, easier navigation, reduced
erosion, or more area for farming or development—such
alterations may also reduce fish and wildlife habitat, disrupt
the patterns and timing of water flows, block the movement of
wildlife, and reduce or eliminate the natural filtering of sedi-
ment and pollutants.
An analysis of rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs (excluding
very small streams where data were not collected), based on
remote sensing and U.S. Geological Survey (USCS) data,
found that 23 percent of the stream banks, lake shorelines,
and adjacent wetlands had been altered by use as croplands
or by urban development. The natural habitat and function of
those waterbodies is probably altered as well.21 The data are
not collected in a manner that allows for aggregation to pro-
vide a national perspective. At present, data for lakes and
reservoir;; are aggregated, even though a reservoir is a man-
made structure or seriously altered habitat. Data on the
degree to which streams and rivers are channelized, leveed, or
dammed are not available, but these alterations result in simi-
lar impacts.
2-10
Chapter 2 - "Purer Water
Waters and Watersheds
-------
Although nitrogen and phosphorus are beneficial plant nutri-
ents, human activities have increased their flow into water-
bodies—in some cases to harmful levels. Runoff from farms
and urban and suburban areas, nitrogen from power plants,
emissions from vehicles and industry, and discharges from
sewage treatment plants and septic systems can be sources
of excess nutrients, causing excessive algae and plant growth.
The resulting eutrophication harms aquatic life, fouls swim-
ming beaches, causes odor from excess decaying algae, and
may increase blooms of harmful algae such as red or brown
tides.22
Ground water in agricultural areas often has higher nitrogen
concentrations than that in non-agricultural areas. For exam-
ple, approximately 10 percent of streams and 20 percent of
wells in farming areas exceed federal drinking water standards
for nitrate.23
Contaminated sediments can be a serious problem in certain
areas and may be associated with industrial activity that pre-
dated awareness of the harmful effects of certain pollutants
and the adoption of pollution control programs.24 Pollutants
such as dioxins, mercury, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and other persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals
in sediments can affect water quality and aquatic life.
Industrial releases of metals, as reported through the Toxics
Release Inventory, remain potential stressors to water quality.
Some toxic sediments kill benthic organisms, reducing the
food available to larger animals such as fish. Some contami-
nants in sediment are taken up by organisms, which are then
eaten by next-level predators. In that way, contaminants can
move up the food chain in increasing concentrations, affect-
ing fish, shellfish, waterfowl, and mammals, including people.
The USGS has synthesized contaminant and nutrient data
from its 1992-1998 National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program on 36 study units. Some of the major
findings include: detectable concentrations of pesticides are
widespread in urban, agricultural, and mixed-use area streams;
streams in urban areas generally have higher concentrations
of insecticides than streams in agricultural areas; elevated
(above background) levels of selected heavy metals are found
in waters; and widespread volatile organic compounds are
seen in shallow urban ground water.25
What ecological effects are
associated with impaired
waters?
Biological communities reflect the cumulative effect of virtual-
ly all watershed stressors over time. Waters stressed by in-
creased chemical contamination or altered habitats become
impaired, which changes their structure, composition, and
function. Pollution-sensitive species, along with organisms
that require particular habitats, yield to more pollution-
tolerant species and organisms that can adapt to a variety of
habitat alterations and changes. Such changes can ultimately
lead to a loss of aquatic diversity and abundance.
Several federal, regional, state, and tribal monitoring programs
examine factors that affect aquatic communities. They have
established direct and indirect relationships between the
pressures on a community and its organisms by noting the
changes in the structure, composition, and function of the
animals and plants. Those "biological response signatures"
help provide clues to watershed problems—including the
types and sources of pressures.
The Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and the
Fish IBI are examples of such response signatures. They are
indices that can measure incremental changes in the condi-
tion of waters and provide clues to the pressures affecting
aquatic communities. I Bis have also been developed for
coastal waters, wetlands, and lakes, and their use is growing at
the regional, state, tribal, watershed, and local levels.26 (See
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition, for further discussion of
IBIs.) IBIs for benthos were assessed for the Northeast,
Southeast, and Gulf Coastal areas. Assessments showed that
56 percent of the coastal waters were in good condition, 22
percent were in fair condition, and 22 percent were in poor
condition. Of the 22 percent with poor benthic condition, 62
percent also had sediment contamination, 11 percent had low
dissolved oxygen concentrations, 7 percent had low light
penetration, and 2 percent showed sediment toxicity.27
C-napter 2 - "Purer Water
Waters and Watersheds
Ill
"'
-------
Drinkinq Water
img
What is the quality of drinking
water?
I n 2002, state data reported to EPA showed that approxi-
I mately 251 million people were served by community water
I systems that met all health-based standards (i.e., reported
no health-based violations). This number represents 94 per-
cent of the total population served by community water sys-
tems, up from 79 percent in 1993 (Exhibit 2-7).28
Underreporting and late reporting of violations data by states
to EPA, however, affect the accuracy of these data. The water
used by community water systems comes from both surface
water and ground water.
The nation has some 55,000 community water systems (a
subset of all public water systems), all of which must test
their water and treat it as needed to remove contaminants to
specified levels before distrib-
uting it to customers. In 2002,
community water systems
served about 268 million peo-
pie. Large-scale water supply
systems usually rely on surface
waters; smaller water systems
tend to use ground water. Non-
community water systems are
also required to test and treat
water. There are no national
treatment or monitoring
requirements for private wells.
(The "Ground Water" discus-
sion, under the "Waters and
systems/which include
municipally or privately
owned water systems, home- EjulQnnRmg Water
B* iBfdiHSPliBriSSi
owner associations, and g. Indicators
other entities such as some
schools, businesses, camp- if- Population served by community
grounds,, and shopping malls f water systems that meet all health-
that draw their own water. based standards
National health-based stan-
dards exist for about 90 regulated contaminants. These
intensive: technical evaluations include many factors: occur-
rence in the environment; human exposure and risks of harm-
ful healt'h effects in the general population and sensitive
subpopulations; analytical methods of detection; technical
feasibility; and impacts of the regulation on water systems
and public health.
1993-2002
Fiscal Year
Population serve?) by
CWSs that had no ;
reported violations!
i Pert ent of CWS-served
popul ition that was served
by syst 5ms with no reported
! violations
Watersheds" section of this
chapter, provides more detail
on the use of ground water as
a drinking water resource.)
National drinking water stan-
dards apply to public water
National drinking water standards also prescribe protocols,
frequencies, and locations for monitoring. Water systems
~n i n "F"—————-j monitor at treatment plants
txliibi.U-7iiopulation served by community water systems _ anc| a[so in distribution systems
with no reported violations or nealtn-cased standards. for contaminants such as disin-
"•' :: • ' |||iWililll||iiiiil|lhi#|ill|iifi|'i i' I
•--• lp f fection by-products and col-
iform bacteria that may form or
recur there. Monitoring loca-
tions generally depend on the
contaminant of interest.
Annually, community drinking
water suppliers report their
overall water test results to
their customers. Suppliers also
must notify their customers of
violations that pose an immedi-
ate threat to health. Non-
community public water
systems are not required to
provide this annual report but
are required to notify cus-
tomers when drinking water
standards are violated.
^^^^^M^^^^^M!
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
^•B^^BZB^^B^^^^^^^l^BU^B^BIB
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
•^•^^•^IHMBB^^M^^^^^UnB^MMMHBI
94
! 91
91
91
89
87
86
84
83
79
»i " H '" |ppu ii fl|H i%l ii if Jijii *
sSburce: EPA, Office of Water. Safe Drinking Water Information £ystems/fede,ra! version
JSDWIS/FED). 2003. 1
||!»' ™»'"' : f • Hi " If 4\ JIllfF
^BP
2-12
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
Drinking Water
-------
What are sources of drinking
water contamination?
Microbiological, chemical, and radiological contaminants can
enter water supplies as a result of human activity and release
from natural sources. For instance, chemicals can migrate from
disposal sites or underground storage systems and contami-
nate 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 also can be car-
ried by runoff and percolate through soil to contaminate
ground water (see Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land, for
more discussion of nitrates). 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 poorly managed or maintained septic and
sewage systems as well as wastes from animal feedlots and
wildlife carrying microbial pathogens (e.g., Giardia, Crypto-
sporidium, and £. coli) may get into waters ultimately used for
drinking. All drinking water supply systems in the U.S. that
use surface water or ground water with close hydrological
connections to surface water must disinfect water and most
must also filter it-to remove pathogens. Disinfecting drinking
water is a key element of treatment because it provides a bar-
rier against harmful microbes. Disinfectants such as chlorine,
however, react with naturally occurring organic matter in
source water and in distribution systems to form chemical by-
products such as trihalomethane and haloacetic acid com-
pounds. Generally, the older a system's infrastructure, the
greater the risk for breaches or infiltrations in the distribution
system, which increase the risk of contamination.
What human health effects are
associated with drinking
contaminated water?
The potential health effects of consuming contaminated
drinking water range from minor to fatal. Drinking inadequate-
ly treated water could result in nervous system or organ dam-
age, developmental or reproductive effects, or cancer.29
£-;- The Safe Drinking Water Act
jjThe Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, mandates that *
j^JfM, states, and water systems implement multiple barriers to protect
jffpnsumers from the risks of unsafe drinking water. Key activities
pflfJude protection of source water, development and implementation of
jjisgulations based on sound science and risk assessments, improve-
fcjnenfs to drinking water infrastructure, certification of water system
f.operators, technical assistance to water systems, and improving con-
^sumer awareness. ~
Consuming water with nitrates at sufficiently high levels can
result in potentially fatal alterations in the hemoglobin (the
iron-containing pigment in red blood cells) of infants and
very young children, called "blue baby syndrome."30 National
standards for public water systems are designed to provide
levels of treatment that are protective against adverse health
effects.
The consequences of consuming water contaminated with
pathogens can include gastrointestinal illnesses that cause
stomach pain, diarrhea, headache, vomiting, and fever (see
box, "Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Associated with
Drinking Water 1971 -2000," and discussions on
"Waterborne Diseases" and "Gastrointestinal Illnesses" in
Chapter 4 - Human Health). A microbial outbreak of
Cryptosporidium in Milwaukee in 1993 sickened about
400,000 people and killed more than 50, most of whom had
seriously weakened immune systems.31
Disinfection of drinking water is one of the major public
health advances of the 20th century and has been a critical
factor in reducing the incidence of waterborne diseases,
including typhoid, cholera, hepatitis, and gastrointestinal ill-
ness in the U.S.52 By-products of disinfection have also been
associated with potential cancer, developmental, and repro-
ductive risks, although the extent of risk posed is still uncer-
tain. Limiting concentrations of disinfection by-products in
drinking water, while ensuring that microbes are kept in check,
will have a positive effect on public health.
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
Drinking Water
-------
Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Associated wjfith Drinking Water 1071 -2000
Since 1971, t/ie Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), EPA, and the Count ij pf State and Territorial Epidemiologists have maintained a
collaborative surveillance system for the occurrences and causes ofwaterborne disease outbreaks (WBDO). These data are only a small part of the
Jarger body of information related to drinking water quality in the U.S. State, territorial and local public health agencies are primarily responsible for
detecting and investigating WBDOs and voluntarily reporting them to CDC. These data are used to identify types of water systems, their deficiencies,
the etiologk agents, (e.g., microorganisms and chemicals) associated with outbreaks, ani^ to evaluate current technologies for providing safe drinking
water and safe recreational waters. This system reports outbreaks and estimated numbefs of people who become ill. It does not provide information on
non-outbreak related or endemic levels ofwaterborne illness. Moreover, the focus is on acute illness. The system does not address chronic illnesses
such os cancer, reproductive, or developmental effects. CDC and EPA are collaborating <;|n a series of epidemiology studies to assess the magnitude of
non-outbreak waterborne illness associated with consumption of municipal drinking water.
Between 1971 and 2000, there were 751 reported waterborne disease outbreaks associated with drinking water from individual, non-community sys-
tems, and community water systems (Exhibit 2-8). During 1999-2000, a total of 44 outbreaks (18 from private wells, 14 from non-community sys-
tems, and 12 from community systems) associated with drinking water were reported by 25 states.33
However these data should be interpreted with caution. Many factors can influence wheiher a WBDO is recognized and investigated by local territori-
al, and state public health agencies. For example, the size of the outbreak, severity ofth; disease causea" by the outbreak, public awareness of the out-
break, whether people seek medical care or report to a local health authority, reporting^ requirements, routine laboratory testing /or organisms, and
resources for investigation can all influence the. identification and investigation of a WBDO. This system underreporfs the true number of outbreaks
because of the multiple steps required before an outbreak is identified and investigated. Thus, an increase in the number of outbreaks reported could
either reflect an actual increase or improved surveillance and reporting at the local and state level. \
Exnibit 2-8: Number of reported waterborne di:
with drinking water by year and type of water system, y
liiease
outbreaks* associated
nited States, 1971-2000 (n=75l)
Type of Water System**
JBBB Non-community
BO Individual
J^HU Community
"A WBDO It defined as an event in which (1) more than two persons have experienced an illness afte|
m recwalkmal or occupational settings, and (2) epidemiologic evidence implicates water as the probe
"Non-communlly water systems are systems that either (1) regularly supply water to at least 25 o> j the same people at least 6 months per year, but not year round (e.g.,
schools, factories, office buildings, and hospitals that have their own water systems), or (2) provide w
slther the ingestion of drinking watei or exposure to water encountered
ile source of illness.
ter in a place where people do not remain for long periods of time (e.g.,
* ps station or campground).
Individual water systems are not regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act and serve fewer than 25 jj gfsons or IS service connections, including many private wells.
Community water systems provide water to at least 25 of the same people or service connections yj :ar round.
Source* Based on data presented in Craun, G.F. and R.L Calderon. Waterborne Outbreaks in the United_ itates, 1971 -2000. 2003
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
Drinking Water
-------
flppl)ilr^^
L'*^ i WWr-^jP4' L-1' ~ "-a' '^ Tli^^^wi"
•fltfc'a
_M
;. ^---c**-',.**--,;
*S2^&=^-t*fr'__^aa
Recreation in and on the Water
Federal, state, and local governments monitor the water
quality at many beaches, and issue advisories or close
beaches when the water is contaminated and may pose
health risks.
What is the condition of waters
supporting recreational use?
EPA collects information from 237 agencies on beach closings
and advisories through its National Health Protection Survey
of Beaches, which is one way to measure the condition of
recreational waters. Between 1997 and 2001, the percentage
of beaches affected by advisories or closings rose from 23 to
27 percent; During the same period, the number of local,
state, and federal agencies participating in the survey
increased from 159 in 1997 to 237 in 2001. Survey respon-
dents (primarily for coastal and Great Lakes beaches) report-
ed that beaches were closed or under advisory on more than
19,000 beach days, or about 6 percent of total beach days,
during the 2001 swimming season.34 (The increase in the
percentage of beaches
affected is likely a reflection
of more consistent monitor-
ing and reporting.)
reatjonal Water
Indicators
tr
Number of beach days that
beaches are closed or under
advisory
Because reporting under the
survey is voluntary and data
are drawn primarily from
coastal and Great Lakes
beaches rather than inland beaches, the survey's reliability as
a national indicator is unknown. Furthermore, monitoring and
reporting vary by state, with some states having very aggres-
sive programs
35
California, for example, has one of the most highly developed
beach monitoring and notification programs in the nation.
State law requires frequent monitoring at high-use beaches
and establishes well-defined thresholds for issuing beach
advisories. A committee made up of state, federal, and local
agency officials, as well as representatives from the environ-
mental community and the Beach Water Quality Workgroup
helps coordinate the efforts.
California beaches are monitored at least once a week, with
some in Southern California monitored 5 to 7 days each
week. Other states generally monitor once a week, although
some monitor twice a month or less. The monitoring involves
testing for several indicators including total coliform bacteria,
fecal coliform, and the EPA-recommended indicator
Enterococcus. If a standard is exceeded, local health depart-
ments use various methods to notify the public promptly.
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
Recreation in and on the Water
-------
- -rs
>/ _^^JWj
What are sources of
recreational water pollution?
EPA asks survey respondents to Identify the sources of pollu-
tion that cause advisories or closings. Without precise infor-
mation, respondents use their best judgment to identify
sources. In more than half the cases, the source is unknown
(Exhibit 2-9). The most frequently identified source is storm
Water runoff that contains harmful contaminants such as bac-
teria from livestock or pet waste, inadequate sewage treat-
ment, or poorly designed or operated septic systems.36
What human health effects are
associated with recreation in
contaminated waters?
The health effects of swimming in contaminated waters are
usually minor and temporary—sore throats, ear infections,
and diarrhea—but can be more serious, even fatal.
Waterborne microbes can cause meningitis, encephalitis, and
severe gastroenteritis.37 However, data on the effects and
number of occurrences are limited. The number of occur-
rences may be underreported because people may not link
common symptoms with exposure to contaminated recre-
ational waters and, unless symptoms are debilitating, do not
seek medical attention. Additional research and information
are needed to improve understanding of the types and extent
of health effects associated with swimming in contaminated
waters (For additional information see the discussions on
"Waterborne Diseases" and "Gastrointestinal Illnesses" in
Chapter 4 - Human Health).
i »
s
1
i
F^~
sources of pollution that
, resulted in beach closings or advisories, 2001
I in ' • • . -it .j.i
Septic system 3% rp°TWl%
SSO 2% —\ \ \ V Sewage line blockage/break 4%
Boat discharge 2%-
Wildlife
10%
Stormwater
runoff
20%
jei/yer Qyerflow
Owned,Treaf meot Works
i.'d'ffice of Water. EPA's BE^ff-j VVatc^ Pto^rainViop? Smmmmg Season. *
|,,,,:
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
Recreation in and on the Water
-------
(Consumption of Fish and jnellnsn
Fish and shellfish are important and desirable sources of
nutrition for many people. However, chemical and bio-
logical (bacteria, pathogens) contaminants can accumu-
late in fish and shellfish, making it unhealthy to consume
them, especially in large quantities.
What is the condition of waters
that support consumption of
fish and shellfish?
Most states sample fish in their waters and then issue fish
consumption advisories as a way of informing the public of
risks associated with eating certain types and sizes of fish
from certain waterbodies. Advisories are based on fish tissue
monitoring data collected by states and tribes and are largely
focused on areas of known or suspected contamination.
In the U.S., 14 percent of the river miles, 28 percent of lake
acreage, and 100 percent of the Great Lakes and their con-
necting waters are under fish
consumptio'n advisories.3^
Those percentages have
increased in recent years
(Exhibit 2-10). The increases
are most likely the result of
more consistent monitoring
and reporting and decreases
in concentration criteria, and
are not necessarily an indi-
cation that conditions are
getting worse.
a^ j«*-L
and
pnsumption of Fish
SKeiifish T
indicators
f~-
Percent of river miles and lake acres
Tinder fish consumption advisory
^Contaminants in fresh water fish
^Number of watersheds exceeding
- health-based national water quality
criteria for mercury and PCBs in fish
tissue
Fish advisories that limit or
restrict consumption, espe- .......
dally of top-level predators (e.g., walleye and lake trout), are
widespread across the U.S. Advisories are issued for various
contaminants—mercury, dioxin, and PCBs are responsible for
rriany of the advisories throughout the U.S. In January 2001,
EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a
nationwide advisory for women who are pregnant or may
Exnibit 2-10: Trends in percentage of river miles and lake acres under fish consumption advisory, 1993-2001
jjT , 1993 1994 1995 . 1996 1997
ft _ - •-.'--.-
E-Source: EPA, Office of Water. Update: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories. May 2002.
1998
1999
2000
2001
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
Consumption of Fish and Shellfish
-------
become pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children to
limit the consumption of certain species offish that may con-
tain mercury to one meal per week. The jointly issued nation-
wide advisory applies to fresh water fish and fish bought from
stores and restaurants (i.e., commercially caught fish, includ-
ing ocean and coastal fish).
Criteria used to issue advisories vary among states. Some
have more stringent criteria and more robust advisory pro-
grams than others. Fish advisory data presented in Exhibit
2-10 are intended to show total number of miles and acres
under advisory—rather than the number of advisories—to
clearly represent the amount of area covered and to track
trends.
Coastal states also identify, survey, and classify waters where
shellfish grow and then prohibit the harvesting of shellfish if
the water quality does not meet certain federal standards.
Data indicate improvements since testing began in 1966. The
percentage of prohibited waters decreased from a high of 26
percent in 1974 to 13 percent in 1995.39 Because the survey
has not been repeated since 1995, information on more
recent conditions is not available.
What are contaminants in fish
and shellfish, and where do
they originate?
Most advisories about fish consumption involve one or more
of five primary contaminants: DDT, PCBs, chlordane, dioxins,
and mercury.40 Mercury is a naturally occurring element that
is present throughout the environment and in plants and ani-
mals. Human activity can release some of that mercury,
increasing the amount available to accumulate in humans and
other animals. Mercury, which is detectable in most U.S.
waters, comes from a number of sources (e.g., from burning
fossil fuels and from wastes that create mercury emissions
that settle on land and water). In some areas, mercury con-
tamination is the result of activities and practices that have
ceased. In soils and sediments, bacteria convert mercury to
highly toxic methylmercury, which is absorbed by fish and
accumulates in their tissue.
Some synthetic toxic substances such as DDT and PCBs are
common in fresh and coastal waters. Although manufacture •
and ujie of PCBs and DDT have been banned in the U.S. for
many years, sediments deposited years ago, and residual
amourits in soil, continue to contaminate U.S. watersheds ;
(Although production ceased in 1997, PCBs can be found in
some products manufactured prior to the ban (e.g., electrical
transformers).41 PCBs, DDT, and mercury can contaminate
fish and shellfish and be carried up the food chain to larger
fish, such as large-mouth bass,'tuna, swordfish, and some
sharks. Such concerns led to the nationwide mercury ;
advisory. , '.
\
Officials in the Great Lakes region are using a multimedia
approach to focus on persistent toxic chemicals in air, sedi-
ments,, and fish tissue (see box, "Bioaccumulative Toxics in
the Great Lakes: A Multimedia Look"). Threats to shellfish
also include bacterial contamination from human and animal
wastes, and naturally occurring toxins that shellfish accumulate
from consuming certain algae.42 Although closings of shellfish
beds generally result from excessive coliform concentrations,
other pathogens are not always measured and could be a
concern. In addition, state and local agencies use different ;
procedures to determine what factors (e.g., presence of |
chemical contaminants) should be used to dictate closings. '
What human health effects are
associated with consuming
contaminated fish and shellfish?
: :• • • ' ' ' - I-
The effects of eating contaminated fish or shellfish vary
greatly. The greatest risks come from consuming contaminat-
ed fish and shellfish regularly over a period of time.
Assessments show a measurable risk of cancer from some '.
chemical contaminants that are sometimes found in fish tis-
sues (e.g., DDT, PCBs). Mercury is toxic in sufficient quanti-
ties, especially to the nervous system. Shellfish contaminated
2-18
(Chapter 2 - Turer Water
Consumption of Fish and Shellfish
-------
Bioaccumulative Toxics in the Great Lakes: A Multimedia Look
Toxic chemicals enter the water of the Great Lakes (and therefore fish)
from the atmosphere, tributaries, and sediments. These chemicals can
be retained by plants and animals and increase in concentration though
the food chain, a process called "bioaccumulation." Environmental data
and modeling were used to estimate the relative contributions from each
pathway to Lake Michigan. Total contaminant loads have decreased
since the 1970s, and atmospheric deposition has increased in impor-
'tance over time because of decreases in direct discharges to the lake and
levels in sediments (Exhibit 2-11).
'The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) and the Great
Lakes Fish Monitoring Program (GLFMP) monitor persistent bioaccumu-
lative toxic (PBT) pollutants in the air and fish, respectively, of the
Great Lakes. Both programs show decreases in PBTs over time (Exhibits
2-12 and 2-13). In spite of these downward trends, levels of PCBs and
other PBTs in certain types offish still exceed health protection levels in
all five lakes. Air data from Chicago showing elevated PCB levels suggest
that cities still contain significant sources of PCBs.
GLFMP samples are also being used to identify the presence of "new"
-'bioaccumulating pollutants in the Great Lakes, such as certain bromi-
nated flame retardants.
Exhibit 2-12: Atmospheric deposition of r CDS and DDT
in the Great Lakes, 1992-1998
Total Atmospheric Inputs (Wet + Dry + Gaseous Absorption)
1800
1998
Note: Note:R2 is the coefficient of determination. It gives a measure of the
strength of the correlation.
Source: Buehler, S., etal. Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Substances to the Great
Lakes: IADN Results through 1998. 2001. ~
Exhibit 2-11: Lake Michigan polychlorinated oiphenyls
(PCBs) sources, 1970 and 1995
Values in kilograms per year
ill Tributaries
I Atmosphere H Sediment
1970
1995
Note: This graphic was created for this report by the EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office and the EPA, Office of Research and Development's Large Lakes
Research Station using MICHTOX, a mass balance and bioaccumuiation model,
and air, water, and sediment data drawn from the Great Lakes Environmental
Monitoring Database (GLENDA). The 1970 model run was based on available data
and extrapolations. The 1995 model run was based on data collected during the
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study that collected over 25,000 samples at 200
locations in 1994-1995.
Source: EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office. Great Lakes Environmental
Monitoring Database (GLENDA). 2002. '
Exhibit 2-13: Tolychlorinated oiphenyls (i CDS)
trends in Great Lakes fish tissue,* 1972-2000
25
20
=§
S 15
10
0
*Lake Trout (Walleye in Lake Erie)
1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
Source: EPA, Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program. Toxics in Top Predator Fish.
February 24, 2003 (April 4,2003;
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/topfishb.html).
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
Consumption of Fish and Shellfish
-------
Minnesota Chippewa Tri
The Minnesota Chippewa are a federally recognized tribal confederate
>e: Fish Consumption
"frwith approximately 40,000 members. The tribe's six reserva-
tions occupy approximately 1.8 million acres in the northern portion | "f Minnesota, including 667 lakes covering approximately " '..,
700,000 acres, 702 miles of streams, and 250,000 acres ofwetlan'as. Because water is an abundant natural resource for the tribe, I]
Us members rely heavily on fish caught in those waters as a source offsp'd, .;,'...'.,',..! ; ,",", ". , ii;
The majoi; widespread contaminants in Minnesota Chippewa tribal waers are mercury, GOT, PCBs, and dioxin and furans. Fish con-
t1!"
sumption is the primary route of human exposure to these contaminan
:?. Thus, the tribe chose as a primary environmental indicator
the quantity offish from its waters that can be consumed safely by its most at-risk members: women ^ofchildbearing age, nursing
mothers, and children.
The tribally designated, treaty-protected quantity of preferred fish coriiumption is 224 grams (about 8 ounces) per day. The quantity
of preferred fish that may be consumed safely by the most at-risk citizens is limited to 5 percent (about 0.4 ounces) or less of that 8
ounces.
in
Like-specific guides for fish consumption are prepared for members of^he tribe. The guides offer recommendations on the pounds per
month of several fish species that it is safe to consume.43
with pathogens associated with human or animal wastes can
cause gastrointestinal illness—even death in people with
compromised immune systems (see Chapter 4 - Human
Health). Mollusks, mussels, and whelks are the main shellfish
that can carry biotoxins causing common symptoms, such as
irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat as well as tingling lips
and tongue.44
Contaminated fish and shellfish are a particular concern to
people in either of two high-risk categories: those with condi- !
tions that put them more at risk (e.g., pregnant women,
nursing mothers, children, or people with compromised
immune systems); and people who consume fish as a primary
food source (e.g., some tribes and ethnic groups). Because of
their higher consumption rates, some communities have
developed their own guidance to identify specific types of '
.fish of concern (see box, "Minnesota Chippewa Tribe: Fish !
Consumption"). ;
2-20
C^napter 2 - Turer /Vater
Consumption of Fish and Shellfish
-------
Limitations of Water Indicators
Many sources of data support indicators that help to
answer questions about the condition of water and
watersheds, the quality of drinking water, the quali-
ty of water supporting recreation in and on the water, and
consumption of fish and shellfish—as well as the potential
stressors and effects associated with these. Other indicators
show potential stressors and associated effects, but the data
have limited ability to fully answer the questions.
fater and Watersheds
It is difficult to use existing
data to give a complete and
accurate picture of the state of U.S. surface waters to support
aquatic life for several reasons:
• Only a portion of waters is sampled to assess the condition
of the whole; many have targeted their monitoring pro-
grams to known problem areas.
• States and tribes do not use a consistent set of monitoring
procedures for water qualiiy.
• Monitoring designs are not structured across agencies to
assess the condition of all U.S. waters. Sampling tech-
niques, sampling locations, and even data analysis proce-
dures are inconsistent.
• States define "quality" in different ways. The standards of
each state accommodate both the state's policies and the
important physical and ecological differences that can exist
between waters.
The situation is similar for watersheds. Given existing data
and differing monitoring approaches, a comprehensive nation-
wide assessment of watershed condition has not been
achieved. More comprehensive and consistent monitoring is
needed, particularly when the changing face of the American
landscape is considered. Building dams and channels, with-
drawing water for irrigation, and expanding development are
changing the shape and flow of streams, but there are insuffi-
cient data on the effects of those activities on aquatic habi-
tats. There are, however, some very strong state and regional
programs that collect data on pollution loads and their
effects on aquatic habitats. The Chesapeake Bay Program's
suite of indicators is an excellent example (see box, ,
"Chesapeake Bay Program Suite of Indicators").
Human Uses of Water
Resources
Similar problems occur in
gathering information on other water-related issues. For exam-
ple, underreporting and late reporting of community water
system violations data by states to EPA continue to affect the
ability to report accurately on the quality of the nation's
drinking water. Of the 49 states that issue fish advisories, six
do not use a risk-based approach. An EPA study of 268 con-
taminants in freshwater fish tissue is in the first of four sea-
sons of monitoring, but cannot yet contribute to an
understanding of the national scope of this issue. The data
on beach closings and advisories include most coastal and
Great Lakes beaches but few inland beaches. Reporting is vol-
untary, and not all states report consistently. Similarly, data
on the effects of contamination on animals and plants are
lacking. Monitoring designs are not yet structured across
agencies to assess the condition of the entire country.
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
Limitations of Water Indicators
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program Su
ii
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program uses indicators extensively for making decisions, inform}
progress toward specific environmental goals. The indicators presented below were selec
measures.
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Comiri
citizen groups, local governments, and scientific advisory groups are all involved in the \
goals. I
te of Indicators
g the public about conditions and trends, and measuring
edfrom more than 90 existing environmental management
;sion, EPA (representing 27 federal agencies), participating
gyelppment, peer review, and approval of the indicators and
:..:_. f '
Trends in Blue Crab: Mature Females
Tlte number of mature female crabs is well below the long-term average
and has declined since the early 1990s.
Acres of Bay Grasses
Acres of bay grasses increased to more than 85,000 acres in 2001 from
a tow point of 38,000 acres in 1984.
Water Clarity
As 0/2001, most of the mainstem bay, larger embayments, and lower
regions of large tributaries meet the minimum light requirement for sub-
merged aquatic vegetation; upper regions of large tributaries and many
minor tributaries do not.
Exnibit 2-14: Total nutrient loads delivered to the
Chesapeake Bay From MD, FA, VA, and
DC, 1985 and 2000
Phosphorus Nitrogen
2000
1985
2000
Note Dili Indude tofcl nitrogen and phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay from point
and nonpoint sources, from Chesapeake Bay Agreement jurisdictions: MD, PA, VA, and
DC.
Soure*: EflA, Chesapeake Bay Program. Phase 43 Watershed Model. Last updated"July
2002, y
Nutrien
Loads Delivered to the Bay
Between 1985 and 2000, nutrient loads to the bay decreased signifi-
cantly: anaual phosphorus loads decreased by 8 million pounds per year;
and annul, I nitrogen loads decreased by 51 million pounds per year
(Exhibit 2
Riparian
Forest Buffer- Conservation and Restoration
Between 1^96 and August 2002, 2,283 miles of riparian forest were
restored (Inhibit 2-15).
xnibit 2-15: Kiparian forest buffer conservation
and restoration, 1996-2002
Sta|us of Bay Basin
Sfea,mbanks and
Slfireline: 1990s
25QO
Riparian Forest
Buffer Restoration
Year 2010 Coal:
2,010 miles
•I 1000
-2
500
Note: The 135 are.a total of
approximately 199,000 miles of
streamba( ik and shoreline in the
Bay watered.
. .... -.:'.;! 'Through August 2002.
Source: Ef||*Chesapeake Bay'program. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Forest Buffer
Inventory. September 1996; EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake Bay
Program Ofpce Data Center. June 1998; EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Forestry Workgroup. Riparian Forest Buffer Conservation and Restoration.
January 2, Jp.03. (April 7, 2003; http://www. chesapeakebay.net/status/cfm?sid-83)
CTs CT\ o\ O-V O O O
o\ cn
-------
tndnotes
1 Alley, W.M., I.E. Reilly, and O.L Franke. Sustainability of
Ground-water Resources, U.S. Geological Survey Circular
1186. Denver, CO, 1999.
2 U.S. Geological Survey. Strategic Directions for the U.S.
Geological Survey Ground-Water Resources Program: A Report to
Congress, Reston, VA, November 30, 1998.
3 Ibid.
4 Alley, et al. Sustainability of Ground-Water Resources, 1999.
op. cit.
5 Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 2002
State of the Environment Report. 2002. (February 2003;
http://www.in.gov/idem/soe2002/water/surface.himl).
6 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.
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal
Condition Report, 2001. op. cit.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Dahl, I.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.
11 Dahl, I.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.
12 Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands of the Conterminous
United States 1986 to 1997, 2000. op. cit.
13 Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, D. Justic, Q. Dortch, and W.J.
Wiseman, Jr. Characterization of Hypoxia: Topic 1 Report for the
Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA
Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 15.
Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 1999.
14 Rabalais, N.N., Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium.
Unpublished data, personal communication. February 11,
2003.
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sound Health 2001:
Status and Trends in the Health of Long Island Sound, Stamford,
CT: EPA Long Island Sound Office, 2001.
16 Ibid.
17 Office of the Governor of Louisiana, Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Authority. Coastal Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Plan, Fiscal Year 2002-2003.
2001. (February 14, 2003; http://www.goca.state.la.us/pdf/
StatePlan2002/FULLPLAN.PDF).
18 Ibid.
19 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).
20 Ibid.
21 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: Cambridge University Press, September
2002.
22 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
(Chapter 2 - Turer Water
Endnotes
-------
Office and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science,
1999.
23 The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United
States, 2002. op. cit.
24 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. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water, December 2001.
25 Gilliom, R.J., D.K. Mueller, J.S. Zogorski, and S.J. Ryker. A
national look at water quality. Water Resources Impact 4:12-16
(2002).
26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of
Biological Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for
States, Tribes, Territories, and Interstate Commissions: Streams
and Wadeable Rivers, EPA 822-R-02-048. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environ-
mental Information and Office of Water, December 2002.
^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal
Condition Report, 2001. op. cit.
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Factoids: Drinking
Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2002, EPA 816-K-03-
001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, January 2003.
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Current Drinking
Water Standards, EPA 816-F-02-013. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, July 2002.
30 Ibid.
31 Hoxie, N.J., J.P. Davis, J.M. Vergeront, R.D. Nashold, and K.A.
Blair. Cryptosporidiosis - associated mortality following a
massive waterborne outbreak in Milwaukee, Wl. American
Journal of Public Health 87 (12): 2032-2035 (1997).
J2 Ibid.
JS 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.
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Health
Protection Survey of Beaches for the 2001 Swimming Season, EPA ;
823-F-02-008. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, May 2002.
i
35 Ibid. i
1 i
36 Ibid. \
37 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. •
38 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007 National ;
Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories, EPA 823-F-02-010. i
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, , ;
Office of Water, May 2002. '
39 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The
1995 National Shellfish Register of Classified Crowing Waters, ;
Silver Spring, MD: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation
and Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessments ,
Division, 1997. ;
i
40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007 National '
Listing of Fish & Wildlife Advisories, 2002. op. cit.
41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Incidence and
Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the
United States, National Sediment Quality Survey, 2001. op. cit. ;
42 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Marine Biotoxins and
Harmful Algae: A National Plan. 1993. (February 18, 2003;
http://www. redtide. whoi. edu/hab/nationplan/s-kplan/
s-kcontents.html).
43 Whi'te Earth Reservation Department of Natural Resources •
and the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Research Lab. White Earth
Reservation Fish Consumption Guide 2000, Ponsford and Cass ,
Lake, MN: White Earth Reservation Biology Department and
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Research Lab, 2000. ;
44 Ibid, i
Chapter 2 - Purer Water
•;2-24
Endnotes
-------
apter 3 -
Better Protected Lane
-------
The United Slates is a nation rich in land resources. The
land provides the foundation on which communities are
built, and from which food, shelter, and other essentials
are obtained. Vast acreages not only provide habitat for hun-
dreds of thousands of species, but also support agricultural
activities, timber production, and mineral and energy extrac-
tion. In addition, diverse landscapes provide numerous oppor-
tunities for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, including
hiking, bird watching, gardening, camping, and skiing.
Much like air and water, land is a resource that must be care-
fully managed and protected. What happens on the land can
affect not only land itself, but air and water as well, with
potential consequences for human and
ecological health. Protecting land
resources means ensuring that lands
meet current needs and support healthy
communities and ecosystems. To this
end, EPA's land protection activities focus
on the prevention, management, control,
and cleanup of various substances that
are released to or used on land, such as
Chapter 3: Better Protected
Waste and
Contaminated Lands
toxic chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, and wastes. Other gov-
ernmenl: agencies, notably the U.S. Department of the
Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) at
the federal level, manage land for natural resource and con-
servation purposes. Additionally, cities and counties adopt
and implement land use laws and regulations, overseen in
some cases by the states.
This chaipter examines critical questions about aspects of
land use', chemical and waste applications, and land contami-
nation: How much land is being used for various purposes?
How has; this use changed over time? How much waste is
generated, how has this changed, and how is the waste man-
aged or disposed of? What is the extent
of land contamination? The answers help
to set a baseline against which to meas-
ure the effects of land practices on the
condition of human health and ecosys-
tems. The chapter presents available
national-level data on these questions,
and identifies gaps where the data are
limited.
Land
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Introduction
-------
Land U
se
The U.S. landscape has changed over the past 400 years
through extensive use in meeting human needs for food
and shelter, economic and energy development, and
recreation. Before European settlers came to this country, the
more than 2 billion acres of landscape consisted of forests,
grasslands, deserts, shrublands, and wetlands. Today, 98 mil-
lion acres are considered developed lands supporting residen-
tial, commercial, industrial, and transportation uses; 377
million acres are used specifically to produce crops; and 832
million acres are considered grazing lands.1'2
The federal government manages nearly 28 percent of the
nation's lands, or 630 million acres, mostly in the western
U.S. and Alaska.3 Federal management responsibilities are dis-
tributed among several agencies, including the USDA Forest
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.
Department of Defense. State and local governments manage
another 198 million acres.4-5 The more than 828 million acres
of publicly managed lands support various publjc purposes,
such as recreational uses, the production of specific com-
modities, grazing for cattle and sheep, mineral exploration and
development, and timber harvesting.6-7-8 In many parts of the
country, public land provides highly valued open space.
More than 4 percent of the
nation is designated as
wilderness, and millions of
other acres are protected in
national parks, state parks,
wildlife refuges, or other
classifications of reserved
land. Of the 106 million
acres of land now designated
as federal wilderness, more
than half are in Alaska.9 Such
4 protected lands provide
recreatjona| opportunities,
open space, wildlife habitat,
and watershed protection.
More than 1.4 billion acres of private and tribal land are man-
aged in the interests of their owners, with various land use
constraints imposed by zoning and other regulations.10-11
Although both private and public landowners may use their
lands for similar purposes, such as harvesting timber and rais-
ing livestock, private lands are more likely to be developed
and used for crop production than those under public owner-
ship'. Many levels of government regulate land use, with widely
varying practices, creating challenges in understanding
national patterns of land use.
Another important land use, but one for which it is not possi-
ble to identify how much land is used, is land managed for
energy production and other forms of mining. There are
almost 1,900 producing coal mines, the majority of them sur-
face mines in western states and underground mines in
Appalachia. There are also nearly 2,000 other mines and
534,000 oil wells across the country. The extent of land that
those activities affect is not known, but some of the results of
mining are described in the chemicals and waste discussions
in this chapter.12
The following questions focus primarly on the extent of vari-
ous land uses. Extent is important because it affects habitat
availability for all species, including humans. Extent of land
cover and land use represent two different concepts and both
are discussed. 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 man-
aged by humans. In some cases, land uses can be determined
by cover types (e.g., the presence of housing indicates resi-
dential land use), but often more information is needed for
those uses that are not visible (e.g., lands leased for mining,
"reserved" forest land, "grazing rights" on shrublands). Extent
of uses and cover types is additionally complicated because
there are numerous varying estimates of actual amounts due
to different terminology, definitions, and approaches to esti-
mation. Within the discussion of each question, those varia-
tions are explored. The importance of extent is discussed in
more detail in Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition.
(Chapter 3 - Better "Protected Land
Land Use
-------
; ,,..f!''iiil!i|jiiliiiiilii!ii,i'• • •! '***•f!ji'jii!|||!iiIiiii1!!!!'RBiir1!'!? iftf'!"".!!!!SfIn'>i"'*!l!':!1"ii!!"!l!liii '•!iiiini'inni: :!'ii!'"™- • f•IrssSS!''!''j.^i!'i vfS:'•'t •:!!!;s
What is the extent of developed
lands?
The majority of Americans live
in areas or transport themselves
on lands that are considered to
be "developed land." Estimates
of the actual amount of devel-
oped land vary depending on definitions of "developed" and
differing assessment techniques.13 The USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service's National Resources
Inventory (NRI) estimated that there were approximately 98
million acres of developed land in the United States in 1997
(Exhibit 3-1 ).14 That represents 4.3 percent of the nation's !
total land area, up from 3.2 percent in 1982.15 Between 1982
and 1SI97, approximately 25 million acres of land, primarily
forest and cropland, were converted to developed uses. The
pace of land development in the 1990s was more than 1.5
times ithat of the 1980s.16 Since the middle of the last centu-
ry, the number of Americans living in U.S. Census Bureau-
defined urban areas increased from 64 percent to 79 percent >
of the total population.17 Urban and suburban ecosystems
represent a subset of developed lands and include highly
urbanized areas and surrounding suburbs, and developed out-
lying areas greater than 270 acres in size. Estimates are that
there were approximately 32 million acres of urban and sub- '.
urban lands in 1992.18 ;
Exhibit 3-1: Extent of non-federal dejjglppea land, 1997
:
ft,:
98,251,700 acres of developed land
Metropolitan areas are defined as U.S. Census
Bureau Metropolitan Statistical Areas
Red dot represents 15,000
acres of developed land
95% or more
federal area
- Metropolitan area
boundaries
Metropolitan area
central cities
Hawaii
Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands
Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised December 2000: Acres of Developed Land, 1997. 2000.
5i hUp://mrnms.usda.gov/teclmical/land/meta/m4974.html).
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Land Use
-------
What is the extent of
farmlands?
Farmlands are lands used for growing crops and producing
forage, as well as the lands that contribute to those uses,
such as forested windbreaks or farmsteads. Currently, there
are no accurate estimates of the extent of farmland. Different
components of farmland can be identified, including approxi-
mately 377 million acres of non-federal lands that are used to
grow crops and 120 million acres of pastureland managed to
produce forage for livestock.19 Most of these croplands and
pasturelands are privately owned. Another 712 million acres
of both private and public lands may support grazing for live-
stock production, but these lands are not specifically seeded
or fertilized and are normally not considered part of farm- -
lands.20-21 Lands used for agricultural production show con-
stant shifts in the uses among crop, pasture, range, and forest
to meet production needs, implement rotations of land in and
out of cultivation, and maintain and sustain soil resources.
Within those shifts, however, trends indicate that the amount
of cropland, rangeland, and pastureland in the U.S. has gradu-
ally decreased because of lower U.S. exports of grain, im-
provements in agricultural productivity and efficiency, and
conversion of agricultural lands to development near growing
population centers.22 Between 1982 and 1997, cropland
acreage decreased by 10.4 percent (44 million acre decrease)
Exhibit 3-2: Change in cropland, CRP land, and
pastureland acreage, 1982-1997
B Pastureland
Conservation Reserve Program
Cropland
^Source: USDA, National Resources Conservation Service. Summary Report 7997
^National Resources Inventory (revised December 2000). 2000. .
and pastureland acreage by 9.1 percent (12 million acre
decrease) (Exhibit 3-2).23 In that same timeframe, however,
32.7 million acres consisting primarily of croplands were
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), a volun-
tary program that encourages farmers to set aside agricultural
lands for conservation purposes.24
What is the extent of grasslands
and shrublands?
As of 1992, the ecosystem of grasslands and shrublands
occupied about 861 million acres in the lower 48 states and
205 million acres in Alaska, for a total of 1.066 billion acres
(excluding Hawaii), or about 47 percent of the U.S.25 That
area includes not only the grasslands and shrublands of the
West but coastal meadows, grasslands and shrubs in Florida,
mountain meadows, hot and cold deserts, and tundra. It also
includes more-managed grasslands and agricultural lands that
are often classified as rangelands and pasturelands. One of
the challenges in determining the extent of this ecosystem is
that grasslands and shrublands can be used for grazing and
are often counted as agricultural lands.
The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands,
Waters, and Living Resources of the United States concludes that
no consistent, nationwide data are available on the change in
acreage of grasslands and shrublands. Researchers have esti-
mated that there were between 900 million and 1 billion
acres of grasslands and shrublands in the lower 48 states
before European settlement. On the basis of that estimate,
between 40 million and 140 million acres had been converted
to other uses by 1992.26
What is the extent of forest
lands?
In 2001, forests covered about
one-third of the national land
area, approximately 749 million
acres.2'128 It is estimated that in j
1630, 1.045 billion acres of
forest land existed in what was to become the land area of
the U.S. Nearly 25 percent of these lands were cleared by the
early 1900s, leaving 759 million acres of forest land in 1907.
Since that time the total amount of forest land nationwide,
Chapter 3 - Better "Protected Land
Land Use
-------
while changing regionally has remained relatively stable, with
an increase of 2 million acres between 1997 and 1999.29
Most forested lands are managed for a combination of uses,
including recreation, timber production, grazing, and mining.
Approximately '10 percent of the nation's forests is "reserved"
through designations such as national parks or wilderness
areas, and 9 percent supports private industrial (major timber
management companies) timber production.30 In 2001, the
USDA Forest Service considered more than 503 million acres
of both private and public forests "timberlands," or available
for harvest. From 1976 to 2001, public land harvest nation-
wide dropped nearly 47 percent to less than 2 billion cubic
feet annually. In the same timeframe, private land harvest
increased by almost 29 percent to 14 billion cubic feet annu-
ally (Exhibit 3-3).31 Private forests are being converted to
developed land uses faster than any other land type.32
(Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition contains a more detailed
discussion of forest land condition.)
20
IS
10
::-_txniDit_3:3: iTjmJ3erjemgvaJsjniiime United, States
by owner group, I952-20O1
\9S2
1962
1976
1986
1996 2001
Source: USOA. Fort tt Service, Draft Resource Planning Act Assessment Tables.
, 2002 (updated August 12, 2002). (September 2003; http://
What human health effects are
associated with land use?
Land development patterns have direct effects on air and
water qualify, which can then affect human health. The
increased concentration of air pollutants in developed areas
can exacerbate human health problems such as asthma.
Increased storm water runoff from impervious surfaces can
increase the flow of polluted runoff into surrounding water-
bodies; that residents may rely on for drinking and recreation.
Development patterns can affect quality of life by limiting
recreational opportunities, decreasing open space and wildlife;
habitat, and increasing vehicle miles traveled and the amount
of time spent on roads. And, as discussed later in this chap-
ter, agricultural land uses may expose humans to dust and
various chemicals. i
What ecological effects are
associated with Band use?
Land use and land management practices change the land-
scape in many ways that can have direct and indirect—as well
as positive and negative—ecological effects. One direct
effect is the conversion of one type of use to a more human-
oriented land use, such as developed land or agriculture.
Examples of indirect effects may include changes in runoff
patterns or soil erosion.
Land development affects water quality and quantity by cre-
ating hard surfaces such as roads, structures, and parking
lots. Such impervious surfaces limit the natural soil filtering
' process, change runoff patterns, contribute to floods, and
potentially contribute to the effects of droughts due to lower
water tables. Land development also creates "heat islands,"
domes of warmer air over urban and suburban areas caused
by the loss of the cooling effects of trees .and shrubs and the .
absorption of more heat by pavement, buildings, and other
sources;. Some agricultural practices can degrade ecological :
condition, such as livestock grazing, which can damage ;
streamside vegetation and contribute nutrients to ecosystems !
that thian enter waterbodies. Forest practices can affect water
quality when trees are removed along streams or on steep
slopes, causing erosion, stream sedimentation, increased
water temperatures (from loss of shade), and loss offish
habitat, Tree planting can have positive ecological effects by
lowering stream temperatures and improving fish habitat.
Other chapters contain further.discussion of the effects of
land development and agricultural and forest uses on ecosys-
tems and water quality (see Chapter 2 - Purer Water; and '•
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition).
Land use can also have indirect effects on air quality. Patterns
of dispersed land development increase the number of miles
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Land Use
-------
Measuring Impervious Surfaces
One effect of land development is the creation of impervious surfaces—-areas, for example, with pavement or buildings, which restrict J
or prevent the infiltration of water into underlying soil, Research has shown that increasing the amount of impervious surfaces within £
watersheds can degrade streams and affect the health of aquatic ecosystems. Some aquatic species may be affected when impervious J
surfaces constitute as little as 2 percent of a watershed's area; others may be affected when impervious surface area is 10 to 12 per- |
cent. By preventing the processing of pollutants through soils, impervious surfaces help channel pollutants directly into waterways. |
Estimates of impervious areas have been developed based on many approaches, including the use of remotely sensed satellite imagery |
such as the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), assessments of population and road density, and zoning delineations. Over the J
last several years, EPA researchers analyzed 1,624 watersheds in Georgia (ising two different approaches. In the first approach, three |
different data sets (population density from census block-level data, commercial/industrial and quarrying/mining land cover categories j
from the NLCD, and major highway and interstate digital data coverage) were integrated for analysis. The second approach applied J
assumptions about percentage ofimperviousness to various classes of NLCD data. The NLCD-only approach showed that 69 of the |
Georgia watersheds had greater than 10 percent total impervious area, while .the integrated analysis identified 80. The NLCD-only |
approach identified 76 watersheds in the 5 to 10 percent impervious range, whereas the integrated analysis showed 117 watersheds. |
The results indicate that the NLCD-only approach provides a rapid-assessment tool for identifying currently urbanized and impaired "^
watersheds (more than 10 percent imperviousness), but it underestimates potentially vulnerable watersheds that may suffer impair- J
ment in the near future (currently 5to 10 percent imperviousness).^'54 |
'• . . ' .- - '" ; •'.-.-; .••'" •.•-./••'" ,•'/•..'-. '• -: . .-.--'^_L.: - ' •'.'..: .'.'.•.• .-• ' I
driven by commuters. Agricultural land uses contribute to
wind erosion and dust in many areas of the country.
Certain land uses and practices, such as land conversion,
overgrazing, excess fertilization, and use of agricultural chemi-
cals, can enhance the growth of invasive plants.35
Additionally, failure to manage invasive species can lead to
major threats to native ecosystems.36
Land practices related to development, timber harvest, and
agriculture can affect soil quality both positively and nega-
tively. Some agricultural practices such as organic farming,
creation of buffer strips in riparian areas, and precision pesti-
cide and fertilizer application technologies can improve land
conditions. Other practices may negatively affect soil quality
by promoting soil compaction and erosion. Soil erosion can
have several major effects on ecosystems. Sediment is the
greatest pollutant in aquatic ecosystems, by both mass and
volume, and soil erosion and transport are the source.37
Although rates of erosion declined between 1982 and 1997
by about 1.4 tons" per acre, more than one-quarter of all
croplands still suffer excessive water and wind erosion.38-39
(Excessive is defined as exceeding "tolerable" rates as defined
by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service models).40
Land conversion and land management practices also have
significant effects on sensitive areas, such as wetlands, coastal
areas, and the banks of streams, rivers, and lakes. According
to USDA estimates, most wetland conversion over the past 15
years, particularly in the southern and eastern parts of the
country, has been due to land development.41 (See Chapter 2
- Purer Water for an in-depth discussion of wetlands, their
significance, and loss.)
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Land Use
-------
emicais in
tne Land
scape
The nation's commerce depends greatly upon the devel-
opment and use of chemical products, and over the past
SO years, the use of such chemicals has increased signifi-
cantly. The Toxic Substances Control Act chemical inventory
now identifies more than 76,000 chemicals currently or
recently used in the country. Nearly 10,000 of those, exclud-
ing inorganic polymers, microorganisms, naturally occurring
substances, and non-isolated intermediaries, are produced or
imported in quantities greater than 10,000 pounds per year;
for about 3,100 chemicals, the quantities exceed 1 million
pounds per year. Associated annual production and import
volumes increased by 570 billion pounds (9.3 percent) to
6.7 trillion pounds between 1990 and 1998.42 Commercial
and industrial processes such as mining, manufacturing, and
electrical generation all use and release chemicals. Pesticides
are used in homes, yards, factories, and office buildings and,
most frequently, to support agricultural production, where
they have contributed to an increase in agricultural productiv-
ity levels over the past SO years. Fertilizers, used to supple-
ment soils for enhanced plant growth, have also contributed
to those productivity increases.
The use and release to the
environment of chemicals
have created a range of chal-
lenges for protecting human
health and the environment.
Toxic chemicals, including
some pesticides, can lead to
a variety of acute or chronic
health problems, and excess
fertilizers carried in runoff
may contribute nutrients to
aquatic ecosystems that
harm water quality and
aquatic life.
..
• Risk of phosphorous export ;;
How much and what types of
toxic substances are released
into the environiment?
Many industries release toxic
substances into the air, soil,
and water through their manu-
facturing and production
activities. Under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, facilities are
required to calculate and report to EPA and states their
releases of more than 650 toxic chemicals and chemical com-
pounds;. EPA makes these toxics release data available to the
public through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). In 2000,
total TRI releases reached 7 billion pounds. Of these releases,
58 percent were to land, 27 percent were to air, 4 percent
each were to water and underground injection at the generat-
ing facility, and 7 percent were chemicals disposed of off-site
to land or underground injection. Between 1998 and 2000,
toxic releases decreased overall by about 409 million pounds,
or 5.5 percent. Of that total, releases to land decreased by
approximately 276 million pounds (Exhibit 3-4).43 Of the
original set of chemicals from industries that have reported
consistently since 1988, total on- and off-site releases
decreased 48 percent between 1988 and 2000, a reduction
of 1.55 billion pounds.44
Some of the releases reported in the TRI include chemicals
that are managed under EPA regulations. For example, the
above figures for total releases in the TRI include chemicals in
waste disposed of in hazardous waste disposal units regulated
under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), whether at the generating facility or after being
transferred to another facility. Approximately 206 million
pounds of toxic chemicals in waste were disposed of in RCRA
Subtitle C facilities in 2000, which corresponds to approxi-
mately 2.9 percent of total TRI releases in 2000.45 In addi-
Chapter 3 - Better "Protected Land
Chemicals in the Landscape
-------
sfcxnibit 3-U: Total Toxics Release Inventory (TR1) releases
I.." across industry, 1998-2000
1998
1999
2000
Transfers Off-Site to Disposal
On-Site Land Releases
Underground Injection
Surface Water Discharges
Total Air Emissions
urce: EPA, Office of Environmental information. 2000 Toxics Release Inventory
~_(TRI) Public Data Release Report. May 2002.
^J
tion to the 7 billion pounds of toxic chemicals released in
2000, 31 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were managed
and transferred for treatment (50 percent), recycling (39
percent), and burning for energy recovery (11 percent). The
total amount of toxic chemicals managed and transferred
between 1998 and 2000 increased by almost 29 percent, a
net increase of 8.4 billion pounds.46 For the past few years,
EPA has tracked three metals—lead, mercury, and cadmium—
and 27 organic chemicals, which were identified as the high-
est priorities for waste minimization. The Agency uses those
waste minimization priority chemicals (WMPC) to measure
the total weight of particularly toxic chemicals going to dis-
posal. Trend data are available for 17 of the 30 WMPCs and
show that releases of those 17 have been steadily declining
since 1993 (Exhibit 3-5). Overall, between 1991 and 1998,
there was a 44 percent reduction in WMPC quantities gener-,
ated in industrial and hazardous waste.47
Persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals, including
dioxins, lead, mercury, and PCBs, are tracked because they
persist and accumulate in the environment. In 2000, PBTs
represented 12.1 million pounds (less than 1 percent) of the
released chemicals that TRI tracks.48 Although they consti-
tute a fraction of overall toxic releases, PBTs are significant
even in small quantities, given the chronic risks they pose to
ecosystems and humans through bioaccumulatipn.
What are the volume,
distribution, and extent of
pesticide and fertilizer use?
Pesticides are substances or mixtures used to destroy or repel
various pests, including insects, animals, plants, and microor-
ganisms. EPA's most recent Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage
report shows that annual use of pesticides for all purposes
tetxhioit 3-5: Trends in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) waste
Paf*-"*"" » «- d. „ 3--J,JIrt?=,--,;iT;.r-r='W--i,5Br-1 ,, .!,_ -.-«..,^ - _, / r'
I? minimization priority chemicals (WMPC), 1991-1998 ;
.^^iaiPSiiM'jr,'X -".,---• Bi"-i" ,"»?'> 'i> _
trOffic^ofSolid^^steand^Eniei^en^^Response. M^osfeMmiffifzotmi ^
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Chemicals in the Landscape
-------
declined by about IS percent between 1980 and 1999.49
This decline has not been steady, with pesticide use higher in
1999 than it was in the early 1990s. Excluding chlorine
used for disinfection, the largest use of pesticides is in agri-
cultural production, and that use fluctuates, depending on a
number of factors such as weather or type of crop. According
to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
(NCFAP), a private, non-profit research organization, use of
agricultural pesticides increased between 1992 and 1997
from 892 million to 985 million pounds.50 The recent EPA
report shows a similar increase in use of all pesticides in this
same timeframe, with a leveling of use between 1997 and
1999.51
Approximately half of those pesticides are herbicides used to
control weeds that limit or inhibit the growth of a desired
crop. Pesticides are also used in smaller quantities in rights-
of-way, businesses, and home lawns and gardens. Based on
EPA's national pesticide sales estimates, industrial, commer-
cial, and governmental pesticide applications—many of which
occur in urban environments—totaled 148 million pounds in
1999. Home and garden pesticide use was estimated to be
140 million pounds.52
The use of insecticides, which as a class tend to be the pesti-
cides most acutely toxic to humans and wildlife, significantly
declined between 1997 and 2001. The number of individual
chemical treatments per acre (acre-treatments) for insecti-
cides labeled "danger for humans" decreased by 43 percent.
In that same period, acre-treatments for insecticides labeled
"extremely or highly toxic to birds" declined by 50 percent,
and acre-treatments of those labeled "extremely or highly
toxic to aquatic organisms" dropped by 23 percent.53
The use of nitrogen, phospho-
rus, and potash, the most
prevalent fertilizer supple-
ments in commercial farming,
rose from 7.5 million nutrient
tons (tons of a chemical nutrient in a fertilizer mixture) in
1961 to nearly 24 million nutrient tons in 1981. Exhibit 3-6
displays trends in the use of fertilizer over the past 40 years.
Although aggregate use dipped in 1983, it increased most
recently between 1996 and 1998 to more than 22 million
nutrient tons.54 Use of most major fertilizers is concentrated
on croplands in the Midwest.55 (Chapter 2 - Purer Water dis-
cusses some of the effects of fertilizer use on water quality.)
Oaberlcow. S. et al. Agricultural:Resources and Environmental indicators:
j*b •" a M*. B •Mfcto ", raj i£ tJ K .•; i^ft ^ibn!*" i -J.> ** >'.%. •;; • := > - j •.:> • *- * -w^ ***** * «u
jfj Use ona McjnflffemenL February ^
What is the potential
disposition of chemicals from
land?
i
Chemicals and nutrients can move from their location of use
or origin to a place in the environment where humans and
other organisms can become exposed to them. People are
exposed to chemicals in all aspects of their daily lives, ;
through their clothing, use of everyday products, housing,
automobiles, and buildings. ,
Pesticide residues on food are one way people can be
exposed to pesticides. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Pesticide Data Program (PDP) measures pesticide residue lev-
els in fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, and dairy products from
across the country, sampling different combinations of com-
modities each year. In 2000, PDP. collected and analyzed a
total of 10,907 samples: 8,912 fruits and vegetables, 178
rice, 716 peanut butter, and 1,101 poultry which originated
from 38 States and 21 foreign countries. Approximately 80
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Chemicals in the Landscape
_
-------
percent of all samples were domestic, 19 percent were
imported, and less than 1 percent was of unknown origin.56
The simple presence of detectable pesticide residues in foods
should not be considered indicative of a potential health con-
cern. The PDP uses analytical methods that are very sensitive
and are capable of detecting extremely small (or "trace")
quantities of pesticides that are orders of magnitude lower
than those raising potential health concerns. Overall, approx-
imately 42 percent of all samples contained no detectable
pesticide residues, 22 percent contained a detectable residue
of a single pesticide, and 35 percent contained detectable
amounts of two or more pesticides. Testing found that no
more than 1.4 percent of samples exceeded regulatory limits
(also known as "tolerance levels"). Residues exceeding the
pesticide tolerance level established by EPA for that food
were detected in only 0.2 percent of all composite samples.
Residues of other pesticides for which no tolerance level had
been set by EPA for that food were found in 1.2 percent of
all samples. These residues were generally at low concentra-
tions and may be due to spray drift, crop rotations, or cross
contamination at packing facilities. USDA reports all such
exceedances to the Food and Drug Administration for further
investigation and any needed follow-up.57
Pesticide and fertilizer runoff into surface and ground water
can also expose humans and the environment to the effects
of chemicals. Models that use data from the USDA NRI, the
NCFAP, and other sources show that the highest potential for
pesticide runoff is predominantly associated with the upper
and lower Mississippi and Ohio River valleys.58 Similarly, EPA
has developed models based
on land cover characteristics to
assess the risk of nitrogen and
phosphorus runoff into water-
sheds. Those studies also show
that the areas with the highest
risk for nitrogen and phospho-
rus runoff are concentrated in
the midwestern states and
other agricultural areas.59 (See
Chapter 5 - Ecological
Condition for additional dis-
cussion of how nutrient runoff
can affect the chemical charac-
teristics of ecosystems.)
In addition to runoff, chemicals can enter land through pesti-
cide "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. Both mod-
eling and incident reports indicate that spray drift is a route
of disposition.60
What human health effects are
associated with pesticides,
fertilizers, and toxic
substances?
Because they are designed to kill or harm living organisms,
many pesticides pose some risk to humans, animals, and the
environment. The risk of adverse health effects depends on
how, where, how much, and how frequently pesticides are
used; what happens after use; who is exposed; and how they
are exposed. Human exposures to harmful levels of chemicals,
such as organophosphates or organochlorine pesticides, can
cause adverse neurological, developmental, and reproductive
effects. A significant challenge lies, however, in correlating the
existence of chemicals in the environment, either singly or in
combination, with the health effects observed in a given pop-
ulation.
There are no nationwide pesticide surveillance systems to
track exposure consistently, but several state and national
pesticide surveillance systems do collect information on pes-
ticide-related injuries and illness. Although those systems are
not nationally comprehensive,
their information provides a
starting point for examining the
health effects of pesticides.
Fertilizers are often applied in
greater quantities than crops
can absorb and end up in sur-
face 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
Chapter 3 - Better "Protected Land
Chemicals in the Landscape
-------
from some fertilizers can have severe or even fatal health
effects, especially in infants and children (e.g., blue baby syn-
drome).61
The Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS) contains
information from poison control centers that report
occurences of pesticide-related injury and illness. One finding
from TESS data is that organophosphates are much more like-
ly to cause post application symptoms than are other types
of pesticides. In addition, the data show that in 2001, more
than 100,000 people were sufficiently concerned about their
actual exposure to pesticides to call their local poison control
center. Estimates are that approximately 19 percent of the
people who called developed symptoms as a result of their
pesticide exposure. These symptoms included abdominal
pain, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, blurred vision, irriatation to
eyes or skin, headache, dizziness, coughing, and difficuliy
breathing. In addition, of the approximately 20,000 cases
that were followed to determine medical outcome: 83 percent
had a minor outcome, 15 percent had a moderate outcome
(usually require treatment), and 1.5 percent had a major out-
come (life-threating symptoms or residual disability).62 Other
studies of treated poisonings, not just from pesticides, have
found that the poison control center data may capture only
about 25 percent of all poisoning incidents.63
Health effects from exposure to toxic chemicals range from
short-term acute effects to long-term chronic effects such as
cancer or asbestosis. For example, as discussed in Chapter 4
- Human Health, despite major success in reducing exposure
to lead, many children remain at risk of neurological damage
through lead poisoning—primarily from contact with lead-
based paint chips and lead-containing dust in their homes. In
addition, EPA, along with other state and federal agencies
that are responsible for protecting public health, pays special
attention to PBTs and persistent organic pollutants, which do
not easily break down and thus tend to accumulate in humans
and other organisms. Such accumulation can lead to serious
chronic health issues.64 ;
'• ' i
What ecological effects are
associated with pesticides,
fertilizers, and toxic
substances?
A number of ecological effects of direct chemical exposure on
individual species have been identified. Reproductive failure in
birds, for example, has been linked to organochlorine insecti-
cides such as DDT, which are still present in the environment
from past applications in the United States, as well as from
current use in other parts of the world. Many pesticides are
toxic to a variety offish, bird, plant, and insect species. As a
result, use—and especially misuse—of pesticides can, where ;
exposures are of sufficient magnitude, cause significant loss
of non-target species. Eliminating or limiting those exposures
may have a beneficial effect. For example, the resurgence of
the bald eagle population is thought to be the result, at least
in part, of bans on various chemicals.65
Indirect environmental effects of pesticides and other chemi-
cals on ecosystems are more complex and difficult to under-
stand. As previously discussed, pesticides and nutrients run .
off from their point of application and are deposited in
aquatic systems and sediments, where they may accumulate
to levels that exceed water quality standards for specific
chemicals. (The effects of runoff on the condition of aquatic
systems are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 - Purer ,
Water.1! ;
Chapter 3 - "Better Protected Land
Chemicals in the Landscape
_
-------
Contaminant Levels and Bald Eagles in Michigan
Bald eagles were significantly affected by contaminants in the environment in the early 1960s and 1970s. Now moni-
toring them can provide a gross indication ofgeneial contaminant levels in the environment. In 1999, a consortium
of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, and researchers from
Michigan State University and Clemson University initiated a bald eagle contaminant-monitoring project. Ninety
samples of blood and feathers were collected by nan-lethal procedures from permanent inland nests, from nests in
additional inland watersheds being assessed as part of the Michigan department's S-year watershed assessment
cycle, and from Great Lakes and connecting channel nests.
Exhibits 3-7 and 3-8 show changes in mean PCB levels and mean mercury levels, respectively, m bald eagles between
•^-^ — the iate 1980s and early 1990s, and in 1999. Specifically, PCB levels in the blood of bald eagles were dramatically
•in 1999%r inland nests and those In Cakes S'upenol Michigan, an/Uumr,:'(Although Lake Erie did not show the same result, only one eagle
maptoiihmm l999^Simi1arly,"mean mercSry levels in bald eagle feathers declined in all geographic areas examined.
^^^^!S^^^!^^^^^^^^« $^g«« 19$. The nests ., „
IB'SS^q^l^ per <
^-';(^:>W:;^<^^;'W^^^
ethan 50 percent : ,:,- .>.•;;:'. :•.>.• :..:.„„;-/ ://:.-. ^.- r.,; •..;.:-i; v ''•,:,;' -;'.L... -.--• .;;'.:.:'. ,.'•-. •. '...-- ':, : •••. • '• -
?&$jmma^
*%!?fl;vi;j!ifcS;;v;k-*iL^a^ ;•; •-•: . ,. '--•.'•••,'; '' •'•
«a,:,v»ffg?3«g|i|fig&
jreai Lakes Region
Exhibit 3-7: Mean polychlorinated biphenyls (FCB)
concentrations in nesting bald eagle feathers,
1987-1992 and 1999
Exhibit 3-8: Mean mercury levels in
nesting bald eagle feathers,
1985-1989 and 1999
250
• 200
ISO
100
Lake
Superior
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Huron
Lake
Erie
Interior Interior
Lower Upper
Peninsula Peninsula
Source: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Special
Environmental Projects. State of Michigan's Environment 2001: First Biennial Report.
2001. .. .
Interior Lower Interior Upper Lake Superior Lakes Michigan |
Peninsula Peninsula and Huron |
Source: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Special
Environmental Projects. State of Michigan's Environment 2001: First Biennial Report
2001.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Chemicals in the Landscape
-------
HBHHHMMBCLMl|)H^HHK£_4ln
Waste and Contaminated Land:
"W;
faste" is broadly defined as unwanted material
left over from manufacturing processes or refuse
from places of human or animal habitation.
Within that category are many types of waste, including
municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, and radioactive waste,
which have properties that may make them dangerous or
capable of having a harmful effect on human health and the
environment67 Waste and contaminated lands are particularly
important to environmental health because they may expose
land and living organisms to harmful material if they are not
properly managed.
There have been major improvements in managing the
nation's waste and in cleaning up contaminated sites.
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 manage-
i ment and subsequent dis-
posal. Preventing pollution
before it is generated and
| poses harm is often less
costly than cleanup and
remediation. Source reduc-
tion and recycling programs
1 often can increase resource
and energy efficiencies and
thereby reduce pressures on
the environment. When
wastes are generated, EPA,
state environmental pro-
grams, and local municipali-
ties work to reduce the risk
of exposures. If land is con-
taminated, cleanup programs
address the sites to prevent
' human exposure and ground
I water contamination.
Increased recycling protects land resources and extends the
life spain of disposal facilities.
How much and what types of
waste are generated and
managed?
The types of waste generated range from yard clippings to
highly concentrated hazardous waste. Only three types of
waste—municipal solid waste (MSW), hazardous waste (as
defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
[RCRA]), and radioactive waste---are tracked with any consis-
tency on a national basis. Other types of waste, for which no
or very limited national data exist, are listed in the box,
"Other Types of Waste," and are described in detail in
Appendix B.
MSW, commonly known as trash or garbage, is one of the
nation's most prevalent waste types. In 2000, the U.S. gener-
ated approximately 232 million tons of MSW, primarily in
homes and workplaces—an increase of nearly 160 percent
since I960.68 During that time, the population increased 56
percent,, and gross domestic product increased nearly 300
percent.69 In 2000, each person generated approximately
4.5 pounds of waste per day—or about 0.8 tons for the
year—a per-capita generation increase from 2.7 pounds per
day in I960.70 For the last decade, per capita generation has
remained relatively constant, and the amount of MSW recov-
ered (recycled or composted) increased more than 1,100
percent, from 5.6 million to 69.9 million tons in total (Exhibit
3-9).71 Combustion (incineration) is also used to reduce the
volume of waste before disposal. Approximately 33.7 million
tons (14.5 percent) of MSW were combusted in 2000.72 Of
that amount, approximately 2.3 million tons were combusted
for energy recovery—a process where energy is produced
from waste combustion and made available for other uses.73
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Waste and Contaminated Lands
-------
; 250
Exhibit 3-9: Municipal solid waste management,
1960-2000" """"
(2000 tolal = 232 million tons)
Recovery for Composting
Recovery for Recycling
Combustion
Landfill
'^- 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000J
lESomposting of yard trimmings and food wastes. Does not include mixed MSW ,
_composting or backyard composting. **
ft- I
t-Sburce: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Municipal Solid Waste ,
f- in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures. June 2002. : "
The term "RCRA hazardous waste" applies to hazardous waste
(waste that is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic) that is
regulated under the RCRA. In 1999, EPA estimated that
20,000 businesses generating large quanti-
ties—more than 2,200 pounds each per
month—of hazardous waste collectively
generated 40 million tons of RCRA haz-
ardous waste.74 Comparisons of annual
trends in hazardous waste generation are dif-
ficult because of changes in the types of
data collected (e.g., exclusion of wastewater)
over the past several years. But the amount
of a specific set of priority toxic chemicals
found in hazardous waste and tracked in the
Toxics Release Inventory is declining, as pre-
viously discussed under "Chemicals in the
Landscape." In 1999, approximately 69 per-
cent of the RCRA hazardous waste was dis-
posed of on land by one of four disposal methods: deep
well/underground injection, landfill disposal, surface
impoundment, or land treatment/application/farming.75
In 2000, approximately 600,000 cubic meters of different
types of radioactive waste were generated, and approximately
700,000 cubic meters were in storage awaiting disposal.76 By
volume, the most prevalent types of radioactive waste are
contaminated environmental media (i.e., soil, sediment, water,
and sludge requiring cleanup or further assessment) and low-
level waste. Both of these waste types typically have the low-
est levels of radioactivity when measured by volume.
Additional radioactive wastes in the form of spent nuclear fuel
(2,467 metric tons of heavy metal) and high-level waste
"glass logs" (1,201 canisters of vitrified high-level waste) are
in storage awaiting long-term disposal.77 Very small amounts
of those wastes are still being generated. For example, less
than 1 cubic meter of spent nuclear fuel was generated in
2000. The total amount of radioactive waste being generated
is expected to drop over the next few decades as cleanup
operations are completed.78
As previously mentioned, other types of waste for which
national data are not available or are nofcurrent are listed
below and described in Appendix B. These other types of
waste contribute a substantial amount to the
total waste "universe," although the exact
percentage of the total that they .represent is
unknown.
What is the extent of
land used for waste
management?
Between 1989 and 2000, the number of
municipal landfills in the U.S. decreased sub-
stantially—from 8,000 to 2,216.79 The com-
bined capacity of all landfills, however,
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Waste and Contaminated Lands
-------
remained relatively constant because newer landfills typically
have larger capacities. In 2000, municipal landfills received
approximately 128 million pounds of MSW, or about 55 per-
cent of what was generated.80 In addition to municipal land-
fills, the nation had 18,000 surface impoundments—ponds
used to treat, store, or dispose of liquid waste—for non-haz-
ardous industrial waste in 2000.81
Excluding wastewater, nearly 70 percent of the RCRA haz-
ardous waste generated in 1999 was disposed of at one of
the nation's RCRA treatment, storage, and land disposal facili-
ties. Of the 1,575 RCRA facilities, 1,049 are storage-only
facilities. The remaining facilities perform one or more of sev-
eral common management methods (e.g., deepwell/under-
ground injection, metals recovery, incineration, landfill
disposal).82
The nation also uses other sites for waste management and
disposal, but there are no comprehensive data sets that
assess those additional sites or the extent of land now used
nationally for waste management in general. Before the
1970s, waste was not subjected to today's legal requirements
to reduce toxicity before disposal and was typically disposed
of in open pits. Early land disposal units that still pose
threats! to human health and the environment are considered
to be contaminated lands and are subject to federal or state
cleanup efforts.
What is the extent of
contaminated lands?
Many of the contaminated sites that must be managed and
cleaned up today are the result of historical contamination.
Located throughout the country, contaminated sites vary
tremendously. Some sites involve small, non-toxic spills or
single leaking tanks, whereas others involve large acreages of
potential contamination such as abandoned mine sites. To
address the contamination, federal and state programs use a
variety of laws and regulations to initiate, implement, and
enforce cleanup. The contaminated sites are generally classi-
fied according to applicable program authorities, such as
RCRA Corrective Action, Superfund, and state cleanup pro-
grams.
1500
1200
900
COO
300 :
I
Exhibit 3-1O. Superfund" National Priorities L'st (NPL) site t<
i
• Deleted Sites * Proposed Sites
* final Sites • Construction Complete
• , m
1 , SB
1
1990 1991 1992 1993
JE
1 i m
,.
JnlpBr
!«!'!
ta
fc
Is by status ana m
i estone, 1990-2002
B
1994 1995 1996 i
.
1
.
1997,, 1994,., 19
EJjie'h ,,J' ,„ 'i,r,'r!"i=' " 1? v>i,i iiSi'S'i. , I'.,1'
.
1
L
i
,..i
& S = 20,00 : OSR1 r SJ,,2Q&f: •-
plhlb .* A^il.^ 'JS.fl^," „ y: r :"|, *?•£ \i 'J^*^:rf'jrf,ifi;':,, •*-.-&.*. sw :r::;:;^ ::pt, ?!ial
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Waste and Contaminated Lands
-------
Although many states have data about
contaminated sites within their boundaries,
the total extent of contaminated land in
the U.S. is unknown because few data are
aggregated for the nation as a whole and
acreage estimates are generally not avail-
able. A nationally accurate assessment
would require both more detailed informa-
tion on specific sites—such as the area of
each site—and consistent aggregation of
those data nationally. To assess the full
nature of "extent" would require data on
specific contaminants, as well as an assess-
ment of risks, hazards, and potential for
exposure to those contaminants.
Other Types of
ontaminated Lands
ing underground storage tanks
^ Accidental spill sites
-'*5^5^iSV4fe[i$*?lfo.J' i^^n^l^«|K^S«^ffi!J»™S1^»W
and
targeted for immediate action by federal,
state, and local agencies.85
Other types of contaminated lands, for
| which data are very limited, include areas
_^J contaminated by leaking underground stor-
. ™»
age tanks and brownfields. Brownfields are
I lands on which hazardous substances, pol-
I lutants, or contaminants may be or have
' been present. Brownfields are often found
^ste njanagement srtes thai were poorly! '" and around economically depressed
esigned or poorly managed J neighborhoods. Cleaning up and redevel-
«| oping these lands can benefit surrounding
^ | communities by reducing health and envi-
; ^Abandoned mmejands t 4 ronmenta| riskS( creating mote functional
space, and improving economic conditions.
Sher hazirdous matanals
Brownfields
bases
The most toxic abandoned waste sites in the nation are listed
on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) (Exhibit
3-10). Thus, examining the NPL data—along with data on
RCRA corrective action sites—provides an indication of the
extent of the most significantly contaminated sites. NPL sites
are located in every state and several territories. As of
October 2002, there were 1,498 final or deleted NPL sites.83
An additional 62 sites were proposed to the NPL.84 (When a
"proposed" site meets the qualifications to be cleaned up
under the Superfund Program, it becomes a final NPL site.
Sites are considered for "deletion" from the NPL list when
cleanup is complete.) Of the 1,498 sites, 846 sites are "con-
struction completion sites," which are former toxic waste sites
where physical construction for all cleanup actions are com-
plete, all immediate threats have been addressed, and all long-
term threats are under control. This is up from 149
construction completes in 1992.
EPA also estimates that approximately 3,700 hazardous waste
management sites may be subject to RCRA corrective action,
which would provide for investigation and cleanup and reme-
diation of releases of hazardous waste and constituents.
Contamination at the sites ranges from small spills that
require soil cleanup to extensive contamination of soil, sedi-
ment, and ground water. In addition, 1,714 of these 3,700
potential corrective action sites are high-priority sites that are
The other types of contaminated lands are listed here (see
box) and described in more detail in Appendix B.
What human health effects are
associated with waste manage-
ment and contaminated lands?
People who live, work, or are otherwise near contaminated
lands and waste management areas are more vulnerable than
C-hapter 3 - "Better Trotected Land
Waste and Contaminated Lands
-------
Human Exposures Under Control at Identified Contaminated Sites
; Progress is being made to control the pathways by which humans are potentially exposea,\under current conditions, to unacceptable levels of contaminants
i at Superfund and priority RCRA Corrective Action sites. In October 2002, 1, i99 Superfund sites out of 1,494 Superfund sites were found to have
' Ixtman exposures undercontrol (Exhibit 3-Va).86 As of March 2003, 1,056 of T,714:JRCRA Corrective Action sites were similarly found to have human
. exposures under control (Exhibit 3-11 b).S7 "Undercontrol" indicates that EPA or state Officials have determined that there are no unacceptable human
1 exposures to contamination (present above appropriate risk-based levels) that can be reasonably expected under current land- and water-use conditions.
* iJampfa^n^iJfMarieieSruxifln'these "Heteriiwiations Tncluae ~Er^~ana7or varying si lie-promulgated standards, as well as other appropriate stan-
- dards, guidelines, guidance, or criteria.
Government officials base a "Current Human Exposures Under Control" determination oi
= analyses of relevant environmental media (ground water, surface water, indoor and outdoi
exposed to that contamination including inhalation, direct contact, or ingestion of the co>
addition, examples of exposure control actions taken that could lead to an "under contrq
contaminated media, providing alternative water supplies, and implementing access and c herlt
tions remit in an EPA or state official determining that human exposures are either under
•_ to make the determination.
site-specific characterization information, including chemical
• air, and soil), and on the potential ways people could be
taminated media or food impacted by contaminated media. In
' determination include implementing cleanups such as removing
land use controls and restrictions. These site-specific evalua-
-.ontrol, not under control, or that there is insufficient information
; It h important to note that the environmental measurements, human activity patterns, ar
-_ exposures determinations. Biomonitoring or personal monitoring (see Chapter 4 - Humij
_ Furthermore, EPA uses "Current Human Exposures Under Control" as a means to measui
- beyond those on whkh the "Current Human Exposures Under Control" is based) may be:
protection from reasonably expected future exposures.
ill
Exnioih 3-11: Human exposure under control at id
/ actions taken to prevent exposure are the basis of these human
i Health) is not typically used to make these determinations.
short-term protectiveness; additional cleanup actions (i.e.,
lecessary as part of a final remedy designed to ensure long-term
entified hazardous waste sites
. Human exposure under control at Superfund National Priorities List
(NFL) hazardous waste sites
80%
Under
Control
1,494 sites total
Not Under
Control
12%
Insufficient
Data
Note; The dat* used In this display were drawn directly from the CERCLIS
database specifically for this report using queries for human exposure.
4 deleted/deferred NPL sites are not included.
Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Comprehensive
Environmental R&ponsc, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CEKCUS) Datebase. October 2002.
b. Human exposure under control at Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action hazardous waste sites
62%
Under
Control
1,714 sites total
• 30%
Insufficient
Data
Not Under
Control
Note: The data used in this display were drawn from the RCRAInfo database
using code CA 725 (Human Exposures Controlled). The results displayed for
insufficient data include those facilities that have yet to be evaluated for this
determination.
Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emercjency, Response. Facilities on the
RCRA GPRA Cleanup Baseline. March 2003.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Waste and Contaminated Lands
-------
• :• ; '•:'; .• H." •-•• ' -1 •v-p'-\,E::'v'-;.'r;'--:^.'::;:,r'~;'rJ^lv:v".:;:'1'.r^liili>>-::-i''.'>'''. *;•;-•*
Migration of Contaminated Ground Water Under Control
at Identified Contaminated Sites
^Progress is being made to control the spread of contamination in ground water at Superfund and priority RCRA Corrective Action sites. As of
^October 2002, 772 out of 1,275 Superfund sites had ground water contamination under control (Exhibit 3-12a).8S Similarly, as of March
r2003, 899 of the 1,714 RCRA Corrective Action sites were under control (Exhibit 3-12b).S9 "Under control" means a plume of contaminated
_ ground water is not spreading above appropriate risk-based levels, or is not adversely affecting surface water bodies into which contaminated
Aground water is discharging. Examples of risk-based levels used in these determinations include EPA- and/or varying state-promulgated standards,
s as well as other appropriate standards, guidelines, guidance, or criteria.
f_Government officials base a "Migration of Contaminated Ground Water Under Control" determination on site-specific characterization information
I and monitoring data pertaining to relevant environmental media (e.g., ground water and surface water where warranted). In addition, examples of
\ actions taken that could lead to an "under control" determination include documenting the lack of plume growth in response to an engineered
r"pump and treat" or subsurface barrier system, or in response to natural attenuation processes (both of which would include ongoing monitoring).
j These site-specific evaluations result in an EPA or state official determining that the migration of contaminated ground water is under control, not
? under control, or that there is insufficient information to make the determination.
; EPA is using the "Migration of Contaminated Ground Water Under Control" determination as a means of protecting ground water and surface
Iwater resources. As such, actual or potential human exposures to contaminants in ground water would be addressed in the "Current Human
\- Exposures Under Control" determination. Furthermore, "Migration of Contaminated Ground Water Under Control" is a short-term cleanup goal;
"Additional cleanup actions (i.e., beyond those on which this measure is based) may be necessary as part of a final remedy designed to ensure long-
-term protection of ground water resources. .
r
exhibit 3-12: Contaminated ground water migration under control at identified hazardous waste sites
a. C_ontaminated ground water migration under control at Superfund
National Triorities List (NrL) hazardous waste sites
60%
Under
Control
1,275 sites total
23%
Not Under
Control
17%
Insufficient
Data
Note: The data used in this display were drawn directly from the CERCLIS
database specifically for this report using queries for ground water migration.
Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) Database. October 2002.
53%
Under
Control
D. Contaminated ground water migration under control at
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Corrective Action hazardous waste sites
13%
Not Under
Control
1,714 sites total
34%
Insufficient
Data
Note: The data used in this display were drawn from the RCRAInfo database
using code CA 750 (Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Controlled).
The results displayed for insufficient data include those facilities that have
yet to be evaluated for this determination.
Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Facilities on the
RCRA GPRA-Cleanup Base/me. March 2003.
:J
Cnapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Waste and Contaminated Lands
-------
others to the threats such areas might pose in the event of
accident or unintended exposure to hazardous materials.
Depending on factors such as management practices, the
sources of contamination, and potential exposure, some'
Waste, contaminated lands, and lands used for waste manage-
ment pose a much greater risk to human health than others.
Some areas, such as properly designed and managed waste
management facilities, pose minimal risks.
Determining the relationship between types of sites and
human health is usually extremely complicated. For many
types of cancer, understanding is limited by science and the
fact that people usually are exposed to many possible cancer-
causing substances throughout their lives. Isolating the con-
tributions of exposure to contaminants to incidence of
respiratory illness, cancer, and birth defects is extremely diffi-
cult—impossible in many cases. Nonetheless, it is important
to gain a more concrete understanding of how the hazardous
materials associated with waste and contaminated lands affect
human populations.
Although some types of potential contaminants and waste are
not generally hazardous to humans, other types can pose
dangers to health if people are exposed. The number of sub-
stances 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.
EPA's Superfund Program has identified several sources of
common contaminants, including commercial solvents, dry-
cleaning agents, and chemicals. With chronic exposure, com-
mercial solvents such as benzene may suppress bone marrow
function, causing blood changes. Dry-cleaning agents and
degreasers contain trichloroethane and triehloroethylene,
which can cause fatigue, depression of the central nervous
system, kidney changes (e.g., swelling, anemia), and liver
changes (e.g., enlargement).90 Chemicals used in commercial ;
and industrial manufacturing processes, such as arsenic, ;
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury, may cause
various health problems. Long-term exposure to lead may
cause permanent kidney and brain damage. Cadmium can
cause kidney and lung disease. Chromium, beryllium, arsenic,
and cadmium have been implicated as human carcinogens.91
What ecological effects are
associated with waste manage
meint and contaminated lands?
Hazardous substances, whether present in waste, on lands
used for waste management, or on contaminated land, can
harm wildlife (e.g., cause major reproductive complications),
destroy vegetation, contaminate air and water, and limit the
ability of an ecosystem to survive. For example, if not properly
managed, toxic residues left from mining operations can be
blown into nearby areas, affecting resident bird populations
and the water on which they depend. Certain hazardous sub-
stances also have the potential to explode or cause fires,
threatening both wildlife and human populations.92
The negative effects of land contamination and occasionally
of waste management on ecosystems occur after contami-
nants have been released on land (soil/sediment) or into the
air or water. For example, mining activities have affected
aquatic life in Colorado's Eagle River, as described in box,
"Cleanup of the Eagle Mine Superfund Site."
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Waste and Contaminated Lands
-------
Cleanup of the Eagle Mine Superfund Site
:The Eagle Mine, southwest of Vail, Colorado, was used to mine gold, silver, lead, zinc, and copper between 1870 and 1984. After the mine closed, sev- I
^faj contaminants, including lead, zinc, cadmium, arsenic, and manganese, were left behind, and they spread into nearby ground water, the Eagle River, ''
Jmd the air, posing a risk to people and wildlife. *
— ' ', - ' . ' ."".,".'• , I
Colorado filed notice and claim in 1985 against the former mine owners for natural resource damages under Superfund. In June 1986, the site was \
•placed on the National Priority List, and shortly thereafter the state and the previous owners agreed to a plan of action. Cleanup operations included
constructing a water treatment plant to collect mine seepage and other contaminated water sources; relocating all processed mine wastes and contam-
inated soils to one main, on-site tailings pile; capping that pile with a multilayer clean soil cap; and revegetating all disturbed areas with native plant
'species. ' .,-,.. ., • «
» , : •':.-..,;: ".". :- •- --•\--^\-,rc:":-:::'^:;.x-v ::'•""::.":"---'• ::.-'t ': ~ ",."-!
?The water quality in the Eagle River began to show improvements in 1991; as zinc concentrations in the river dropped, the resident brown trout popu- :
[l_ation grew (Exhibit 3-13). An October 2000 site review concluded that public health risks had been removed and that significant progress had been i
itnade in restoring the Eagle River. Today, biological monitoring is undertaken to sample the Eagle River's water quality, aquatic insects, and fish popu- ;
exhibit ,3-13: tagle mine zinc concentrations and Drown trout populations downstream of tne consolidated tailings pil<
,500.,
Zinc, 13-B (mg/l)
• Rsh per acre
— Linear (Fish)
Sep 89
Sep 91
Sep 93
Sep 95
Sep 97
Sep 99
Sep 01
Note; Zinc concentrations fluctuate during the seasons according to water levels
Source. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. Eagle Mine February 5, 2003. (April 7,2003;
http://wmcdphe.state.co.us/hm/rrpeagle.asp#SiteSammaryj.
Chapter 3 - Better "Protected Land
Waste and Contaminated Lands
-------
Limitations of Land Indicators
Many sources of data support indicators that help to
answer questions about the trends and effects of
land use, chemicals in the landscape, and waste
and contaminated land. But there are limitations in using the
indicators to fully answer the questions.
LandU
se
There are a number of gaps in
information about land use
and cover. Significantly varying estimates of developed land
result from varying definitions and approaches to land use
assessments. Statistical sampling and satellite remote sensing
techniques vary in total estimates—and represent different
sources of error. Data on some cover types and land uses are
sparse or nonexistent, and inventories are seldom done on
lands in Alaska. Numerous federal agencies conduct national
inventories, but because they cover different land areas with
different classifications and varying statistical sampling, inte-
grating those data is challenging. Remotely sensed data are
being used increasingly to estimate land cover but will proba-
bly need to be combined with other data sets to produce an
accurate estimate of land uses. Additionally, remote sensing
data from multiple years are not readily available for analysis
of trends. Soil erosion information is collected by the NRI for
croplands but does not exist nationally for forests or range-
lands, particularly those under federal ownership.
C-nemicals in the
Landscape
No pesticide reporting system
currently provides information on the volume,, distribution,
and extent of pesticide use nationwide across all sectors.
Data used in this report are only estimates based on available
information that includes crop profiles, pesticide sales, expert
surveys, and sampling of stream and ground water. While no
national reporting system exists, California has developed an
advanced system for full pesticide use reporting. Reports
about the specifics of pesticide applications are filed by farm-
ers, commercial applicators, structural pest control compa-
nies, and commercial landscaping firms.94
The TRI program does not cover all releases of chemicals
from all industrial facilities. For example, facilities that do not
meet the TRI reporting requirements (those that have fewer
than 10 full-time employees or do not meet TRI chemical-
specific threshold amounts for reporting) are not required to
report their releases. Some facilities conduct and report on
actual jmonitoring data; others use estimation approaches, •
which are not consistent nationwide. New chemicals are being-
produced constantly, which poses challenges to EPA's efforts :
to monitor their potential interaction and effects. '
! : ]
Better information is needed on the chemistry, quantities, and
longevity of various substances; on the cumulative effects of ;
various chemicals on the environment and humans; and on
the pathways and effects of exposure. More monitoring is
required, along with more effective means to link ambient
exposures to health and ecological effects. A more compre-
hensive and cohesive intergovernmental—federal, state, and \
local—reporting system that helps to link environmental and
health, data would be of great assistance.
Waste and
C-ontaminated Lands
The data available nationally ,
on total waste generated are not comprehensive; they exist as
independent data sets maintained by different agencies and
organizations. The data are gathered in various units (e.g.,
MSW in weight by pounds or tons, radioactive waste in vol-
ume by canisters). No easy method exists to convert weight
to volume for understanding "extent."
Some data are available on sites used for various types of
waste management, but there is no broad assessment or
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Limitations of Land Indicators
.
-------
national database of contaminated lands. National-level sta-
tistics on the total acreage of those lands, actual concentra-
tions found in soils or waters around the sites, or health or
ecological effects around the sites do not exist. Lack of those
data creates challenges for addressing cleanup or redevelop-
ment opportunities.
In lieu of national-level environmental indicators, activity
measures of prevention, reduction of toxicity, and cleanup are
used as indicators. Those measures take into account health
and ecological outcomes. At this time, they are the best avail-
able indicators of environmental status and effects.
End
notes
1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conser-
vation Service. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources
Inventory (Revised December 2000), Washington, DC: Natural
Resources Conservation Service and Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University, Statistical Laboratory, December 1999, Revised
December 2000.
2 U.S. Department of the Interior. Rangeland Reform '94, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, Washington, DC: Bureau of
Land Management, 1994.
3 U.S. General Services Administration. "Summary report on
real property owned by the United States throughout the
world." 1999. In Statistical Abstract of the United States 2007:
The National Data Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau
2001.
4 Ibid.
s Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Fact Sheet: Land
Ownership in Alaska. March 2000. (September 2002;
http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/factsht/landjown.pdf).
6 Ibid.
7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conser-
vation Service. America's Private Land: A Geography of Hope,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1997.
8 U.S. General Services Administration. Summary report on real
property owned by the United States throughout the world, 1999.
op. cit. .
9 Wilderness Information Network. National wilderness
preservation system database. August 2002. (February 10,
2003; http://www.wildemess.net/nwps).
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Endnotes
-------
10 U.S. Department of Agriculture. America's Private Land: A
Geography of Hope, 1997. op. cit.
" Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Fact Sheet: Land
Ownership in Alaska, 2000. op. cit.
12 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration. United States Country Analysis Brief.
November 2002. (January 2003;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/etneu/cabs/usa.html).
13 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.
M U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. 1997 National Resources Inventory
Highlights. January 2001. (February 2003;
http://vfwvf.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/pubs/97highlights.pdf).
>s Ibid.
15 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. Summary Report: 1997 National
Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), 2000. op. cit.
17 U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States
2001: The National Data Book, Washington, DC. 2001.
18 The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United
States, 2002. op. cit.
19 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. Summary Report 1997 National
Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), 2000. op. cit.
20 The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United
States, 2002. op. cit.
21 U.S. Department of Interior. Rangeland Reform '94, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, 1994. op. cit. :
22 Ves'terby, M., "Agricultural resources and environmental
indicators: land use." In Agricultural Resources and
Environmental Indicators Report, Ag Handbook No. AH 722.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, February 2003, 1-33.
23 U.S, Department of Agriculture. Summary Report: 1997
National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), 2000.
op. cit.
24 Ibid.
25 The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United
States,, 2002. op. cit.
26 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).
27 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.
28 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Draft
Resource Planning Act Assessment tables. August 12, 2002.
(September 2002; http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801/FIADB/
rpa_tabler/Draft_RPA_2002_Forest_Resource_Tables.pdf).
29 Ibid.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Endnotes
_
-------
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Resources
Inventory: Highlights, 2001. op. cit
33 Bird, S., J. Harrison, L Exum, S. Alberty, and C. Perkins.
"Screening to identify and prevent urban storm water prob-
lems: estimating impervious area accurately and inexpensive-
ly." In Proceedings of the National Water Quality Monitoring
Council Conference, Madison, Wl, May 19-23, 2002.
34 Bird, S.L, L.R. Exum, and S.W. Alberty. Generating high
quality impervious cover data. Quality Assurance 8: 91 -103
(2001).
35 Westbrooks, R. Invasive Plants, Changing the Landscape of
America: Fact Book. Washington, DC: Federal Interagency •
Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic
Weeds, 1998.
36 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Invasive species
encroachment is one of the biggest threats to native
ecosystems that resource managers face today. No date
available. (August 2002; http://invasives.fws.gov/lndex7.html).
37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 National
Water Quality Inventory, EPA 841 -R-02-001. Washington DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, August
2002.
38 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. State of the Land Index of Analysis
Products: Change in Average Annual Soil Erosion by Water on
Cropland and CRP Land, 1982-1997. 2000. (January 2003;
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5060.html).
39 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. State of the Land Index of Analysis
Products: Total Wind and Water Erosion, 1997. 2000.
(January 2003;
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5083.html)
40 Ibid
41 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. Summary Report: 1997 National
Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), 2000. op. cit.
42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Substances
Control Act Chemical Substance Inventory, Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, 2002.
43 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.
44 Ibid
45 Ibid
46 Ibid
47 Ibid
48 Ibid
49 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, September
2001.
Chapter 3 - Better Rotectea Land
Endnotes
-------
50 Gianessi, LR, 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.
51 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticide Industry
Sales and Usage 1998 and 1999 Market Estimates. 2001.
op. cit.
52 Ibid.
53 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide
Programs. Bbpesticides registration action document: Bacillus
thuringiensis plant-incorporated protectants. October 16,
2001. (January 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad.htm).
MDaberkow, 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.
55 Vesterby, M. Agricultural resources and environmental indica-
tors: land use, 2003. op. cit
56 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Pesticide Data Program:
Annual Summary Calendar Year 2000, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service,
2002.
57 Ibid.
58 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds. Pesticide Runoff Potential—7990-
7595. August 24, 1999.
59 Wickham, J.D., K.H. Ritters, 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).
60 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide
Programs. Spray Drift of Pesticides. December 1999.
(September 2002;
http:/Avww.epa.gov/pestiddes/citizens/spraydrift.htm).
61 M.O. Amdur, J. Doull and C.D. Klassen (eds.). Toxicology: the
Basic Science of Poisons, NY: Pergamon Press. 1996, 1033.
62 Litovitz, T.L., W. Klein-Schwartz, G.C. Rodgers, D.J.
Cobaugh, J. Youniss, J.C Omslaer, M.E. May, A.D.Woolf, and
B.E. Benson. 2001 annual report of the American Association
of Poison Control Centers: toxic exposure surveillance system.
American Journal of Emergency Medicine 20: 391 -452, 2002.
63 National Environmental Education and Training Foundation.
National Strategies for Health Care Providers: Pesticides Initiative,
Washington, DC. 2002.
64 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Minimization
Trends Report (1991-1998), EPA 530-R-02-007. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response; September 2002
65 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery Program: Endangered
and Threatened Species, Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 1994.
66 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. State of
Michigan's Environment 2001, First Biennial Report, Lansing, Ml:
Office of Special Environmental Projects, 2001.
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Endnotes
-------
67 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RCRA Orientation
Manual, EPA 530-R-0-006. Washington, DC: Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, June 2000.
68 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures, EPA 530-S-
02-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, June
2002.
69 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau o'f Economic
Analysis. GDP and Other Major NIPA Series, 1929-2002.
2002. (February 2003; http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/
ARTlCLES/2002/08August/0802GDP_&Other_Major_
NIPAs.pdf).
70 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures, 2002. op.
cit.
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
74 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.
75 Ibid.
76 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental
Management. Central Internet Database. 2002. (January
2002; http://cid.em.doe.gov).
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid.
79 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).
80 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures, 2002. op.
cit.
81 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Surface
Impoundments in the United States, EPA 530-R-01 -005.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, March 2001,
82 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Biennial
RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, 2001. op. cit.
83 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Emergency
Response Program. National Priorities List Site Totals by Status
and Milestone. February 6, 2003. (February 25, 2003;
http://epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/npltotal.htm).
84 Ibid.
85 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.htmtf5).
86 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) Database. October 16, 2002.
(May 8, 2003; http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/
srchsites.cfm).
CJiapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Endnotes
-------
'lJ1 iSii^^^BS^Sai
87 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Facilities on the RCRA GPRA
Cleanup Baseline. March 3, 2003. (May 19, 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/Hsts/base_fac.pdf).
88 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Reponse. Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCUS) Database, 2002. op.cit.
89 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Facilities on the RCRA GPRA
Cleanup Baseline, 2003. op. cit.
90 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund
Emergency Response Program. Sources of Common
Contaminants and Their Health Effects. September 20, 2002.
(February 25, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/er/hazsubs/sources.htm).
91 Ibid.
92 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund
Emergency Response Program. Exposure pathways. No date.
(September, 2002; http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/er/hazsubs/pathways.htm.).
93 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, Eagle
Mine. February 5, 2003. (September 2002;
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/rpeagle.asp#SiteSummary).
94 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).
Chapter 3 - Better Protected Land
Endnotes
-------
Chapter 4 -
H
uman i lea
H
t
J
-------
E"PAs Draft "Report on the Environment 2003
Introduction
nSrotecting the health of Americans from environmental
4"*^ pollutants has always been a key goal of EPA policies and
1 programs. EPA has taken a number of actions to fulfill this
goal, including establishing standards for pollutants in the
environment, requiring sources to limit their pollution, and
educating members of the public about actions they can take
to protect their health. The indicators presented in Chapters
1 through 3 provide a measure of the progress that has been
made in reducing environmental pollution in air, water, and
land.
EPA is moving, where possible, to supplement the measures
described in the earlier chapters with outcome indicators that
could provide a clearer understanding of how environmental
factors contribute to public health outcomes such as disease
trends. Information on whether particular death and disease
rates are going up or down, along with information on the
various environmental and other factors that influence these
trends, would strengthen environmental decision-making and
evaluation. For example, this 1ype of information could help
EPA evaluate not only whether air quality has improved, but
also whether rates of respiratory problems associated with air
pollution have improved, and if not, why.
Developing these types of outcome
measures is challenging for many rea-
sons:
• Although numerous health problems
have suspected links to environmental
pollution, many factors in addition to
the environment influence whether a
person who comes in contact with a
pollutant will ever show symptoms of
exposure or develop disease. Those
factors include the quantity and type
of pollutant, the number of contacts
with it, and a person's age, health, -
genetic make-up, and lifestyle.
Health Status of the
United States
Environmental Pollution
and Disease
Measuring Exposure to
Environmental Pollution
Challenges in Developing,
Human Health Indicators
• A pollutant's impact may
range along a continuum
from no effect to mild
symptoms to serious acute
or chronic impacts. Different
people have different vul-
nerabilities, so some may
experience effects at ambient pollutant levels while others
may not.
n Researchers have had success elucidating the linkage
between individual pollutants and health. In reality, however,;
people are more typically exposed to a number of pollu- :
tants. How pollutants interact, and how exposure to multi-
ple pollutants affects health, is not well understood at
present.
EPA is working to lay the foundation for developing effective
measures for tracking progress in protecting human health
from environmental pollution. These include measures of out-
comes., such as diseases, as well as biomonitoring measures
that cam tell us, for example, how much of a certain pollutant
has penetrated into and resides within our
blood and tissue.
This chapter describes key elements that
begin to establish a basis for developing
and using environmental public health
indicators:
• The chapter begins with an overview of
the major trends and indicators for '
health and disease in the U.S.
• Next, the chapter examines the role of
the environment in disease. Under-
standing the linkage between exposure
and health effects is a critical founda-
tion for the development and use of
environmental public health indicators.
CJnapter 4 - Human Health
Introduction
-------
EFAs Dteft -Report'-on the Environment 2003
• Examples are presented that demonstrate this linkage and
illustrate how environmental health indicators can strength-
en environmental management decision-making and evalua-
tion.
• Then, the chapter describes the approaches to measuring
exposure to environmental pollution. A number of these
approaches may provide the basis for environmental public
health indicators in the future.
• Finally, the chapter concludes with a section on the scientif-
ic and data-gathering challenges that lie ahead in develop-
ing and using environmental public health indicators.
Changes in the health of a nation's people, both improve-
ments and declines, can take years to detect, and EPA cannot
develop this national overview alone. For example, nearly all of
the health and exposure information currently available is col-
lected by other federal and state agencies, such as the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Develop-
ment and use of environmental public health indicators will
require continued effective coordination and collaboration
among federal and state agencies.
Health Status-of the United States
There are several ways to assess the health of a specific
group of people or an entire country's population that
are used consistently across the world as indicators of
health status. They include how long people can expect to
live (life expectancy), how many infants die before their first
birthday (infant mortality), the major causes of death, and
the amount of illness in a national population. Among the
most common measurements is the number of deaths caused
by disease. The national death rate for a disease—especially
if the numbers of early deaths (deaths before the average life
expectancy) are high—can be a warning of health problems.
This section presents an overview of health and major disease
trends in the U.S. Some important diseases are presented
that have a major impact on the health of Americans. It is
important to note that environmental factors may not play a
role in all diseases or causes of death presented in this sec-
tion.
What are the trends and
indicators for health and
disease in the United States?
The overall health status of the U.S. today is generally good
and improving. Over the past century, the nation has basically
conquered many infectious
diseases that once sickened
or killed thousands of peo-
ple: childhood diseases such
as measles and mumps, and
waterborne ailments such as
typhoid and cholera.
Significant progress in
improving sanitation and
drinking water means that
Americans are now relatively
safe from the diarrhea! dis-
eases that imperil much of
the world. Accidents are now
the leading threat to chil-
dren in the U.S., and most
adults die from chronic ill-
nesses rather than from
infectious diseases (Exhibit
4-1). At the turn of the cen-
tury, many people died from
infectious diseases such as
tuberculosis and influenza.
Today more than 60 percent
of all U.S. deaths are attrib-
leJltatS:_
^^^^^f^?^^^"'^^^^~'-'J7^i''-^^^"^'^^^r^^""^'-^
»!B!iSiipsSfiMSBtt&yifc,fc33*iSS
^^^Cance^moftg!iiyr___r_
iCardiovascular disease mortality
Sp=s_ ~- -I- ±.~^-,-:.:~.~~f.;..:-^t--J--~L l|
Cardiovascular disease prevalence j,
'^Chronic obstructive pulmonary ;
^ disease^mortality ;
Asthma mortality
Asthma prevalence
Cholera prevalence
f Cryptosporidiosis prevalence
£r E. cofi O 757/H7 prevalence
*[Z Hepatitis A prevalence
if~ - -
Salmonellosis prevalence
Typhoid fever prevalence
Shigellosis prevalence
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Health Status of the United States
-------
EFAs Drift Report on tine Environment io03
il^
1900
|j| Pneumonia and influenza
Tuberculosis
Gastritis, enteritis, colitis
Heart diseases
Symptoms, senility, ill-defined conditions
| Vascular lesions affecting central nervous system
| Chronic nephritis and renal sclerosis
| Unintentional injuries
| Malignant neoplasms
Dipthcria
All other causes1
1998
pt
I All cancers
"J Total
_ cardio-
"" vascular
diseases
J *lj Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
I Unintentional injuries
|JJ Pneumonia and influenza
j Diabetes mellitus
j Suicide
| Nephritis and nephrosis
| Chronic liver disease2 ••..'.'.' •'',,'
I Homicide ,' ' -
in | i ||||"~ ~——m ' " , "•'
Ill—, J All other causes3 ' '
i:: ...... ....... 2°
0
40
50 0
1Q
I;
5.eptagelaf,a!Ld,eaths,.,
hilis, and diabetes.
-,?r ,.40,.,.. ;,,,,:,,,,,,SQ,
^^^^^^^^^^^^aBS^^^^^SS
uted to cardiovascular diseases—those involving the heart
and blood vessels—and cancer.1
Infant mortality (death) and life expectancy are two key indi-
cators of any nation's overall health (Exhibit 4-2). Infant mor-
tality has dropped to the lowest level ever recorded in the
U.S.,2 but U.S. rates are still higher than those of other devel-
oped countries. In 1998, the U.S. ranked 28th out of 38
countries with available statistics for infant mortality.3
American life expectancy continues to improve. In the last
century, life expectancy at birth increased from 51 to 79.4
years for women and from 48 to 73.9 years for men.4
However, Americans still have a somewhat lower life expectan-
cy than those of other developed countries.5 In 1997, the
U.S. ranked 19th for both males and females in life expectan-
cy, compared with 30 other countries or geographic areas of
at least 1 million people. (The U.S. numbers are within 2
years of the life expectancy of 13 and 14 other countries for
females and males, respectively.)6
Because many infectious diseases are controlled and Ameri-
cans are living longer, it is not surprising that chronic health
problems, which are often associated with aging (e.g., heart
disease, cancer, stroke, and lung disease), are among the
leading causes of illness and death. Some conditions are
wholly or partly the result of individual choices about smok-
ing, diet, or exercise, but other health problems may also be
associated with exposure to environmental pollutants.
The trend data for the diseases presented in this section pro-
vide a valuable national overview of the U.S. population.
Exhibit 4-3 summarizes the national trends for death rate
(number of people dying per year), and incidence rate (num-
ber of people developing the disease per year) or prevalence
(part of the population affected by a condition or disease).
Exhibit 4-4 shows trends in death rates for people age 65
and older.,
Chapter U - Human Health
Health Status of the United States
-------
EPAs Dikft Report pn the Environment £003
•mr'»-» „
too I — - - ""
In
-.
o .
O 10
J
1901 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1999
Pastor, RN.etal Cfiarfboofron Tremfein theHeaftfco/Ameneaiis Hea/A, l/»7&iStates, 2002 2002
1950 1960 1970 1980
e Infant is defined as under 1 year of age
1990
1999
4
. j
C
ancer
National cancer death rates declined overall during the
1990s,7 but cancer is still the second-leading cause of death
in the U.S., and the number of people who develop cancer
each year has actually increased since 1973.8 Although the
overall death rates have dropped for some types—leukemia
and breast, cervical, colorectal, stomach, and uterine can-
cers—the death rates for lung cancer and skin cancer, the
most common type of cancer in the country, have increased.9
The number of people developing cancer shows the same
mixed results for different subsets of the U.S. population. For
example, lung cancer rates have declined for men but
increased for women since 1973, and leukemia rates have
declined among adults but not among children.10
Health Data: Disease Mortality Versus
• Disease Morbidity
C.ardi
lovascular Uisease
Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are any that involve the heart
and blood vessels. Examples are high blood pressure and
hardening of the arteries, which can lead to heart attacks,
strokes, and disability. Until age 65, more men than women
__.-.,. ..;.. __..• ..-. ..',• --.-... -—._-• ---.-_- I,'-- .__:_
JTgjsease mortality (death). This /s an easy and reliable outcome to
'Demure; reporting deaths is a legal requirement supported by a
^national collection system. A sudden increase in deaths due to identi-
causes in one geographic region can alert health officials to an
Knvironmental problem, such as a waterborne disease outbreak. But in
Completing death certificate^ officials'may not always be aware of
^'underlying factors such as environmental exposure or genetic factors
fas potential causes of birth defects or death.
fer^— .... . .;....._
|otsease morbidity (ilTness). Morbidity data—the number ofpeo-
jfple who have a particular illness—can be useful in linking current
if health conditions to possible environmental factors, in analyzing dis-
' trends, and/or i fancying Jactors that cause specific diseases or
Mtrends. For example, the decline in lung cancer in men has been related
rio the decline in smoking. But such data are not always available and
Pare frequently reported without causal association. State and federal
Wvgencies may ask hospitals and clinics to report admitted cases of
ftisthma, heart attacks, cancer, or other diseases, but such requests
fc/acfc the force of law in many states. Full reporting in one geographic
j[area_ may create the false impression of a hot spot for a certain dis-
Kase, whereas poor or underreporting masks the incidence of disease
^'nationwide.
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Health Status of the United States
ffl
-------
rift "Report on trie Environment 2003
ibit 4-4: U. 5. death rates due tp leading causes of
Cancer (overall)
Decreasing Increasing
(children1 and adults2)** (children1 and adults3)
Increasing (F3)
Decreasing (M3)
Blood Cancer
(Leukemia)
Decreasing
(adults3)
Increasing (children1)
Decreasing (adults3)
Cardiovascular Diseases Decreasing4
(CVD)
(Heart Disease)
Respiratory/Lung
Diseases
Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease
(COPD), including chronic
bronchitis and emphysema
Influenza and pneumonia
Increasing6 Prevalence Increasing6
(children and adults) (children)
Chronic lower respiratory diseases
Prevalence Decreasing7
(adults)
iWiW^
iiiipiiiiiii|iii|iiiiiiiiiiiBi»ii»i™i*»«iiiiiiiii»iiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiii»iiiiiii™
,;,„ ,,,.''WO-WSB 51973-1998, 41950-1998 51980-1998
~~
of death a.mpng :'
?ysrJn, 1,9,9, S,, Qa.ta.are plotted on; the jog
BStM,ill5l >P«:'fed otherwise, IrtcMeKsJs, the. number of new cases
:e: Pastor, R.N,,, et al. Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans
' ' • •
raSfi^^^3fefes^^4taL^t5Sl^ B.li
.......... '
' "; ' : '"' "' ' ; ' :;1:!"r,1.:1.. ' • , : • -:- '. x: v.i
.- ..... ,„ .......... , ..... _,_ ..... ,. ........... .......... „ ....................... „ ......... .......... , ..... - ........ . . ....... ,:,,,, ..... „ ......... ,„ ....... „ ............ ^ ........... , ...... , ......
I!lf|,,rf,,||)S1fet>lippjpulatiori affected by a condition or disease
'' r "J '"-"•'"" Ul "'^di^
health effecttrends -" ''' ' ''" " • '• '"''••• ':1'.'
:•;* !:!,;•:, ej'.s^'.'.'iiSiWtirrt^iiifs^iiiij.i'^iif t::i:.'S'iiii'<>;'*
ute, Survc ilbnce, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)
|,C;si1te?,,fpr,Hsa,l,th St«(tistics (NCHS), National Vital
^,, 19Sfir,I993; CQC, NCHS National Health and Interview Surveys,
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Health Status of the United States
-------
Diiaft Report,on the Environment 2003
have CVD, but after that age, the percentages are the same
for women and men. After age 74, a higher percentage of
women than men have CVD. The overall mortality trend for
CVD has declined dramatically since the 1950s (Exhibit 4-4).
Advances in the prevention and treatment of heart disease
and stroke rank among the major public health achievements
of the 20th century.11 Heart disease remains the leading
cause of death.in the U.S., and stroke is third.
Respiratory and Lung Diseases
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) encompasses
a group of health conditions such as obstructed airflow and
breathing-related symptoms. Chronic bronchitis and emphyse-
ma, for example, are classified as COPD. In 1999, COPD was
the fourth-leading cause of death in the U.S.12 Between 1980
and 1998, death rates for COPD
increased for all racial and ethnic
groups in the nation, reflecting in large
part the effects of cigarette smoke.13-14
Death rates for males began to decline
slightly between 1993 and 1998; by .
contrast, death rates for females have
steadily increased since 1980.15
Mortality data may not give a com-
plete picture of the environmental
impact of the disease, because many
people with COPD have progressive
disability, not immediate death.
AstK
ma
Asthma is a disorder of the respiratory system characterized
by labored breathing, wheezing, cough, and pain or tightness
in the chest. It is a common chronic disease in children, and
in adults it is more common in females and African Americans.
Although the number of adults with asthma has declined
slightly since 1997, childhood asthma is on the rise.16 Asthma
death rates for adults have also increased since 1980. The
groups that have the highest incidence, women and African
Americans, also have the highest death rates.17 The preva-
lence of asthma shows regional differences; it is highest in the
Northeast and lowest in the South. In addition, in a 1996
survey, people who lived in a central city reported a higher
percentage of asthma cases than those who lived elsewhere.18
Asthma is believed to have a genetic component, but airborne
allergens and irritants in the home, workplace, and community
can aggravate the disease and trigger attacks.
(gastrointestinal Illnesses
The gastrointestinal tract includes the mouth, esophagus,
stomach, small intestine, and the large intestine. Gastro-
intestinal infections and illnesses are caused by several types
of microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, and parasites). The
Notifiable Disease Program has recommended seven gastroin-
testinal illnesses caused by microorganisms for reporting:
cholera, cryptosporidiosis, £. coll O157: H7, hepatitis A, sal-
monellosis, shigellosis, and typhoid fever. These seven illness-
es are indicators of gastrointestinal illness prevalence. They
can cause vomiting, diarrhea, fever, and dehydration, and they
are transmitted primarily by water or
food contaminated with feces or by
personal contact with an infected per-
son or animal. Untreated human
sewage and runoff, especially when it
contains animal wastes, are sources of
contamination. Cholera and typhoid
fever rarely occur in the U.S. but are
included because they can be severe
illnesses and because a sudden
increase in reported cases could flag a
public health problem. The number of
deaths attributed to microorganism-
induced gastrointestinal illnesses recently increased in the
U.S., after decades of relatively stable death rates.19 The
increases were particularly dramatic in young children (less
than 6 years of age) and older Americans (more than 65
years of age). Many cases of gastrointestinal illnesses go
unreported or are not diagnosed, making it difficult to esti-
mate the number of people affected every year. 20-21 Often,
depending on the severity of symptoms, an infected person
may not visit a doctor or hospital, which further contributes
to the underestimation of gastrointestinal illness.
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Health Status of the United States
-------
EPAs Drift "Report on the Environment 2003
What are the trends for
children's environmental health
issues?
Important environmental health issues for children include
infant mortality, low birth weight, childhood cancer, childhood
asthma, and birth defects. Since 1950, infant mortality has
steadily declined in the United States. Disorders related to
premature birth or low birthweight are the second-leading
cause of infant death, after birth defects. The number of low
birthweight infants born each year increased between 1991
and 2000, with the greatest increase for white infants.22
Despite that increase, rates of infant mortality and low birth-
weight for African American infants are more than twice those
for white infants.B
Death rates for childhood cancer have declined since 1975,
largely because of improved treatment.24 During the same
period, however, the number of children who develop cancer
each year has risen. Leukemia, lymphoma, and central nervous
system cancers are the most prevalent types of childhood
cancer.25 In 1999, cancers were the second-leading cause of
death for children between 5 and 9 years of age and the
Why Children May Be Especially Vulnerable to
Some Environmental Pollutants
• Children's nervous, immune, digestive, and other systems are still
developing, which may reduce their natural protection and ability to
process or inactivate some pollutants.
• Children eat more food, drink more fluids, and breathe more air in
proportion to their body weight than adults, and they have a more
rapid metabolism, which can increase their exposure to some pollu-
tants, but can also reduce exposure to other pollutants.
» Children's behaviors, such as crawling and placing their hands and
objects in their mouths, may allow more pollutants to enter their
bodies.
third-leading cause of death
for children between 1 and
4 years of age.26
Identified asthma prevalence
in children has increased
since 1980, especially for
children age 4 and younger
and for African American
children (Exhibit 4-5),27 In
2001, approximately 6 mil-
lion—or 9 percent—of U.S.
children less than 18 years
old had asthma, compared
to approximately 3.6 per-
cent of children in 1980.28
The number of children ever
diagnosed with asthma by a
health professional—
referred to as asthma lifetime
slightly since 1999. However,
asthma attacks seems to have
ir Health; Selected
Indicators
I
.Infant mortality
' _ 1 JL. >
Low birthweight incidence
Childhood cancer mortality
Childhood cancer incidence
Childhood asthma mortality
Childhood asthma prevalence
Deaths due to birth defects
Birth defect incidence
diagnosis—has also increased
the number of children having
leveled off since 1997.29
Researchers do not understand completely why children
develop asthma or why asthma prevalence has increased in
the past two decades. The tendency to develop asthma can
be inherited, and several factors may trigger acute asthma
attacks;, such as dander from dogs and cats; house dust mites
(microscopic animals living in indoor house dust), cockroach
allergens, and pollen.30'31 Researchers also believe that air
pollutants such as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), par-
ticulate matter, and ozone may increase the severity or fre-
quency of asthma attacks in children who have the ]
disease.32'33'34 :•
It is important to note that air quality has generally improved
during the time that asthma prevalence in children has
increased. For example, over the past 20 years, levels of crite- '
ria pollutants (including ozone and particulate matter) have
decreased. Also, children's exposure to ETS has declined
since the 1980s, as evidenced by a national decline in chil-
dren's blood cotinine levels, an indicator that measures expo-
sure to ETS. While on the surface, this appears to suggest
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Health Status of the United States
-------
EFAs Dfeft Report on the Environment 2003
J J._^_ t £, ^^ ^, „
txhibit 4-5: Asthrjia prevalence, 1980-1996, asthma lifetime diagnosis, current asthma, and
' asthma attack prevalence, 1997-2O01, in children
^VK^-'^\^;'>~'>]\.-I?-:.^,;Y^ ••?'*•--^:>:.^:^^
gf5er,fi4s.ed,9n;,and>lupdatedfrom^kinbarai, y-^ndK.£vS£foendor|. ,gends7n^ 2002,D,ata from |
S^PtfoWi;c>ftsr:fc?r,Hsaiffi;s;tat^
*^*-^ • ' *'T" .'"'- '.' - •"•;,- . 'I"' '—"'•' ' --^f'^.'-V'-^^J^S..^^^-!^^^;^,^-.,.*^
Asthma lifetime diagnosis
_ ~
A-
that air pollution is not related to the incidence or prevalence
of asthma, there are too many complexities and uncertainties
to draw this conclusion. For example,
although air quality has improved at a
national level, areas such as inner cities,
where there is a higher prevalence of asthma,
continue to experience intermittent exposure
to poorer air quality, which may contribute
to asthma prevalence. It is also possible that
other environmental factors may make chil-
dren more sensitive to air pollution;
increased sensitivity could cause asthma
rates to rise even as ambient air quality
improves. For example, indoor air pollutants
that are not monitored at a national level
may trigger asthma attacks (in addition to
tobacco smoke, which is monitored, as dis-
cussed previously).
Birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality,
accounting for almost 20 percent of all such deaths in
1999.35 Defects that occur most often are
those that affect the heart and lungs. A
large number of birth defects may be due
to genetic factors. It is unclear at this time
what role environmental pollutants have in
developing birth defects, but some studies
suggest possible environmental links.
Because some birth defects are not recog-
nized immediately, they are underreported
on birth an death certificates, and the over-
all problem may be underestimated.36-37
Also, many serious birth defects are not evi-
dent until later in life—an additional factor
in underreporting.
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Health Status of the United States
-------
a/As Draft: "Report on the tnvironment 2003
a HiJ. Ti.au;.* at
Environmental Follution and Disease
Many studies in people have demonstrated an asso-
ciation between environmental exposure and cer-
tain 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 E. coll O157: H7 (e.g., in contaminated meat
and water) and gastrointestinal illness and death; and particu-
late matter and aggravation of heart and respiratory diseases.
To understand the relationship between
health and the environment, scientists study
a series of events that begins with the
release of a pollutant into the environment
and may end with the development of dis-
ease in a person or a population. Exhibit 4-6
broadly illustrates these events: (1) release
of pollution into the environment (air, water,
food, soil, and dust), (2) exposure through a
Variety of activities (inhalation, skin contact,
and ingestion of contaminated media), and
(3) the development of disease or other
health problems.
Elucidating the linkage between environmental pollution and
disease is challenging. We
understand this linkage fairly
well for some pollutants,
such as those listed above,
but poorly for others. This
section describes some of
]|JSffl£S|0|II ; i the challenges to elucidating
those linkages, and uses
examples to highlight the
Bbodkad level
^^j^=;j^=jj=;^=^;j^ = : role that indicators can play
; in strengthening our under-
Ownfc obsbudfe pulmonary '.| standing of that |inkage and
disease mortality ,n supporting environmenta|
Cholera prevalence management efforts.
Typhoid fever prevalence
What is the role of the
environment in disease?
Decades of research have provided the scientific foundation
for understanding the role of the environment in disease. For
many pollutants, scientists know with some certainty that
exposure to these pollutants, at sufficiently high concentra-
tions, can cause a variety of health effects. For other pollu-
tants, where scientific evidence is less
conclusive, scientists can only establish an
"association" between exposure and health
problems.
Some effects on health may be short-term
and reversible, such as irritated eyes from .
smog. Other effects, such as emphysema,
heart disease, and cancer are chronic or
even fatal. Some effects may appear shortly
after exposure. Others, such as cancer, may
require a long lead time before the disease
appears.
In many cases, pollution likely is just one of several factors—
including diet, exercise, alcohol consumption, and genetic
make-up—that influence whether an exposed person will ever
become sick. Although exposure to ETS is associated with
lung cancer, whether a person will develop cancer from that
exposure depends on the amount, frequency, and length of ,
exposure, exposure to other contaminants, and personal char-:
acteristics (genes) and behavior (diet and other lifestyle
choices).38 All these factors can be important in illness and
premaiture death, but they are poorly understood, difficult to
quantify, and not routinely tracked or reported. Because of
these complexities, it is very difficult to establish causal rela-
tionships, and few diseases are known to be exclusively the ;
result of exposure to an environmental pollutant. In many
cases, only a small portion of the national incidence of a par-
ticular disease is likely to be attributed to a specific environ-
mentcil factor.
Chapter 4 - Human "Health
Environmental Pollution and Disease
-------
Dfkft Report on trie Environment 2003
Exhibit 4-6: Pathway from pollution to exposure to potential health effects
Pollution generated enters
air, water, land, food
People exposed to _
pollution via inhalation,
skin contact and/or
consumption of
contaminated food (e.g.,
fish) or media
Potential health
effects
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Environmental Pollution and Disease
T].
-------
EFAs Drjifi: Report on the Environment 2OQ3
Further complicating the picture is the fact that several seg-
ments of the population may be at higher risk for damage or
disease from environmental pollutants. Potentially sensitive
groups include children; older Americans; people with existing
health problems such as diabetes, respiratory disease, or
heart disease; and persons with compromised immune sys-
tems, including those who have HIV/AIDS or are undergoing
cancer chemotherapy. Poor or other disadvantaged popula-
tions may live in more polluted environments that expose
them to higher concentrations of pollutants. Understanding
the impacts of pollutants on such sensitive groups is impor-
tant for those people directly, as well as for the development
of protective national health standards and policies.
Children may be more vulnerable to some environmental pol-
lutants than adults for a number of reasons related to their
size, growth, and behaviors. Further, children may become ill
from exposures that would not affect adults.
Older Americans may also be especially vulnerable to harmful
health effects associated with environmental pollutants, tin
part because some health problems take many years to devel-
op. A long life span may provide the time needed for occupa-
tional or cumulative environmental exposures to induce illness
or disease. Also, because of medical advances, many older
Americans may be living with health conditions that previous-
ly shortened life spans. And, older Americans may have pre-
existing conditions—such as heart ailments, diabetes, or
respiratory disease—that reduce their tolerance to pollu-
tants. Even relatively healthy older people may, merely as a
result of age, have a diminished capacity to fight infections,
pollution, or other causes of stress to their systems that
might have posed little risk when they were younger. Harmful
substances may be processed and eliminated from the body
more slowly in older people, which can prolong exposure to
those substances and increase susceptibility to associated
health problems. Older people are also more likely to become
dehydrated and experience other serious consequences of
gastrointestinal disease.
Sorting out the role of all these risk factors—including the
environment—and their interactions is a major challenge of
scientific research. In addition to the tools already available
for elucidating the linkage between environmental exposure
and disease, EPA is exploring the use of indicators to comple-
ment the traditional tools—exposure assessment, toxicology,
and human studies—that are used to evaluate the potential
impacts of environmental exposures. Three examples are pre- .
sented below that illustrate how indicators can play a role in
elucidating linkages between environmental pollution and
health problems. In two of these examples (lead and water-
borne diseases), indicators also play a key role in focusing the
environmental protection decision and in evaluating the suc-
cess of those decisions.
Health Effects of Exposure to Lead
Lead, a naturally occurring metal, has been used to produce
gasoline, ceramic products, paints, and solder. In homes built
before 1978, lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust.
from paint are the primary sources of exposure to lead. Major
initiatives have been implemented to reduce lead exposure by
phasing lead out of gasoline, paint, solder, and plumbing fix-
tures.
Health problems from lead exposure are a major environmen-
tal health problem because exposure to lead is widespread
and can cause health effects at relatively low levels. Sub-
stantial data are available to link lead exposure with health
effects, Lead adversely affects the nervous system, can lower
intelligence, and has been associated with behavioral and
attention problems. It also affects the kidney and blood-form-
ing organs.39 Children and the developing fetus are more, vul- \
nerable: to the effects of lead than adults.
The lev;el of lead in blood has long been used as an indicator
of exposure to lead. And, because the linkage between lead
exposure and health effects is so strong, blood lead is also
used as; an indicator of adverse effects on the nervous system.
In the 1970s, lead poisoning occurred increasingly in children
who did not live in dwellings with lead-based paint, suggest-
ing 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 In the 1970s, EPA promulgated regula-
tions to ban lead in gasoline. Since that time, concentrations
of lead in blood samples and in ambient air have declined sig-
nificantly (Exhibit 4-7). In young children, the median con- :
centratipn of lead in blood decreased by 85 percent from
1976 to 1999-2000 based on nationwide surveys (Exhibit
4-8).40 :
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Environmental Pollution and Disease
I
-------
•EFAs Diaft;Report ion the Environment RQQ3
, txnibit 4-7: Lead used in gasoline production and National
Health and Nutrition examination jurvey
(NHANES) blood lead averages, 1976-1980
Exhibit U-8. Concentration of lead in blood of children
age 5 and under, J976-1980, 1988-1991
1992-1994, 1999-2000
* k r * s i
'w •ft
jge Age-adjusted rates per 100,000 people
,rno
100
90th percentile (10 percent of
children have this blood lead level
or greater)
Median value
-f _ (50 percent of children
have this blood lead level
/\ Lead used in gasoline
Average blood lead (ng/dL)
1977 1978 1979 1980
^Source -National Research Council (tfeasurifig Lead Exposures m Infants,
Wren and Other Sensitive Subpopulations 1993
,2oq
-------
EPAs Draft Report on the "Environment 2003
source of these pollutants. Air pollutants can be transported
long distances, so they can potentially have effects distant
from their source. (See Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air, for further
discussion of the health effects related to air pollutants.)
Air pollution has been associated with several health prob-
lems, including reported symptoms (nose and throat irrita-
tion), acute onset or exacerbation of existing disease (e.g.,
asthma, hospitalizations due to cardiovascular disease), and
premature deaths. The impact of air pollution on health was
underscored in December 1952 when a slow-moving area of
high pressure came to a halt over the city of London. Fog
developed over the city, 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. An estimated 4,000
extra deaths occurred over a 3- to 4-day period. This repre-
sents the first quantitative air pollution exposure data with a
link to health.
While the London episode highlighted the hazard of extreme i
air pollution episodes, it was unclear whether health effects .
were associated with lower concentrations. By the 1970s, the ;
association between respiratory disease and particulate i
and/or sulfur oxide air pollution had been well established.43
Improvements in the measurement of air pollution and health
endpoints, plus advances in analytical techniques, have made
it possible to quantitatively evaluate air pollution and health.
For example, research has shown that many air pollutants may
contribute to the onset or aggravation of heart disease,
especially carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter
(PM2.,;).44'45-46
Children's Lead Levels Remain a Concern In Urban' Hot"'Spots
Because lead in outdoor air has been reduced to very low levels, the
lead dangers to children today are primarily from ingesting and inhaling
kad-containing paint dust or eating paint chips in older homes, most
of which are in urban areas. Several metropolitan health departments
': are addressing the problem by using geographic information systems
and maps depicting areas of housing with potential lead hazards, as
welt as areas whare children's blood lead levels are high (based on test-
ing oftiie general population), to identify high-risk areas and promote
compliance with lead hazard regulations. In Chicago, for example, EPA
Region S, the U.S. Deportment of Housing and Urban Development,
and the city have taken enforcement action against property managers
and landlords who did not disclose potential lead hazards to tenants.
The city is also providing outreach and education materials to these
high-risk areas. The percentage of Chicago children with elevated blood
lend levels above W Ug/dL has declined substantially since 1996,
although many ttitt have blood lead levels above the national average
(Exhibit 4-9),
lit 4-9: Percent of screened children in Chicago
.evated olopd lead levels greater than 10 micrograms
per deqltter, (> 10 Hg/dU, 1996-2001
25
i.
20
II'1 ill I'll'
h'ii|i|ii'ii|"iiii j
Note: 10 |
the need j
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
National
Estimate
1999-20QO
<3L of blood lead has been identified by. CpC. as elevated, which indicates.
intervention. (CDC. Preventing lead Poisoning in Young Children 1991.)
Source: G
Childhooc
Departme
; 1999-201
Chemicals.
': (NHANES
ihic developed for this report by Chicago Department of Public Health,
.ead Poisoning Prevention, Program. For 1996-2001 , source is annual Illinois
pf Public, Health,, Childhood Lead Poisorfing Surveillance Reports. For
source is; CDC._$econd National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
DOS, Data from CDC, National.Health, and Nutrition Examination Survey,
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Environmental Pollution and Disease
-------
O/AS. Dfaft Report on the Environment 2003
Particulate Matter
Particulate air pollution is associated with increased daily
mortality in many U.S. communities and other countries. The
elderly and those with preexisting diseases are particularly
• vulnerable.47 Exposure to ambient particulate matter has also
been associated with an increased number of hospital admis-
sions and visits to doctors due to cardiovascular problems .
and respiratory disease.48 Some studies show that exposure
to particulate matter exacerbates asthma. Long-term exposure
to particulate matter has been associated with increased
deaths from heart and lung diseases, increased respiratory
disease and bronchitis and with decreased lung function in
children.49
Ozone
Repeated short-term exposures to ozone may damage chil-
dren's developing lungs, which may lead to permanent reduc-
tions in lung function.50 Controlled studies in healthy adults
have demonstrated ozone-induced lung inflammation, decre-
ments in lung function, and associated respiratory symptoms,
such as cough and pain on deep inspiration.51 Ozone expo-
sures have also been associated with an increased number of
hospital admissions and visits to doc-
tors.52
Indicators
As noted in Chapter 1 - Cleaner Air,
national average criteria pollutant lev-
els, including particulate matter and
ozone levels, have decreased over the
past 20 years. As discussed earlier,
however, there are limitations in using
these national air pollution data to
evaluate rates of asthma attacks
occurring during acute exposure
episodes. Possible future health indi-
cators for air pollution include death
due to respiratory and cardiovascular
disease, increased hospital admissions
for respiratory and cardiovascular dis-
ease, and subtle changes in the car-
diovascular system that can increase
people's risk of heart attacks and
other cardiovascular effects. Use of these indicators is still
challenged by limits in our understanding of how much air
pollution contributes to the risk of cardiovascular and respira-
tory disease.
WaterDorne Di
iseases
In the early 20th century, wate'rborne diseases such as cholera
and typhoid fever were major health threats across the U.S.
Deaths due to diarrhea-like illnesses, including typhoid,
cholera, and dysentery, were the third largest cause of death
in the nation. For instance, more than ISO in every 100,000
people died from typhoid fever each year.
Around that time, scientists began to understand the cause
of these diseases. They had identified the bacteria responsi-
ble for most diarrheal deaths (typhoid, cholera, and dysen-
tery) 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. This contaminated
water was then distributed untreated to communities, which
used the water for drinking and other purposes. This created
a continuous transmission cycle.
Once treatment (filtration and chlori-
nation) of drinking water was initiat-
ed to remove pathogens, the number
of deaths due to diarrheal diseases
dropped dramatically in communities
with treated water. Deaths due to
typhoid fever were tracked through-
out the early 20th century, as drink-
ing water treatment was implemented
across the country, providing an indi-
cator of the success of this environ-
mental management strategy (Exhibit
4-10).
Drinking water treatment is one of
the great public health success sto-
ries of the 20th century. Not only did
it dramatically and significantly
reduce death rates from waterborne
disease, it also increased life
expectancy and reduced infant mor-
Chapter 4 - "Human Health
Environmental Pollution and Disease
-------
"ErAs Draft "Report on the Environment 2003
SSJ .lililJ!!!'W?. ~ T- - T1.,
MMWM '»*<«* !!!«***»! S*«f'**<« »!!•• ft** >**!«*«»#»**!(, 55, flf if»;f;fc**;(3SS;,f
* txhibit 4-10: Tercent or population with treated water versus tydpoid deaths in the United ->tat,es, 1880-1980
"I I " ' " ""l"'1"1 • -' SlF^h ^^^S^Wf^^^^^S!^^^^^^
, SEE "''-' " ' - - •' '' - -' • "' " ' -'- • •" ' •....»'.T'.i'""''i • ' ,''.'', "' Art '
nf *»ritf«if ig-rtitf3(,3f!fp t fspp£ i„&?; iran •<^;j -^-r; i;
fO 1830" 1900 " ' 1920' " 1930 """
lit i i ni i {?)» ,i >i .i .i i i Mil r i i ifiii i ii • i |,[ir (,jni!Li,i,|!
S^udi t,C. V^attfifOimDittoses ia^theUmted States. 1986; Wtiipple, G.C Typhoid fever - Its CmSjbon. 'Transmisslon^and Prevention. 1908,- Fox, K. National Risk
"" ---•»-- — lc£ UliorltoW personal communication, 2003. 1IH""JPI « <•> i JJL" ••. -•>• -r J , ,,.t , T, «.
tality. Today, public health is protected against new and
emerging waterborne microbial contaminants by continual
improvements to the drinking water treatment process.
This example illustrates how a link was made 'between gas-
trointestinal disease (an outcome indicator) and exposure to
pathogens in drinking water. Based on this connection, offi-
cials were able to take effective action to protect public
health. They also were able to use an outcome measure
(deaths due to typhoid) to monitor the success of these pro-
tective actions.
Today, deaths due to typhoid, cholera, and dysentery are so
rare in the U.S. that they cannot serve as indicators to evalu-
ate drinking water management decisions. The actual number
of cases of typhoid, cholera, and dysentery are tracked to
some extent; however, the reporting of these cases is not fed-
erally required. The waterborne disease outbreak surveillance
system is a passive system in that it relies on state health
departments to voluntarily report their outbreaks to CDC.
(For further information on waterborne diseases, see Chapter
2 - Purer Water.) '
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Environmental Pollution and Disease
-------
aft Report on tine Environment £003
Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution
How can exposure data advance
understanding of the role of the
environment in disease?
"Exposure" refers to direct human contact with a pollutant
(e.g., through breathing contaminated air, drinking contami-
nated water, or eating contaminated food). Measurements of
such exposures can help identify which pollutants may cause
health problems and at what levels. They can also provide the
basis for determining appropriate actions to limit exposure
and associated harmful health effects. For example, these data
can enable health officials to respond to a health threat in a
specific community (e.g., issue code red alerts when air pollu-
tion is a concern). This section describes the three key
approaches—environmental monitoring, personal monitoring,
and biomonitoring-^that scientists use to measure how much
pollution we are exposed to and how exposure data con-
tribute to understanding the role of the environment in dis-
ease. No approach is best suited to all pollutants. Different
approaches are appropriate to different types of pollutants,
and each approach has strengths and weaknesses.
Environmental AAonitoring
Historically, human exposure has often been estimated
through environmental measurements of ambient pollutant
concentrations (e.g., particulate matter in air, bacteria in water
or food). However, the presence of a pollutant in the environ-
ment does not necessarily mean that anyone is exposed. For
example, people must actually breathe contaminated air or
ingest bacteria-laden food and water for exposure to occur.
Monitoring ambient pollutant levels is critical to measuring
exposure for several pollutants, including air pollution (e.g.,
particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide),
radiation, biological pollutants (e.g., molds, pollen, infectious
agents), and disinfection by-products, which are formed when
chlorine is used to treat drinking water. For instance, measure-
ments of concentrations of pollutants in outdoor or indoor
air can be coupled with human activity patterns (e.g., time
spent working, exercising outdoors, sleeping) to estimate
human exposures. This approach was used to establish
national air and water quality standards for many pollutants
that protect the U.S. population from harmful health effects.
Personal AAonitoring
With personal monitoring, the monitoring device is worn by
individuals as they proceed through their normal activities.
This approach is most common in workplaces. The radioactiv-
ity sensors worn by nuclear power plant workers are one
example. Personal monitoring has been used to estimate total
human exposures, including exposures from the air people
breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat.53 One
advantage of personal monitoring is that the data provide
valuable insights into the sources of the pollutants to which
people are actually exposed. A challenge with personal moni-
toring is ensuring that sufficient sampling is done to be repre-
sentative of the population being studied.
Diomonitoring
Several environmental pollutants, notably heavy metals and
some pesticides, can accu-
mulate in the body over
time, often with increasing
risk of harm. These pollu-
tants or their breakdown
products (i.e., metabolites
formed when a pollutant is
broken down in the body)
leaive residues in the body
that can be measured, usu-
ally in the blood or urine.
These residues reflect the
amount of the pollutant in
leasuring Exposure^
:o Environmental ^
JutiolrirSelecteirif
^Bloodjeqd level
Blood mercury level
Blood cotmine level
the environment that actu-
Urine organosphosphate level to
indicate pesticides
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution
-------
EPAs Drift Report on the Environment ^003
ally gets into the body. The approach of meas-
uring pollutant levels in tissue or fluid samples
from individual people is called "biomonitor-
ing.1'
National-scale biomonitoring data can be use-
ful as indicators of the distribution of exposure
across the entire population to a variety of
pollutants. Also, such data provide an impor-
tant bridge to understanding the relationships
between ambient pollutant concentrations
(e.g., in air, water), exposures to these pollu-
tants, and health problems. Biomonitoring data provide expo-
sure information that may help alert physicians, scientists,
and health officials to diseases that result from exposure to
environmental chemicals. The data are also useful for estab-
lishing reference ranges that can be used to identify people
with unusually high exposure or the percentage of the popu-
lation that has pollutant exposures above levels considered to
be elevated (e.g., lead).54
Health and environmental agencies are using biomonitoring
measures and trend data to improve understanding of the
relationship between exposure to environmental pollutants
and health. For example, CDC is using biomonitoring data to
assess environmental pollutant exposures in the U.S. popula-
tion. In 2001, CDC provided data on 27 pollutants present in
the blood and urine of a small sample of the U.S. popula-
tion.ss In January 2003, CDC released data on blood and
urine residues for 116 environmental chemicals in a much larg-
er, nationally representative population sample.56
Biomonitoring data are already available for metals (e.g., lead,
mercury, cadmium), cotinine (a measure of environmental
tobacco smoke [ETS]), volatile organic chemicals, organo-
phosphate pesticides, organochlorine pesticides, phthalates,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin and dioxin-like com-
pounds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Future
biomonitoring will build the trend data showing whether levels
of other pollutants are increasing or decreasing in the popu-
lation.
Although biomonitoring data are highly useful, they have sev-
eral limitations as an indicator of exposure. These data do not
provide information about how the exposure occurred or the
source(s) of exposure, and in some cases, they do not distin-
guish among different pollutants that may leave identical
residues in the body. For example, biomonitor-
ing can determine that a person has been
exposed to carbon monoxide, but not whether
the source is ETS, a faulty gas stove, or vehicle
emissions on a highway. These limitations may
make it difficult to identify actions that would
reduce or prevent such exposures or to corre-
late them to disease. Nonetheless, for some
pollutants national biomonitoring data are use-
ful indicators of exposure on a national scale.
The following three examples—the heavy met-
als lead and mercury, ETS, and organophosphate pesticides—
highlight the findings of the ongoing CDC biomonitoring
efforts and how these findings can advance efforts to protect
human health.
Heavy Metals
Gathering information on heavy met-
als in trie U.S. population is important
because: those metals are highly toxic
at sufficiently high doses, and even
low-level residues of certain metals
may be of concern. Concentrations of
lead in blood—a demonstrated
indicator of harmful effects on the
• nervous system—have declined signif-
icantly, especially since the 1970s, when lead was banned
from gasoline.
Environmental exposure to mercury, another heavy metal, is of
particulcir concern. Mercury can be transformed into methyl-
mercury by bacteria in soil and sediments and then can move
up the food chain, accumulating in fish, which are a major
source of exposure for people. Methylmercury has been asso-
ciated with harmful effects on the nervous system, especially
in a developing fetus. When a pregnant woman eats
methylmercury-contaminated fish, the child she is carrying
may later experience harmful effects, including learning and
developmental problems.57 The same is true for young chil-
dren exposed to methylmercury directly. Indigenous and tribal
populations and others who rely heavily on fish as a major
food source may also suffer nervous system effects.
In 1999 and 2000, total mercury blood levels (both inorgan-
ic and organic forms) were evaluated in a nationally represen-
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution
-------
EPAs Dfaft Report on the Environment 2003
tative survey of approximately 700 young children (ages 1 to
5 years) and 1,700 women of childbearing age (16 to 49
years). The results show that the mercury levels in women of
child-bearing age were less than 58 ppb—a level associated
with a doubling of risk of abnormal performance on neurode-
velopmental tests in children exposed in utero.58-59 Adverse
health effects may also occur at levels below 58 ppb. To
account for many uncertainties, EPA has determined that chil-
dren born to women with blood levels of mercury above 5.8
ppb are at some increased risk of adverse health effects.
Based on the 1999-2000 survey, about 8 percent of women
of child-bearing age had at least 5.8 ppb of mercury in their
blood.60-61 Health officials have been working to promote
education and awareness of the hazards of methylmercury-
contaminated fish. (See "Consumption of Fish and Shellfish"
in Chapter 2 - Purer Water.)
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Environment tobacco smoke (ETS) is
of special concern in indoor air, where
it can concentrate and persist.
Cotinine, a breakdown product of
nicotine that can be quantified in
blood, hair, urine, and saliva, can be
used as a measure of exposure to
tobacco smoke from both active and
passive means. Overall, children's
median (50th percentile) blood levels of cotinine have
declined 56 percent between the periods 1988-1991 and
1999-2000 (Exhibit 4-11 ).62 Between the periods
1991 -1994 and 1999-2000, cotinine levels in urine
decreased 58 percent for children ages 3 to 11, 55 percent
for adolescents ages 12 to 19, and by 75 percent in non-
smoking adults, according to a national survey of almost
6,000 people.63 The declines in children's cotinine levels are
in part attributable to the declining number of adult smokers.
However, non-smoking children between the ages of 3 and 19
have cotinine levels more than twice those of adults.64 In
1999-2000, African Americans (all age groups combined)
had cotinine levels more than twice those of whites.65
ETS is a known cancer-causing agent in people, and long-term
exposure to ETS is associated with an increased risk for lung
cancer and other diseases.66 Children are at particular risk
from ETS, which may exacerbate asthma in children who have
the disease and greatly increase the risk for lower respiratory-
tract illness, such as bronchitis and pneumonia, among young
children.67
Organophosphate Pesticides
Organophosphate pesticides account
for about half of the insecticides used
in the U.S. Exposure to these pesti-
cides occurs primarily from ingestion
of food products or from home and
garden uses, like lawn and crack and
crevice treatments, although many
household uses are being phased out
or have stopped altogether in recent
years. In a 1999-2000 nationwide survey, common break-
down products of several Organophosphate pesticides were
found in the urine of approximately 50 percent of the nearly
2,000 people sampled, demonstrating fairly widespread pub-
lic exposure to these pesticides.68 This study also showed
that these pesticide residues were consistently higher in chil-
dren than in adults.69 Like lead and mercury, these pesticides
can harm the nervous system, but it is not yet known what
minimum' level causes these effects. Future research will build
the trend data showing whether levels of these pesticides .are
increasing or decreasing in the population and, as noted,
CDC has an effort under way to collect those data.
: Concentrations of cotinine in children's blood,
£,a ^ ^c v
and 1999-2000
90th percentile
(10 percent of children have this
serum cotinine level or greater)
SOth percentile
(50 percent of children have this
serum cotinine level or greater)
:n|sriK!^:&'WVr''^/rffiitJ'fV«'^^^ ' •" J, ''I "" "i''i—1M«v-.-i"-
roe^ca 5 Qjwr^ft ana we tnyironfnent-Measit^ 0} ^o^tamtnantsf ,
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution
-------
EFAs Drift Report on trie Environment 2003
-*^m ^
k. JlLW
Challenges in Developing Human Health Indicators
I I uman health indicators provide important tools that
'I I regulatory agencies can use to identify environmental
I I health problems, develop programs to reduce the
problems, then gauge the success of those efforts. For exam-
ple, the declining levels of lead in children's blood confirm
that the nation's strategies to remove lead from gasoline,
water, and paint have successfully reduced exposure to lead.
Similarly, the decline in urinary cotinine levels confirms that
efforts to reduce smoking have been successful in reducing
exposures to ETS.
For many other pollutants, major knowledge gaps and chal-
lenges remain in linking environmental pollution to health
problems. Sorting out the role of the environment, the role of
other factors (e,g., genetic make-up, lifestyle choices such as
diet and exercise), and the importance of their interactions •
remains an enormous scientific challenge. The time between
exposure and the development or diagnosis of disease, as well
as the problems of tracking a mobile population, further com-
plicate the issue of clarifying connections between exposure
and harm to health. An emerging area of science involves
examining the possible combined (additive), synergistic, and
cumulative effects of numerous pollutants in the environment.
This field of study merits greater development. Finally, not all
chemical exposures result in harm to health. With a better
understanding of the contribution of environmental factors to
the development of disease, EPA will be able to use estab-
lished health outcome measures—disease trend and exposure
data—to enhance environmental management efforts and to
assess the effectiveness of those efforts.
Disease registries could be improved to provide valuable
assistance in tracking many diseases. Currently, most disease
indicators are based on mortality data, which have serious
limitations for linking environmental exposures to disease.
Data on the number of new cases (incidence) of a disease or
the existing cases (prevalence) of a disease in a population
can provide better information, but no comprehensive nation-
wide systems exist for collecting these data. For example,
there is currently no national registry for birth defects. Also,
it is nearly impossible to get an accurate national picture of
the number of people affected by outbreaks of waterborne
diseases. Occurrence of endemic waterborne disease is gross-
ly underreported. Submission of waterborne disease informa-
tion to CDC is strictly voluntary, and state-level data pose
problems because the list of gastrointestinal diseases that
must be reported varies by state. Also, for an outbreak to be
detected, many people need to become ill at the same time,
and many cases go unreported or are not diagnosed.
Better national-level disease data that could be linked directly
with environmental monitoring data would support efforts to
establish connections between disease and environmental
exposures. For, meaningful comparisons, all data sets should
have similar timeframes (the same months or number of
years) and locations. Also, national-level efforts would benefit
from more daia that can be sorted by several relevant factors,
such as, race (Viich can help in identifying disparities in
health status and outcomes), income, occupation, and resi- !
dence. Such data can be gathered only through better collab- '.
oration between and among environmental and health ;
agencies at all levels,\as well as hospitals, clinics, and medical !
offices. As EPA works to develop environmental indicators that :
reliably signal trends irt,'exposures and disease, the Agency
will also work to improve cooperation with the federal and
state agencies that collect relevant information.
Appropriate indicators that address these challenges can help
the agencies responsible for monitoring and managing the
nation's; health to flag and respond to potential problems,
such as an upsurge in cases of an environmentally related dis-
ease or rising contaminant levels in human tissues. The same
indicators might, ideally, show whether pollution control
actions are actually reducing the number of people who
develop diseases associated with environmental agents. This
information will help EPA and other agencies to enhance
priority-setting to best protect the health of the nation's
people. ' '
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Challenges in Developing Human Health Indicators
-------
EPAs Pratt Reportion the Environment |2003
tndnotes
1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unrealized
Prevention Opportunities: Reducing the Health and Economic
Burden of Chronic Disease, Atlanta, CA: National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Chronic
Disease Prevention, November 1998.
2 Pastor, P.N., D.M. Makuc, C. Reuben, C, and H. Xia, et al.
Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans, Health, United
States, 2002, Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health
Statistics, 2002. [Online Trend Data Available at:
http://www. cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hus/02 hustop. htm]
3 United Nations. Demographic Yearbook 1999, New York:
United Nations, 2001, 479-506. United Nations.
4 Pastor, P.N., et al. Chartbook on Trends in the Health of
Americans Health, United States, 2002, 2002. op. cit.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 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).
8 Ries, L.A.G., M.R Eisner, C.L. Kosary, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer
Statistics Review, 1973-1998. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer
Institute, 2001.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Pastor, P.N., et al. Chartbook on Trends in the Health of
Americans Health, United States, 2002, 2002. op. cit.
12 Hoyert, D.L. et al. Deaths: Final Data for 1999, 2001.
op. cit.
13 Eberhardt, M.S., D.D. Ingram, D.M. Makuc, et al. Health,
United States, 2001: With Urban and Rural Health Chartbook,
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2001,
161-163.
14 Pastor, P.N., et al. Chartbook on Trends in the Health of
Americans Health, United States, 2002, 2002. op. cit.
15 Ibid.
16 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).
17 Ibid.
18 Adams, P., G.E. Hendershot, and M. Marano. Current esti-
mates from the National Health Interview Survey. 1996. Vital
and Health Statistics 10: 82, 92, 94 (1999).
19 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).
20 Centers for Disease Control. Shigellosis. 2001. (November
19, 2002; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/
shigellosis_g.htm)
21 Centers for Disease Control. Escherichia coll O157:H7.
2001. (November 19, 2002;
http://www. cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/
escherichiacoli_g.htm).
22 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).
23 Hoyert, D.L. et al. Deaths: Final Data for 1999, 2001.
op. cit.
Chapter 4 - Human Healtn
Endnotes
-------
ET As Draft "Report on the Environment 2003
24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's Children
and ihe Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens,
and Illnesses (Second Edition), EPA 240-R-03-001.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Children's Health Protection, National Center for
Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation, February 2003.
25 Ries, LA.C. et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1998,
2001. op. cit.
26 Anderson, R.N. Deaths: Leading causes for 1999. National
Vital Statistics Report 49 (11): 8 (2001).
27 Mannino, D.M. et al. Surveillance for asthma - United States,
1980-1999,2002. op. cit.
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's Children
and the Environment Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens,
and Illnesses (Second Edition), 2003. op. cit.
29 Akinbami, LJ. and K.C. Shoendorf. Trends in Childhood
Asthma: Prevalence, Health Care Utilization and Mortality.
Pediatrics. 110: 315-332 (2002).
30 National Academy of Sciences. Clearing the Air. Asthma and
Indoor Air Exposures, Washington DC: National Academies
Press, Committee on the Assessment of Asthma and Indoor
Air, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention,
Institute of Medicine, 2000.
31 Ibid.
52 Centers for Disease Control. National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Atlanta, GA: March 2001.
33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria
for Pariiculate Matter, Third External Review Draft, EPA 600-P-
99-002aC. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
Center! for Environmental Assessment, April 2002.
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria
for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidant, 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.
35 Hoyert, D.L. et al. Deaths: Final Data for 1999, 2001.
op. cit. ;
36 Martin et al. Births: Final Data for 2000, 2002. op. cit.
37 Friis, R.H., and T.A. Sellers, Epidemiology for Public Health
Practice (Second Edition), Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers,
Inc., 1999.
38 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health
Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders,
EPA 600-6-90-006F. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Office of Air and Radiation, December 1992.
39 National Research Council. Measuring Lead Exposure in
Infants, Children, and Other Sensitive Populations, Washington
DC: National Academies Press, 1993.
40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's Children
and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens
and Illnesses (Second Edition), 2003. op. cit.
41 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Second
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,
NCEH Publication No. 03-0022. Atlanta, CA, January 2003.
CJnapter 4 - Human Health
Endnotes
-------
EPAs Drpift Report on the Environment 2003
42 National Research Council. Measuring Lead Exposure in
Infants, Children, and Other Sensitive Populations, 1993. op. cit.
43 Dockery, D.W., and C.A. Pope. "Outdoor Air I: Particulates."
In K. Steenland and D.A. Savitz (eds.), Topics in Environmental
Epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997.
44 Nadakavukaren, A. Our Global Environment: A Health
Perspective (Fifth Edition), Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
Press, Inc, 2000.
45 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.
46 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria
for Particulate Matter, Third External Review Draft, 2002. op.
cit.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 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).
51 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.
52 Ibid.
53 Examples of personal monitoring include ERA's Total
Exposure Assessment Monitoring (TEAM) studies and its
National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS), and
the Relationship of Indoor, Outdoor and Personal Air (RIOPA)
study conducted by the Mickey Leland Center.
54 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Second
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,
2003. op. cit.
55 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, 2001.
op. cit.
56 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Second
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,
2003.op.cit.
57 National Research Council. Toxicological Effects of
Methylmercury, Washington, DC: National Academy of
Sciences, 2000.
58 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Second
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,
2003. op. cit.
59 National Research Council. Toxicological Effects of
Methylmercury, 2000. op. cit.
60 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's Children
and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens
and Illnesses (Second Edition), 2003. op. cit.
61 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) for Methylmercury (MeHg). July 27, 2001. (July
27, 2001; http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm).
Chapter 4 - Human Health
Endnotes
-------
EFAs Drift Report on the Environment 2003
62 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's Children
and ihe Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens,
and Illnesses (Second Edition), 2003 op. cit.
63 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Second
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,
2003. op. cit.
Ibid.
65 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Second
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,
2003. op. cit
66 U.S, Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria
for Particulate Matter, Third External Review Draft, 2002. op.
cit.
67 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Human
Exposure to Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, 2001. op. cit.
68 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Second
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,
2003. op. cit.
69 Ibid,
Cnapter 4 - Human Health
Endnotes
-------
-------
; •
El As Drift Report on tfie Environment 2003
lilt"!, • 'tflfif
Introduction
Air, water, land—these are elements of "the environ-
ment" that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) seeks to protect. But assessing the state of the
environment requires looking at a bigger picture. Air, water,
and land are connected by natural cycles. For example, nitro-
gen-laden topsoil eroded from the Midwest may travel down
the Mississippi River and pollute the Gulf of Mexico, or chem-
icals released to the air in the Great Lakes region may find
their way into the waters in the Northeast. Living things
inhabit virtually all of the nation's air, water, and land and are
affected by innumerable natural and human events.
How can researchers, managers, policymak-
ers, and the public track this big picture?
One forward-looking way is to link 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 com-
ponents of ecosystems and how they inter-
act. Ecological condition is ever changing,
multifaceted, and specific to place and
ecosystem. Understanding ecological condi-
tion is crucial because humans depend on,
and are responsible for, the nation's ecosys-
tems—forests, grasslands, shrublands, farm-
lands, urban and suburban environments,
fresh waters, and coasts and oceans. These
systems provide food, fiber, and shelter, as
well as "housekeeping" functions ranging
from water filtration and crop pollination to
waste decomposition and recycling.
Trends in ecological condition, like disease
trends described in Chapter 4 - Human
Health, reflect the outcome of many differ-
ent events and activities, both natural and
human induced. Ecosystem condition is the
result of natural resource management at
national and state levels, local zoning and
Landscape Condition
Chemical and Physical
Characteristics
Ecological Processes
Hydrology and
Geomorphology
Natural Disturbance
Regimes
Ecological Condition as «,n
Environmental Result
Challenges in Developing
Ecological Condition
Indicators
land use decisions, pollution and pollution prevention activi-
ties, natural disturbances, and many other factors. EPA is one
of many federal, state, tribal, and local government and pri-
vate partners working to understand ecological condition and
to protect the nation's ecosystems. Most EPA programs focus
on managing environmental stressors, such as minimizing ;
chemicals in air and water or reducing toxic substances and '
hazardous waste. Measuring ecological condition will help EPA;
systematically assess how its management of stressors affects'
overall ecosystem health. ;
This chapter is organized around the
j framework of six essential ecological
attributes developed by EPA's Science
1 Advisory Board (SAB) (Exhibit 5-1): land-
I scape condition, biotic condition, chemi-
,„_!_,! cal and physical characteristics, ecological
j processes, hydrology and geomorphology,
j and natural disturbance regimes. Within
each of these areas, indicators have been
1 defined for each of the six ecosystem or
1 land cover types identified by the H. John
T Heinz Center for Science Economics, and
I the Environment (Exhibit 5-2). The
Technical Document for this EPA report
I describes each of these indicators, includ-
I ing the available data, data limitations, and .
* data sources.1
This chapter describes some of these indi-
cators, including indicators for which
national data are available and others for
which national data are limited. In addi-
tion, the chapter illustrates some examples
'; of promising approaches for using ecolog-'
; ical condition to evaluate environmental
I protection efforts. The chapter closes by
f summarizing both the state of data for !
1 assessing ecological condition and key
challenges.
Chapter 5 - tcological Condition
Introduction
-------
Recent Ecological Condition Research Efforts
^The chapter presents initial work toward identifying indicators to help answer the question, "What is the ecological condition of the United States?"
I "This work draws primarily on two previous research efforts:
!• "Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition"2 developed by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB Framework desig-
fc nates "essential ecological attributes" (Exhibit 5-1) that provide a means to examine ecological condition as well as to consider the effects ofstres-
sors on condition.
I. "The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States,"3 a nationwide effort ofgovern-
jFrnent and the private sector led by The H.John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment (The Heinz Center). Many of the indi-
| caters m this chapter and in the Technical Document accompanying this report are derived from the Heinz report.
composition, and pattern of
Status and change in extent of
ecosystems
b.
&-
;J.,.;:a;-^'^, ,^r>,r\^:--h,ru- >-,w^-Jj-f.'-*'^'re ri.l'%H 4 V^p:.-:;^V,i/j4.>rVc^
IxnJDit 5-!: EfA.ycje.rice rvqyispjy Board essential ecological attributes
!-":5'*-^"('.^"; liix'i' vjOV ?'%£;": ^fefff^r^jfr':"-^^^
,,;«
=~>i i^^^-HSFW/^-^^-y^S' -y~*t- w*jSi|?™M=Ji^.==.-».-r-;'=-«4~=U—^=-i3
fpufations, and individual .biota, . . •
Eg^ii^iiiWi^i^
J^j^^Ajyj^^-^e.ji^^^MsKai^&siijIBBiSijilSS^rtg
ecp$ysterns - energy
nf cvcifne, an*J the production^
^ss^i4tfeV: ^ sis -^ *^^' £- •' ^*^j^~~'- --. - -^
tisn: a'nd decomposition of organic
Physical parameters (e g, temperature) and
goncentjgtions of chermcdj_substances ^
eg, nitrogen) present in the environment
3"he interplay of water flow and land forms
The historical function of discrete and
recurrent disturbances that shape
ecojysfems
Imperiled species in the U.S.
At-risk native species
Trends in invasive and non-invasive
_birds in grasslands and shrublands
ti--~ ~ — ^^~1 ^-
Primary productivity
Movement of nitrogen
Nitrate, phosphate, and other
chemical levels in streams
=s=lii
Soil erosion
Change in stream flow rates
Forest disturbances: fire, insects,
and disease
?-^Tanfanrr-~ i-^f
BSoufce EPA, Science Advisory Board Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition June 2002
•-^fBPT^ -^ ~< * - .•«^W7?
^ % ^ /
•^r
^•g^-rYB^ir^-iy-yrT »
'
^.fv~~-T^p-T-f Y"^"^^
*!&. ^ __ _to^ I®
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Introduction
-------
I _ ! | | ' |V |p
'Til
Exhibit 5-2: Ecosystem types as describe^ 1 .by Trie Heinz Center
Lands at least 10 percent covered by trees of any size at least 1 acre in extent J
_g Lands in which the dominant vegetation is grasses and other non-woody vegetation or where shrubs (with or without
scattered trees) are the norm. This ecosystem type includes bare rock deserts, alpine meadows, and arctic tundra. '
J
I
—HK-
: : "f " ~ "~"~ ]'• ~ " " "' ~~ " " ™*™«i»|
Lands used for production of annual and perennial crjjps and livestock and areas on the larger farm landscape (e.g., !
1 field borders and windbreaks, small woodlots, grasslaps and shrubland areas, wetlands, farmsteads, small vi'llagWand
I other built-up areas) within or adjacent to croplands.;!1
Urban and Suburban
•!•' freifc \Uiten.
Rivers and streams, including those that flow part of t
wetlands, vegetated margins of streams and rivers (rip
''^dojIII ajj^Clceins ^. Estuaries and ocean waters under U.S. jurisdiction Es;
sounds, lagoons, and fjords) considered to begin at tl
' ' ' " I
;| Places where the land is primarily devoted to building* J houses, roads, concrete, grassy lawns and other elements of
»-4 human use and construction. j i
±^W--K=—;rT=^==^=^=r====r======_=-_jr=== _—J.L- .... -I— 4.^^ «. M, .
jl,|l meet the ocean,
Source: The Beiiu Center. The State of UK Nation's Ecosystems. 2002.
e year, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; ground water; fresh water
rian areas).
laries are partially enclosed bodies of water (including bays,
! upper end of tidal or saltwater influence and end where they
__ _, _ M,^MI ^1
What is the ecological condition
of the United States?
Basic questions about the health of the nation's ecosystems
and the overall ecological condition of the U.S. have proven
difficult to answer in a few summary statements. Ecosystems
are dynamic assemblages of organisms that change and adapt
continuously to a variety of natural disturbances and stres-
sors, such as fires and floods, as well as to pollutants and land
use changes. A variety of ecosystem management practices
are used to support human survival and economic growth.
Because of these complexities, measuring ecological condi-
tion goes beyond monitoring air or water to determine
whether pollutant concentrations or temperatures exceed a
legal standard. Trying to characterize overall condition by
looking at only one factor, such as stressors, is like the blind-
folded men trying to describe an elephant after touching only
one psri of the animal. In the same way, we cannot determine
the overall condition of an ecosystem by looking at isolated
environmental measures, such as insect outbreaks in a forest,
chemical concentrations in water, or declines in the number of
certain species. Assessments of ecological condition must
incorporate measures of different characteristics, potentially
at different times and different places within a system. The
importance of multidimensional measurements to understand
multidimensional systems is described in more detail in
"Ecological Condition as an Environmental Result" later in this
chapter. This section illustrates indicators that provide
insights into the six attributes identified by the Science
Advisory Board.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Introduction
-------
''•'!--•• " ' - - " - .j
IMs Drift teport>on the Environment 2003
Landscape Condition
Landscape condition, a term that applies to both terres-
trial and aquatic ecosystems, includes such aspects of
ecosystems as extent, age, composition, and juxtaposi-
tion with other land cover types and land uses. Landscape
condition determines, in part, the ability of ecosystems to
sustain themselves, as well as respond to human needs—for
example, to supply crops and timber, fish and shellfish, clean
water and air, and wildlife nurseries. This section focuses on
one aspect of landscape condition—extent. Indicators
addressing age, composition, and patterns of ecosystems are
described in the accompanying Technical Document.
Extent provides basic information on how much of an ecosys-
tem exists, where it is, and whether it is shrinking or expand-
ing. Changes in the extent of various cover types in the U.S.
have been driven primarily by human land (and water) uses
over the past 400 years (Exhibit 5-3). As of 1997, approxi-
mately 25 percent of forests, 3 to 12 percent of grasslands
and shrublands, and more than 50 percent of wetlands, had
been converted to other uses since European settlement.4'5'6
Most of the changes in ecosystem acreage since the 1980s
have stemmed from agriculture and development activities.
Between 1982 and 1997, approximately 7 million acres of
agricultural land and 10 million acres of forest land were con-
verted to residential, transportation, industrial, urban, and
other uses.7 Another 22 million acres of pasture and range-
land (including some grasslands and shrublands) were con-
verted to crop production.8
Only limited information exists on the total extent of water
ecosystems, both fresh water and coastal, other than wet-
lands. Small streams may disappear because of mining,
damming, or water withdrawals. However, because there is no
widely accepted way to classify streams for ecological moni-
toring, no national dataset exists for reporting on their gains
or, losses.9 The extent and composition of most, but not all,
of the nation's coastlines have been established by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.10 Eight
percent or 400,000 acres of coastal wetlands were converted
to other uses between the
mid-1950s and mid-1990s.11
For coral reefs, shellfish beds,
and submerged aquatic veg-
etation, baseline information
is inadequate, although a
survey in Chesapeake Bay
indicated that acres of sub-
merged aquatic vegetation
have increased from 41,000
to 69,000 since 1978.12 The |
structure and pattern of
estuarine landscapes, and their
condition, remain inadequately
onition
^gstSKlsK^K^^?^
Biflndicators
¥ Extent of ecosystem/land cover
"''types (forests, farmlands,
irbaaisuburban, grasslands/shrub
lands, fresh waters, cpasts and
oceans)
contribution to ecological
measured or understood.
The changes in ecosystem acreages described above may rep-
resent a small percentage of a specific cover type on a
national basis. In some cases, however, even small changes can
have direct effects on species associated with ecosystems
locally. NatureServe, a non-profit organization that tracks
species diversity and loss nationwide, has stated that loss of
habitats due to changes in extent of land cover constitutes
the single greatest threat to species survival.13
As land use and acreage change, the mix of living things and
ecosystem types also change, with uncertain ripple effects.
Wetland ecosystems, for example, are critical to the life cycles
of plants, fish, shellfish, migratory birds, and other wildlife.
More than one-third of threatened and endangered species in
the U.S. live only in wetlands, and nearly half use wetlands at
some point in their lives.14 Forested wetlands often become
shrub wetlands after the trees are removed, and these two
types of ecosystems do not support the same plants and ani-
mals. Over the last 50 years, the amount of non-stocked for-
est has decreased, while the amount of forest with older trees
has increased.15 (For more information on these effects, see
Chapter 2 - Purer Water and Chapter 3 - Better Protected
Land.)
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Landscape Condition
-------
EFAs Draft Report on t[ie "Environment J003
jj 'land C6Ser""oass' !!" . • . : :;;.!;!; ,::! ;,: .
E Forest Lands
:=""
H'
1 Grasslands and
I1 Shrubtands*
I Farmlands (Acreage Shown is
f for Croplands and
I Pasturclands)*
, Urban and Suburban (Acreage
f < Shown Is for Developed
f lands)'
§1
f Fresh Waters
1
Wetlands'
: Coasts and Oceans
i "
Exhibit 5-^3: nistc
PreiEu'fopta'h : [ j'j
^A^re'S-lstiiyafe., I:!.'
1 billion^
900 million - 1 billion^
0
0
No data
221 million11
No data
ncal and current extent or lane
ll9^~B|wi'1t;iH . • ,
.,; Acreage Estimate. v '.••-.(••':
744 millionb
872 million (based on loss of 11
million acres of non-federal)11' e
553 million6
73 millionf
No data
106.1 million11
No data
f- ite.ii "
covpr c asses
^l^^WmWmm 'TOM!!!?!
tAcrlaWiSal.''*^
" '*\ i ft - r T '^Hiwiiiiif I 'I iliiiiirt in i it If'i 11 i FI iiii in Hii'f11 iiiiilpii 1 i1 1 r:i "i f i- In • i "irtt i f >:
749 million^
861 million (an additional 205 million in Alaska)d
530 million'
98 millionf
41 .6 million a'cres of lakes, ponds, and streamsS
60.2 millions acres - Great LakesS
3.7 million miles of streams and riversa>6
105.5 million11 (Alaska: 170 million acres)1
57.9 million acres of estuarine surface areai
66,645 miles of coastlineJ
, dftiit t » • , .1 , • ,,.,, L:^,
i
Do« not include Alatki. ,
WbA, forest Senfce. U.S. forest facts and Historical Trends. April, 2001 and USDA, Forest Service. Draft Resource Planning Act Assessment Tables,. May 3 2002 (updated
AogusUZ, 2002). (September 2003; http://wm'.ncrs,fc.fed.us/4801/FIADB/rpaJabter/Draft_RPA_2W2Jprest_Res^
KtejMteL j,M, et »l, fiwrf use conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States, 1979. If
The Hdnt Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, 2002. , ',, , ,, jL
|J* USOA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Summary Report 1997 National Resources Inventory (reffd December 2000). 2000.
* f USDA, NitUMl Ressufces Qjnservation Service. National Resources Inventory: Highlights. 2001. l||
1_ g Eiwkonnwnt Cumin and £PA, The Great Lakes, an Environmental Atlas and Resource Book. 199S.
| Ii D*W, Tf. Statui W Trendi t/ Wetlands in the Conterminous United States: 1986 to 1997. U,S. fish and \pili|e Service. 2000.
- I Dili T-E- WtUofl* tone? )(i the United States 17gO's to JgSO's, 1990.
i | &k^^^^y>Tfa<^lilyofOurNation'sWaters,ASummaryoftheNationalWaterQuaIitylnvenjb-y: 1998 Report to Congress. 2000.
C-napter 5 - "ecological C^ondition
Landscape Condition
-------
ift Report on the Environment JQQ3
Biotic C^ondition
Every ecosystem contains living components; their very
presence or absence, along with their diversity, signals
the capaciiy of a place to support life. Because living
organisms respond to multiple factors, their condition—
known as biptic condition—provides a snapshot of many
other conditions within their environment. Thus, indicators of
biotic condition, such as species at risk, competition from
non-native species, or rates of disease and deformity, are vital
to assessing ecological condition.
Currently, the data to support such indicators are limited, and
no data are available to accurately measure biotic condition
on a national basis. Data do exist on a small fraction of the
total number of native species in the U.S. and on the pres-
ence of "invasive" bird species in grassland and shrubland
libit 5-U: At-risR lanq and fresn water
and animal native species, 2000
m Extinct
• Critically Imperiled
HL Imperiled
• Vulnerable
• All At-Risk "
* ( xxw-
^ f [
e. all SO states.
-Source The Heinz Center. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems 2002
Data from NatureServe and its Natural l-ientage member programs.
ecosystems. Additionally,
data on forest lands in 37
states provide a partial view
of tree condition as an indi-
cator of biotic condition. This
section summarizes the data
available for these measures
of biotic condition.
Benthic Community Index
Population trends of invasive and
rnative non-invasive bird species
Tree condition
Roughly 200,000 native
plant, animal, and microbial
species inhabit the U.S.16 L-...—-:^-_.;-.^.-.l:- ^
NatureServe is tracking approximately 16,000 native plant
and 6,000 native animal species. Of these, about 19 percent
of the animal and 15 percent of the plant species are estimat-
ed to be imperiled or critically imperiled, as shown in Exhibit
5-4.17 (N0te that the ranking criteria, evidence requirements,
taxonomic coverage, and purposes for gathering this informa-
tion vary from those of the Endangered Species Act, and thus
the categories do not match official "threatened and endan-
gered" species listings.18) Increased risk levels for a particular
species may be due to historical or recent population
declines or may reflect natural rarity.19
Imperiled species have been examined by ecosystem. Fresh
water species show the highest rates of imperilment (Exhibit
5-5).20 One percent of plants and 3 percent of animals may
already be extinct.21
Birds, which are highly mobile (and "monitored" by many
people for pleasure), respond quickly to environmental
change. Changes in the mix of native and alien—and invasive
and non-invasive—birds often signal changes in grassland
and shrubland condition. The presence of native non-invasive
species generally reflects relatively intact, high-quality native
grasslands and shrublands. Conversely, increases in both
native and non-native invasive species, such as American
crows or European starlings, often accompany land conver-
sion to agriculture or grazing uses, landscape fragmentation
due to suburban and rural development, and the spread of
Chapter 5 - tcological Condition
Biotic Condition
-------
EPAs Dr|ift: Report on tfie 'Environment 20G>3
§n ftj UiDwJ i .|(| i !ti*,J tlxnjbjt £>-£: Percent of imperiled spedesiby ecosystem, 2000
Forest Lands
Grasslands and Shrublands
Farmlands
i; Urban and Suburban Ecosystems
I Fresh Water Ecosystems
i Coasts and Oceans
'-[ AIIU.S.
-1700
-1700
-
-
-4000
-
22,000 plant and
animal species
5%
6%
-
-
8%
-
3.5%
3.5%
-
-
13%
-
15% of plants and 19% of animals
1.5%
0.5%
-
-
4%
-
1% of plants and 3%
of animals
* 3
-------
Chemical and "Physical Characteristics
Chemical and physical properties, like other non-living
ecosystem attributes, help shape the environment of
living things. Many of EPA's specific environmental
protection responsibilities include measuring and addressing
chemical changes. Chemical measurements are often based on
water sampling for, among other substances, nitrogen and
phosphorus compounds, dissolved oxygen, pesticides, and
heavy metals.
Some data on chemical characteristics in U.S. waters have
been collected by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water
Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. In an analysis done
for the Heinz report, NAWQA reported on contaminants in
stream waters from 109 sites and in sediments from 558
stream sites in 36 watersheds across the U.S. At least half of
monitored streams had contaminant concentrations that
exceed water quality criteria for wildlife.25 However, no analy-
ses yet relate these concentrations to the status offish or
invertebrate communities in the streams. Nitrate levels were
highest in farmland streams, with 10 percent of the samples
Exhibit 5-6: Nitrate levels in streams by ecosystem,
1992-1998
j i • •»— •••»•-•-•— ~;-'.ji_, ji!mjaarMaa;s=B,-.«i. „,,,..,. — „,.„,,„»,„, ••:„,,,.,., i
m Land C<^CI3»s^Ji!itak££j^«iffitt I
1 Clas^'SHsHSSBSi^
i Forests
! Grasslands and
8 Shrublands
! Farmlands
; Urban and
• Suburban
i Ecosystems
36
No data
SO
21
50% < 0.1 mg/L
75% < 0.5 mg/L
3% > 1 .0 mg/L (1 sample)
No data
50% < 2.0 mg/L
1 0% > 1 0 mg/L (exceeds
drinking water standard)
40% > 1 .0 mg/L
25% < 0.5 mg/L
3% < 0.1 mg/L
Jtpurce USCS, National Water Quality Assessment. The Quality of Our Nation's
trfy-qters-tJutnents and Pesticides 1999
j^. „, ^_ _ , > ^ — ^ _~_^— -~V ~ ~~~2 —^ £
*' Nitrate levels in streams
by ecosystems
exceeding drinking water
standards (Exhibit 5-6).26
The NAWQA program pro-
vides consistent and compa-
rable information on nutrient
and pesticide concentrations
in streams in agricultural
areas, although the network
design and number of sites
do not allow estimates to be —
made for agricultural streams nationally. Nitrate loss from
most forests does not appear to be resulting in high-nitrate
concentrations in forest streams, but few streams are sampled
in parts of the country where nitrate deposition tends to be
high (e.g., eastern states).
A number of physical and chemical indicators are being moni-
tored in Atlantic and Gulf Coast estuaries to help diagnose
and interpret information on biotic condition. Eighteen per-
cent of mid-Atlantic estuaries show high nitrogen concentra-
tions, and 12 percent show high phosphorus concentrations.
Twenty percent of Atlantic and Gulf Coast estuaries have low
dissolved oxygen concentrations (i.e., less than 5 milligrams
per liter). On average, 75 percent of the sediments contain
elevated pesticide concentrations, and 40 percent show ele-
vated concentrations of heavy metals.27
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Chemical and Physical Characteristics
-------
EPAs Drift Report on tine Environment 2003
r I . I p
T-cological Trocesses
Ecological processes comprise the cycling of chemicals
and energy through ecosystems. Like the flow of raw
materials and labor through a factory, these processes
keep ecological systems running. Ecosystems are solar pow-
ered: plants turn energy from the sun, carbon dioxide from
the air, and nutrients from the soil into food for other organ-
isms. Water and nutrients such as carbon and nitrogen—
fundamental building blocks of living tissue—also cycle
continuously through ecosystems. Changes in nutrient cycles
or disruption in water cycles not only affect the operation of
an ecosystem locally, but also may reach well beyond ecosys-
tem boundaries.
The amount of solar energy captured by plants is a key indi-
cator of ecosystem function.28-29 The energy brought into an
ecosystem is a key factor in determining the amount of pho-
tosynthesis, and the amount of plant growth that occurs each
year.30 Plant growth may increase under plant-friendly condi-
tions, for instance, when rainfall or nutrients increase, or it
may decrease under stressful conditions, as in the presence
of toxic substances or disease. Changing growth affects, and
additionally may change, the way ecosystems function, alter-
ing yields of crops and timber, and the diversity and mix of
animal and other species.
For the 11-year period between 1988 and 2000, annual esti-
mates of plant growth reveal no overall trend for any land
cover type or any region of the U.S., although they do fluctu-
ate year to year by as much as 40 percent of the 11 -year
average.3' Long-term monitoring will be required to separate
consistent trends from year-to-year variability caused by rain-
fall and other factors. No estimates yet exist for phytoplank-
ton or submerged vegetation in fresh water or coastal
systems.
Nitrogen is a critical element for plant growth and a basic
constituent of proteins. In excess, however, it can make soil
conditions less favorable for plant growth, damage aquatic
life, and impair human health. Although nitrogen gas makes
up nearly 80 percent of Earth's atmosphere, organisms can-
,t «J
* **m "It
^Terrestrial Plant Growth Index
f .IV 1
' ml Pit
Movement of nitrogen
not use it until it is convert-
ed to active forms by nitro-
gen-fixing bacteria, fertilizer
production, or fossil fuel
combustion. Over the past
century, the forms of nitro-
gen traveling through air,
water, and soil have changed
dramatically, leading to
ecosystem effects.32 Nitrogen compounds falling in rain acidi-
fy soils and surface waters and can stimulate heavy growths
of algae, which may take up so much oxygen that few other
organisms survive. Nitrogen compounds can leach into and
contaminate ground water used for drinking and have harmful
effects; in surface water systems. Movement of excess nitrogen
from agricultural sources in the upper Mississippi River basin,
for example, has been correlated with high levels of plant pro-
ductivity (eutrophication) and a lack of oxygen (hypoxia)
more than 1,000 miles downstream in the northern Gulf of
Mexico.33 The lack of oxygen kills fish, shrimp, and bottom-
dwelling communities, causing economic losses to commercial
'fisheries and diminishing regional biodiversity.
Biologically active forms of nitrogen enter the air as pollu-
tants from industrial facilities, cars, and feedlots and then
pass into ecosystems via plants, soils, and water bodies.
Nitrogen from septic tanks, animal waste, and excess fertilizer
also leaches into the soil and ground water or runs off the
land, moving through streams, rivers, and lakes until it eventu-
ally reaches estuaries. Some enters streams directly from
wastewater treatment plants, and some is lost again to the
atmosphere as it moves downstream. The yield of nitrogen in
runoff varies in different partis of the country, reflecting dif-
ferences in atmospheric deposition, fertilizer use, population
density; and ecosystem characteristics. An analysis of estimat-
ed nitrogen yield shows that watersheds in the upper
Midwest and Northeast experience between 4.7 and 15.6
pounds: of nitrogen in runoff per acre per year, but water-
sheds in the mountains of the West yield less than 10 per-
cent of that amount (Exhibit 5-7).34
t.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Ecological Processes
-------
Exhibit 5-7: Yield of tptal nitrogen-Irora
major watersheds, 1996-199? ,•
I""-* vr;r:j,4v.-Jr»-
*Jota\ Nitrogen (pounds of nitrogen per acre per year);
>ata Not Available • .02-09^
Less than 02 • 09-23":
werage selected areas of tower 48 states.
2.3-4.7 : -.-•".'.- ' ":V:V ;.",:?
;T> I 'iVsiP<3ii>* ^v&vfe Ji*!?i''f'- us jf§ ;-**->>-,iss '4|g
'4.7-15,6':-;",::.; .^•v./vj
.ounce The Heinz Center The State qf tfie (*6'fi^i's^b^s)iei;S; 2002, Data.frorothree|
Kf S "ecological Survey efforts the National StreaSpftfty/WetworkrtKe Nation|! ; ^
Ster Quality Assesment, and the Federal-S^te"Cooperative Program; 1 [ ; i|
The yield of nitrogen from major watersheds is characterized
as pounds of nitrogen per acre of watershed area that enters
rivers and streams through discharges, runoff, and other
sources. The load of nitrate, a common form of nitrogen, from
major rivers is defined as the tons of nitrate carried to the
ocean each year by the four largest U.S. rivers.35
Nitrate load in the Mississippi River has been monitored since
the mid-1950s and from the Susquehanna, St. Lawrence, and
Columbia rivers since the 1970s. The Mississippi drains the
bv major rivers.
ibit'5-8: Nitrate load carried by major
eihz Cenfer.The State ofthe-Na
^^^^oiff^K^^esm^^^^,:^- " • ,rs,
a-lQuaiftwfc'sessment; an3federal-State,CbbperativeProgram.
^mvmmtMmim
n^jA:'-'Zf£' ;'••
nation's midwestern breadbasket, where fertilizer use and soil
erosion are often high. Although fluctuating from year to year,
the Mississippi's nitrate load has increased from approximate-
ly 250,000 tons per year in the early 1960s to approximate-
ly 1 million tons per year during the 1980s and 1990s
(Exhibit 5-8).36 Nitrate loads in the other three rivers have
oscillated around 50,000 tons per year since the 1970s,
although the Columbia River spiked to 100,000 tons per
year in the late 1990s.37
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Ecological Processes
-------
EFAs Drkft Report on the Environment 2003
"Hydrology and Geomorpko
Like the framing of a house, the properties, distribution,
and circulation of water (hydrology) and the relief fea-
tures of the earth's surface (geomorphology) help give
environments their character. The quantity and timing of
water flows influence many ecosystem parts and processes,
including those with direct effects on human activities. Loss
of topsoil, which can take millennia to replenish, has obvious
implications for agriculture, and moving sediment can cause
sedimentation in harbors and other facilities and can carry
chemicals for long distances.
High and low water flows have important implications for
ecosystem health. Low water flows define the smallest area
available to stream biota during the year, and high flows
shape stream channels and wash out silt and debris. Some
fish depend on high flows for spawning. The timing of high
and low flows affects the status of aquatic species as well as
human water supplies and the flooding of farms, towns, and
cities. Climate, dams, water withdrawals, and changes in land
use all affect the flow of water.
ogy
High and low flows for 867 streams and rivers with appropri-
ate data (records between 1930 and 1949, and during the
1970s, 1980s, and 1990s) show little change from the 1970s
to the 1990s.38 The same is true for the timing of high and
low flows. However, the number of streams with high flows
well above their historic (1930 to 1949) rates rose markedly
from the 1980s to the 1990s.39 This increase may be attrib-
utable, in part, to earlier droughts, but may also be linked to
widespread changes in land use.
Erosion can also have significant effects on ecosystem condi-
tion. Wind and water erode soils naturally, changing the
character of the landscape. Human activities such as develop-
ment, road construction, timber harvesting, and agricultural
practices that disturb the soil surface or remove anchoring
i' i u,f hanging stream flows
Soil erosion
"1
vegetation increase the
potential for erosion. Soil
loss not only reduces soil
quantity and quality but can
degrade water quality by
carrying nutrients, pesti-
cides, and other contami-
nants downstream.
Sedimentation can raise
costs to maintain reservoirs,
navigation channels, and water treatment plants and can
degrade habitat for aquatic organisms.
Reductions in erosion can occur through improved tilling or
management practices, removal of marginal land from produc-
tion, and land conservation efforts like the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP). Reducing erosion contributes not
only to improved soil quality but also to improved water qual-
ity in adjacent and downstream aquatic ecosystems.
Data on the 409 million acres of croplands and CRP lands
show that erosion from water and wind decreased from a total
of more than 3 billion tons per year in 1982 to about 1.9 bil-
lion tons in 1997.40 (Not all of this soil actually moved off-
site.) The croplands and CRP lands experiencing erosion in
1997 are shown in Exhibit 5-9. About 15 percent of U.S.
cropland and CRP land is estimated to have a high potential
for wind erosion, based on an analysis of several factors
including soil properties, landscape characteristics (e.g., vege-
tative cover, rainfall), and management practices (e.g., wind
barriers, terracing). This represents a decrease in acreage of
almost '53 percent between 1982 and 1997.41 The acreage
with the highest potential for water erosion, based on similar
factors, also decreased by about 33 percent to 89 million
acres. This represents about 22 percent of U.S. cropland.42
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Hydrology and Geomorpihology
-------
Dijaft •fcpor&Qn the 'Environment £003
txnibit 5-9: Wind and water erosion on croplands and Conservation Reserve Trogram (CJYr) lands, 1997
Sheet and rill (water) erosion mostly
occurs in areas east of the Corn Belt
and Southern Plains. Wind erosion is
mostly in the West, Northern Plains,
Southern Plains, and parts of the Corn
Belt. Several parts'of the country battle
difficult problems with both wind and
water erosion.
Each blue dot
represents 200,000
tons of erosion due to
waten 1,068 million
tons per year.
Each red dot represents
200,000 tons of
erosion due to wind.
840 million tons per
yean Total 1.9 billion
tons per year.
Hawaii
Puerto RicoAJ.S. Virgin Islands
Note: Alaska is not covered by the National Resources Inventory.
Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory, 1997, revised December 2000: Total Wind and Water Erosion, 1997.
December 5, 2000 (April 11, 2003; http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5n2.html).
j
Chapter 5 - tcological C_ondition
Hydrology and Geomorphology
-------
EPAs Draft Report on the Environment 2003
INatural Disturb
ance ixegimes
Disturbance and change, particularly over long periods
of time, are part of all ecosystems. Natural distur-
bances, from ice ages to droughts, can alter ecosystem
characteristics. Some attributes of ecosystems depend on var-
ious types of disturbances—for example, some coniferous
species depend on fire to open cones and clear ground cover
for germination and growth of native species.
Understanding the roles that natural disturbances play in the
evolution of ecosystems is key to determining how land use
and management practices can improve ecosystem condi-
tions. For example, an unprecedented epidemic of Southern
Pine beetle currently is damaging many forests in the south-
eastern U.S. Understanding this pest and its disturbance pat-
terns can assist in developing appropriate responses to
restore ecological balance. The extensive acreages burned
from wildfires in the western U.S. in recent years pose similar
forest ecosystem challenges and opportunities for developing
appropriate responses.
There have been few attempts to document regional or
national natural disturbance regimes as indicators. The USDA
Forest Service Forest Health Monitoring Program is an excep-
tion. Statistical data from the forest inventories conducted
between 1979 and 1995 have been used to establish short-
term baselines for natural disturbances such as climatic
atural Disturbance
events, fire frequency, and
insect and disease out-
breaks. Several recent events
proved to be outside the
range of natural disturbance
patterns in the 1979 to
1995 timeframe, including:
• El Nino from 1997 to
2000.
• Northeast ice storm in 1998.
• Spruce beetle outbreak in 1996, Spruce budworm outbreak
in 1997, and a Southern Pine beetle outbreak in 2000.
• National acres burned in 2000 and the area burned in the
West in 1996, 1998, and 2000.43
Disturbance regimes can be changed by resource manage-
ment. For example, in the two decades between 1980 and
1999, wildfires burned between 2 million and 7 million acres
annually, down from a high of 52 million acres in 1930.44 The
decline is primarily due to fire suppression policies.45
Wildfires in 2000, however, reached 8.4 million acres.46
Chapter 5 - Ecologica Condition
Natural Disturbance Regimes
-------
Ecological Condition as an "Environmental "Result
Ecological condition, like human health, is a crucial meas-
ure of the results of environmental protection activities.
As a regulatory agency, EPA has long monitored environ-
mental stressors, as described in the chapters of this report
on air, water, and land. However, as discussed earlier in this
chapter, stressors alone are not good proxies for understand-
ing the condition of an entire ecosystem. One might compare
measuring ecosystem health to measuring the health of the
economy. Economic indices such as the consumer price index
integrate multiple indicators—prices of many consumer
goods. Information on only one consumer product or one
sector would not be enough to judge trends in national pric-
ing or spending. Similarly, monitoring only stressors, rather
than the living things that are stressed, or monitoring ecosys-
tem attributes in isolation does not convey a full and accurate
picture of ecological condition. Using ecological condition as
an environmental result requires understanding the relation-
ships between ecological condition (as described by the
SAB's essential ecological attributes) and stressors that repre-
sent the focus of EPA's current responsibilities for environ-
mental stewardship. EPA can build on decades of monitoring
stressors while it develops and monitors appropriately multi-
dimensional and better-linked ecological condition indicators.
Some promising approaches to identifying such indicators are
described below.
Many factors stress ecosystems. How ecosystems are affected
varies significantly according to the nature of the stress, its
duration and frequency, and the conditions in the ecosystem
before the stress occurred. For instance, the flows and inter-
actions related to sulfur and nitrogen oxides as air pollutants
depicted in Exhibit 5-10 provide an example of the effects of
stress in ecosystems. Arrows depict sulfur and nitrogen in dif-
ferent forms as they move through a watershed. Any of the
components in Exhibit 5-10 could be measured as an indica-
tor, but each alone contributes only a piece to the under-
Exnibit 5-10: Interaction^among ecological variables
Sulfur and nitrogen oxides
concentrations in air
Sulfur and nitrogen oxides
from power plants and cars
Acidify of rain and snow
Forest
productivity
Acidity of lakes and
streams
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Ecological Condition as an Environmental Result
-------
t p l - .
ferns Drtffi "Report on tjne Environment ;£tJ03'
standing ecological condition. Monitoring the concentrations
of pollutants at various points in the flow can contribute to
understanding the effectiveness of pollution control pro-
grams. The success of a sulfur reduction program, however,
can be assessed only by tracking whether lower sulfur emis-
sions actually lessen sulfur concentrations in air, water, soil,
fish, and forests.
Using this type of integrated approach, EPA and its partners
were able to confirm that, following emissions reductions
required by regulations under the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, acid rain decreased by 40 percent across broad
areas of the northeastern and upper midwestern U.S. in the
1990s.47 The decrease in acid rain itself was accompanied by
significant reductions in the number of ecosystems affected
by acid deposition.48 Moreover, continuing regional lake and
stream sampling has shown that in the Northeast, Upper
Midwest, and Appalachians, one-quarter to one-third of lakes
and streams previously affected by acid rain are no longer
acidic (although they are still sensitive to changes in acid
deposition).49
Just as important as measuring multiple variables is the choice
of what to measure. In the case of sulfur in the ecosystem,
measurements of emissions and conditions such as acidity of
soil or water are not enough. Those measures do not provide
any knowledge of the outcomes—the growth of trees or the
health offish. These biotic components are critical pieces in
understanding the ecological condition of the system.
One approach that addresses the need to measure critical
multiple variables is the index of biotic integrity (IBI), which
has been applied with fish, bottom-dwelling invertebrates, and
diatoms.30 Just as the consumer price index combines the
price of many consumer goods, the IBI combines measure-
ments of a number of biological attributes, called "metrics,"
that reflect the ecological condition of a place, including bio-
logical diversity; relative abundance of indicator groups of
organisms, such as predators, highly tolerant species, or non-
native species; the health of individual organisms; and ecolog-
ical relationships such as food web structure.51
In a demonstration project in mid-Atlantic streams, EPA
applied a fish IBI along with measurements of several promi-
nent stressors. In a statistical sample of streams representing
90,OG'0 total stream miles, IBI was used to evaluate the bio-
logical differences between minimally altered reference
streams in the region and streams with varied levels and types
of stressors. The study revealed that sought-after sport fish
declined in more turbid streams and in streams with increased
streamside agriculture.52 In addition, acidification lowered the
number of minnow, bottom-dwelling, and sensitive species but
raised the number of individuals belonging to non-native
species. Regionally, the results indicated that 27 percent of
the streams were in "good condition" relative to the reference
streams that represented the best current conditions in the
region (specifically, the IBIs of "good" streams ranked within
the top 25 percent of reference stream IBIs), 38 percent
were in "fair condition" (their IBIs ranked with the other 75
percent of reference streams), and 14 percent were in "poor
condition" (below the lowest 1 percent of reference stream
IBIs) (Exhibit 5-11 ).53
A macroinvertebrate IBI was also applied in the mid-Atlantic
streams demonstration project. Stream conditions were clas-
sified in much the same way as with the fish IBI. Based on the
macroinvertebrate IBI, 17 percent of the streams were in
"good condition" (within the top 25 percent of reference
stream IBIs), 57 percent were in "fair condition" (within the
lower 75 percent of reference stream IBIs), and 26 percent
were in poor condition (within the lowest 1 percent of refer- '•
ence stream IBIs) (Exhibit 5-11 ).54
These results are applicable regionwide, providing decision-
makers with a clearer picture of the ecological condition in
the region's streams, a catalog of specific biological responses
associated with that condition, and insight about the effects
of specific stressors on condition. Collectively, this knowledge
Chapter 5 - "ecological Condition
Ecological Condition as an Environmental Result
-------
^
£*=•
fe=-
^
txhibit 5-11: Fish ana AAacroinvertebrafce Indices of fiiotic Integrity
„"•>-','*' j
B Macromvertebrate Index
Fish Index
_Note No fish caught does not indicate poor condition Some streams naturally do
not have fish
Source McCoonick FH, et al. Development of an Index ofBiotic Integrity for the Mid
Atlantic, Highlands, Region. 2001
^1™
Source- Klemtn D J, et al Development and Evaluation of a
Macromvertebrate Biohc Integrity Index (MB1I) for Regionally Assessing
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams 2003
tells policymakers which stressors need to be managed to'
protect or restore ecological condition.
In sum, using ecological condition as an outcome of environ-
mental protection efforts will require monitoring strategies
that take.into account both of the following:
• The stressors—factors," activities, or variables-^—that create.
or contribute to changes in ecological attributes (e.g.,
changes in biotic condition or ecological, processes;
changes in habitat pattern and extent;'.physical, chemical,
and hydrologic changes; and changes in natural disturbance
regimes).
The actual outcomes of EPA's efforts to control these fac-
tors and actions (e.g., wetland protection, pollution reduc-
tion or prevention, registration of pesticides, proper waste
disposal, public information)—that is, whether EPA's efforts
maintain or improve ecological condition.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Ecological Condition as an Environmental Result
-------
EPAs Draft! Report on the Environment 2003
Challenges in Developing tcoiogica
Condition Indicators
Americans recognize the value of consistent and unbi-
ased surveys of indicators focused on the state of the
/ \economy as elements in maintaining a strong econo-
my. Such surveys develop and track numbers on poverty, agri-
cultural productivity, consumer prices, housing starts, and a
host of business parameters. Each of these indicators is
backed by a process for collecting and reporting the informa-
tion and a sound rationale for its use as one indicator of eco-
nomic condition.
Although not everyone understands the exact calculations or
data sources, almost everyone seems to pay close attention
to the indicators' ups and downs.
No comparable system exists to measure the ecological state
of the nation. As a result, adequate data for nationwide
trends exist for only a few indicators of ecological condition
(shown by the solid circles in Exhibit 5-12). Other indicators
(open circles) do have some data, but the data have only
been collected once or for limited geographic regions. The
clear message is that most of the data needed to track eco-
logical condition have only begun to be collected, and only
for limited parts of the nation thus far. This situation will
improve over the next few years, but most of the gaps in
Exhibit 5-12 are likely to remain for some time to come,
because of several major challenges to developing adequate
indicators of national ecological condition:
• 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 commit-
ments 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 appears insurmountable, but the
gaps in Exhibit 5-12 indicate that much remains to be done.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Challenges in Developing Ecological Condition Indicators
-------
I- T^i *
Exhibit 5-12: DistriDution^avaiiaDle ecological indicators across trie ecosystem types
Essential Ecological Attribute
Forests 1 1. 1' ' Farmlands
" " Urban/ :
SubSba'n
Coasts aiid
"
Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Types
Landscape Composition
oo
Landscape Pattern/Structure
a
itii
Ecosystems and Communities
ooooo
000
Species and Populations
Organism Condition
o
ological Processes
Energy Flow
oo
Material Flow
Adequate national data for assessing condition
Limited national data for assessing condition
s: Each,cji;cfe, wjietfief ofien or solid; represents an:indicator presented in the Technical Document, [
Nutrient Concentrations
Other Chemical Parameters
Trace Organic/Inorganic Chemicals
Physical Parameters
and Geomorohol
Surface and Ground Water Flows
Dynamic Structural Conditions
Sediment and Material Transport
C-.napter 5 - tcological C,ondition
Challenges in Developing Ecological Condition Indicators
-------
ErAs Draft Report on the |"Environment 2003
tndnotes
1 Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition, of the Report on the
Environment Technical Document accompanying this report is
organized differently, posing questions about the condition of
various ecosystem types and presenting a broader set of indi-
cators that report on essential ecological,attributes for each
ecosystem type.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 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.
3 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.
4 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Draft
Resource Planning and Assessment Tables. August 12, 2002.
(September 2003; http://vmw.ncrs.fs.fed.us/480T/FIADB/
rpajabler/Draft_RPA_2002_Forest_Resource_Tables.pdf).
5 The Heinz Center. State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring
the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States,
2002. op. cit.
6 Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous
United States 1986 to 1997, Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2000.
7 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.
8 Ibid.
9 The Heinz Center. State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring
the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States,
2002. op. cit.
10 Ibid-
11 Ibid.
12 Moore, K.A., D.J. Wilcox, and R.J. Orth. Analysis of the
abundance of submersed aquatic vegetation communities in
the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23 (1): 115-127 (2000).
13 Stein, B.A., L.S. Kutner, and J
-------
21 The Heinz Center. State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United
States, 2002. op. cit.
22
Ibid.
23 Ibid. Based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey,
Biological Resources Division.
24 U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Report on
Sustainable Forests - 2003. Final Draft. 2002. op. cit.
25 The Heinz Center, State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United
States, 2002. op.cit
26 Ibid. Based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey,
Biological Resources Division.
27 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.
28 National Research Council. Ecological Indicators for the
Nation, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000.
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for
Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition, 2002. op. cit.
30 The Heinz Center. State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United
States, 2002. op. cit.
31 Ibid
32 Vitousek, R, S. Hattenschwiller, L. Olander, and S. Allison.
Nitrogen and nature. Ambio 31: 97-101 (2002).
33 Rabalais, N.N., R. E. Turner, D. Justic, Q. Dortch, and W.J.
Wiseman, Jr. Characterization ofHypoxia: Topic I Report for the
Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA
Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. IS.
Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 1999.
34 U.S. Geological Survey. The Quality of our Nation's Waters:
Nutrients and Pesticides, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225.
Reston, VA: National Water Quality Assessment Program
1999.
35-The Heinz Center. State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United
States, 2002. op. cit.
36 Ibid.
37
38
39
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Summary Report 1997
National Resources Inventory (Revised December 2000), 2000.
op. cit.
41 The Heinz Center. State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United
States, 2002. op. cit.
42
Ibid.
43 U.S. Department;of Agriculture. National Report on
Sustainable Forests - 2003. Final Draft, 2002. op. cit.
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Endnotes
-------
44 The Heinz Center. State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United
States, 2002. op. cit.
«SIbid.
46 National Interagency Fire Center. Wildland Fire Statistics.
Boise, ID. 2003. (March 22, 2003;
http://www.nifc.gov/stats/wildlandfirestats.htm!).
47 Lynch, JA, V.C Bowersox, and J.W. Grimm. Changes in sul-
fate deposition in eastern USA following implementation of
phase I of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Atmospheric Environment 34 (11): 1665-1680 (2000).
48 Driscoll, CT., G.B. Lawrence, A. Bulger, T. Butler, C. Cronan,
E.C Eagar, K.F. Lambert, G.E. Likens, J. Stoddard, and K.C.
Weathers. Acidic deposition in the northeastern United
States: Sources, inputs, ecosystem effects and management
strategies. Bhscience 51:180-198 (2001).
49 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Acid Rain: Response
of Surface Water Chemistry to the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, EPA 620-R-02-004. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, January 2003.
50 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. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Planning and
Evaluation, 1997.
51 Karr, J.R. and E.W. Chu. Restoring Life in Running Waters:
Better Biological Monitoring, Washington, DC: Island Press,
1999.
52 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).
53 Ibid.
54 Klemrn, 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 Macro invertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) for regional-
ly assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams. Environmental
Management 31 (5): 656-669 (2003).
Chapter 5 - Ecological Condition
Endnotes
-------
-------
on the tnvironment 2003
v
As this report shows, the United States has made great
strides in meeting environmental challenges over the
/ Vpast three decades. Our air is cleaner, our drinking
water safer, our waste management practices more sound. The
health of the American people is generally improving. Yet
environmental and health challenges remain and there is much
we don't know about the condition of the environment and
human health. To better understand the status of and trends
in the environment, and to better manage environmental pro-
tection programs, we need better indicators of environmental
and human health.
Using an integrated system of local, regional, and national
indicators and monitoring would strengthen our approach to
protecting the environment. With such a system in place, we
could belter:
• Assess and document the current state of the environment
at the national level and measure our progress toward
reaching our environmental goals.
• Understand the relationships between stressors on the
environment and their ultimate effects on ecological condi-
tion and human health.
• Focus our environmental protection resources on areas of
greatest concern.
• Communicate with the American people about what is hap-
pening, why, and how best to safeguard human health and
the environment.
With this picture in mind, this final chapter explores the key
challenges in developing better indicators, and the next steps
that EPA proposes to take with its partners to address these,
challenges.
K/—I- II
ey v_jhall
enges
Developing a useful set of environmental indicators is a
daunting task. EPA has identified some of the major issues
that require careful consideration as a system of indicators is
developed and implemented.
Addressing Data Needs to Support Better Indicators.
Because of a lack of national indicators, we cannot provide
complete answers to many of the questions posed in this
report. (Similarly, 44 percent of the indicators in the Heinz
Center's The State of the Nation's Ecosystems could not be
reported nationally.1) In addition, many "national" data sets
do not cover the entire country, but only a subset, such as
the coastal U.S., major watersheds, or the Pacific1 Northwest.
Further, for many indicators, data are not available for more
than one time period, limiting our ability to discern a trend in
environmental condition or human health. This draft report
begins to identify where additional data are needed to sup-
port national indicators, but a thorough review is needed to
identify data needs and to set priorities.
Improving Data Collection and Analysis. Improving how we
collect and analyze data remains a significant challenge. Many
government agencies and other groups gather similar envi-
ronmental data to satisfy various program objectives and
goals. Yet, differences—and, in some cases, inadequacies—
in approaches to data collection and analysis often limit the
broader use of these data. For example, states gather compre-
hensive data on water quality, but differences in monitoring
approaches limit our ability to provide a picture of the water
qualiiy at the national level. Developing and applying stan- ,
dard data collection and analysis approaches are critical to
ensuring comparability of data, and to enabling greater use of
the extensive environmental and health data already being
collected. .
C_napter 6 - Working logetner For tlnvironmental Results
-------
EPAs Draft Report on the Environment 2003
Reaching Agreement on an Integrated Set of Indicators.
National indicators provide a picture of the overall condition
of our nation's environment and health, and inform national
environmental policy. But regional and local indicators are
also needed to guide regional and local policy while answer-
ing the questions Americans have about the conditions in
their backyard that affect them most: Is my drinking water
safe? Dpes the air in my community meet health standards?
National, regional, and local indicators all serve important
roles in informing the public and assisting governments and
others in protecting our environment and human health. A
major challenge before us is reaching agreement on an inte-
grated core set of national, regional, and local indicators and
putting them into practice.
Making Indicators More Understandable and Usable.
Indicators can be powerful tools, but only if they clearly com-
municate environmental conditions to decision-makers and
the public. For example, many Americans are familiar with the
color-coded alerts associated with the Air Quality Index and
adjust their activity accordingly when "code red" days occur.
Because of their technical nature, however, indicators often
can be difficult to understand. An important challenge, there-
fore, is developing more indices that clearly communicate
environmental conditions and trends. Further, for an indicator
or index to be useful for decision-makers, thresholds or crite-
ria distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable conditions
are needed. Such thresholds or criteria currently do not exist
for many indicators, and need to be identified.
Understanding Cause and Effect. Effective public policies
and programs to protect the health and environment require
knowing the causes of the problems they seek to correct. In
some cases, current science supports causal linkages between
a specific exposure and known effects on human health or
ecological condition—for example, the link between exposure
to environmental tobacco smoke and an increased risk of
developing lung cancer. But the link between specific environ-
mental pollutants and the effect on human health and eco-
logical condition is complex and often difficult to describe.
Understanding and quantifying causality—that is, sorting out
the role of the environment and the role of other factors and
their interactions—remains a significant scientific challenge.
Tartnerships for Better Environmental Indicators
Addressing the challenges described above is a task far
greater than EPA can undertake alone. Success requires a sus-
tained and coordinated commitment from many partners:
other federal agencies; state, tribal, and local governments;
the research community; nongovernmental organizations; and
industry. It will also require collaborative analysis and replica-
tion of many of the indicator projects under way nationwide,
and around regional resources of great environmental impor-
tance. (For more information about such projects, see
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/).
Such cooperative efforts are already in progress. As men-
tioned, many of the indicators included in this draft report
were developed by other federal, state, regional, local, and
tribal governments and the nonprofit sector. Additionally, in
December 2002, the White House Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) launched a new effort to enhance coordination
among federal agencies and to develop policy guidance on
the future development of environmental and sustainable
development indicators. The CEQ working group will:
• Develop agreement around a set of national-level environ-
mental indicators that can be linked to regional and local
conditions.
• Explore opportunities for collaboration among and between
federal agencies, state, regional, and local agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and private-sector groups to
improve the validity, reliability, consistency, and coverage of
the data used for indicators.
• Consider how statistical reporting and data collection
should be organized within the federal government, recog-
nizing the data needs of agencies' programs and statutory
authorities.
The goal of this effort is to have interlocking sets of environ-
mental and human health indicators that can inform decisions
at the local, state, regional, and national levels.
Chapter 6 - Working Together for Environmental Results
-------
Ef As Draft "Report on the Environment 20O3
Next Steps
EPA is committed to being an active partner in this national
effort. Within EPA, the next step is to develop—in concert
with the CEQ indicators working group—a long-term strategy
for environmental indicators that builds on this draft report.
Key components of that strategy will be based on ideas gen-
erated by discussions with EPA's partners and the general
public. Through such discussions, we intend to collaborate
With other government agencies to reach agreement on an
integrated set of national, regional, and local indicators and
how best to put them into practice in planning and managing
programs and in communicating environmental and health
outcomes to the nation.
Your participation and feedback, therefore, is a vital compo-
nent of the success of the Environmental Indicators Initiative.
Please visit our web site at http://www.epa.gov/indicators/,
to learn more about the Environmental Indicators Initiative
activities and to provide your input. Together, we are working
toward a results-based management system that will ensure
cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land for genera-
tions of Americans to come.
End note
1 The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the
Environment The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring
Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States, New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press, September 2002.
Chapter 6 - Working Together for Environmental Results
-------
s,^ «» - iw
-S
ummary o
f
rsr:
HBHS
-------
Cleaner Air - Summary of Questions and Indicators
— rTTT" r "" ' ff. ,,„: r ,, . , , - i I -'IT-! • ' •• • . ••: r ••' >n •• • r if r '! ' • > - ' • ••«;•''" !' '< t! \ '[ ! "• f •' ' ' • ' ' 1 !' i' * T ' ' If 'ft ":"
•" !; ' " ;'!; 'i- '' : i Outdoor A r Quality ' ' ' : ^ •} |,;:j ; J ' ,. 1 ;. .Li i M
i . '(•• : • • 1,1 ill I i : • i li 'I! ; ;.i .1 1 . ill ' -i 1 . , 1 I 1 H1 1 ,1 . rf , : .,,...: .. . :.i, . . ; i: : , i i, 1 .If 1 ,1, 1 1 ill; . i. ',,•-;,..-!.. '..1 1: :i:l •;, ll.i. JJl. ;l U:.:.l-|
Question
What Is the quality of outdoor air in the United States?
What tonlttbulei to outdoor air pollution?
Whit human health effects are associated with outdoor air
position?
What Mobgt^j! effects Ate associated with outdoor air
pollution?
Indicator Name
Number and percentage of days that Metropolitan Statistical Areas have Air
Quality Index (AQ1) values greater than 100
Number of people living in areas with air quality levels above the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone (8-hour) and Particulate Matter (PM2,s)
Ambient concentrations of ozone, 8-hour
Ambient concentrations of particulate matter (PM2.s)
Visibility
Deposition: wet suifate and wet nitrogen , „
Ambient concentrations of selected air toxics
Emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic
compounds
Lead emissions "
Air toxics emissions
Emissions (utility): sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
No indicator identified. Also see Human Health Chapter.
No indicator identified. Also see Ecological; Condition Chapter.
Technical Document Reference
1.1.1
1.1.1.3
1.1 .1.b
1.1 .1.b
1.1 .1.C
1.2.1
1.1 .l.d
1 .1 .2.3
1.1.2.3 ' , ..
1 .1 .2.b
1 .2.2
1.1.3
1 .1 .4 &. 1 .2.3
Wtut 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
Wlut contributes to indoor air pollution?
No indicator identified
1.3.2
What human health effects are associated with indoor air
pollution?
Wlut is happening to tlte Earth's ozone layer?
No indicator identified
Ozone levels over North America
1.3.3
1 .4.1
What is causing changes to the oione layer?
Worldwide and U.S. production of ozone-depleting substances
1.4.2
What human health ami ecological effects are associated
with stratospheric ozone depiction?
No indicator identified
1.4.3 & 1.4.4
Appendix A - Summary of Questions and Indicators
sA'sm
Cleaner Air
-------
Turer Water - Summary of Questions and Indicators
j . . j Waters and Watersheds i ]
Question
What is the condition of waters and watersheds in the
United States?
What is the condition of coastal waters?
What are the extent and condition of wetlands?
What are stressors on waters and watersheds?
What ecological effects are associated with impaired waters?
Indicator Name
No indicator identified
Water clarity in coastal waters
Dissolved oxygen in coastal waters
Wetland extent and change
Sources of wetland change/loss
Altered fresh water ecosystems
Percent urban land cover in riparian areas
Agricultural land in riparian areas
Changing stream flows
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
Total phosphorus in coastal waters
Phosphorus in large rivers
Atmospheric deposition of mercury
Chemical contaminants in streams
Sediment contamination of inland waters
Sediment contamination of coastal waters
Pesticides in farmland streams, and ground water
Toxic releases to water of mercury, dioxin, lead, PCBs, and PBTs
Benthic Community Index (coastal waters). Also see Ecological Condition Chapter.
Technical Document
Reference
2.2.1
2.2.3
2.2.3
2.2.2
2.2.2
2.2.1
2.2.4.a
2.2.4.a
2.2.4.a
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
2.2.5
I Drinking Wfter ; j
What is the quality of drinking water?
What are sources of drinking water contamination?
What human health effects are associated with drinking con-
taminated water?
Population served by community water systems that meet all health-based standards
No indicator identified
No indicator identified. Also see Human Health Chapter.
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
• Recreation in and on the Water j
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
contaminated waters?
Number of beach days that beaches are closed or under advisory
No indicator identified. Also see Ecological Condition Chapter.
No indicator identified. Also see Human Health Chapter.
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
i Consumption of Fish jand Shellfish '* . ' . j
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 con-
taminated 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 indicator identified
No indicator identified
2.5.1
2.5.1
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
Appendix A - Jummary of Questions and Indicators
Purer Water
m&Sm
mmmm
-------
ZHE
Better Protected Land - jummary or (.Questions and Indicators
i . I ;• : ;: '! ' •: !' ' - ' ' ' V '[ l"l > '"f ' ! <\ J'j. | M ];l|
: : ' Land Use i : -I >•: : | - \ H i . '. !i , J. • : . .i 1. 1 - .III i 1 II
Question *
What h the extent of developed lands?
What is the extent of farmlands?
What Is the extent of grasslands and shrublands?
What Is the extent of forest lands?
What hunun health effects are associated with land use?
What eeoto^cal effects are associated with land use?
Indicator Name
Extent of developed lands
Extent of urban and suburban lands
Extent of agricultural land uses
Extent of grasslands and shrublands
Extent of forest area, ownership, and management
No indicator identified
No indicator identified. Also see Ecological Condition Chapter.
Technical Document Reference
3.1.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
I" : ' " " ••!••: i'i | ' ;•••;; [ : ": ;; • ; ' 1 ' • • t ' : t 11 i I r : : ' 1 : |i- lit • 1 : p ' : : [
Chemicals in the Landscape i !'
; .: .1 . i . . 1 : ,..; 1 . ; I ;:.. .. i ii
-------
Human Health - Summary of Questions and Indicators
1 i Health Status of the United States i
Question
What are the trends and indicators for health and disease in
the United States?
What are the trends for children's environmental health
issues?
Indicator Name
Life expectancy
Cancer incidence
Cancer mortality
Cardiovascular disease mortality
Cardiovascular disease prevalence
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality
Asthma mortality
Asthma prevalence
Cholera prevalence
Cryptosporidiosis prevalence '
£. co// O1S7:H7 prevalence
Hepatitis A prevalence
Salmonellosis prevalence
Typhoid Fever prevalence
Shigellosis 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
Technical Document Reference
4.3.1
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
j Environmental Pollution and Disease |
What is the role of the environment in disease?
Blood lead level
Cardiovascular disease mortality
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality
Cholera prevalence
Typhoid fever prevalence
H^^MI^^^HB^^^^BM^H
4.4.3
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.3
| • Measuring Exposure to Environmental Pollution | |
How can exposure data advance understanding of the role of
the environment in disease?
Blood lead level
Blood mercury level
Blood cotinine level
Urine organophosphate level to indicate pesticides
4.4.3
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.6
Appendix A - Summary of Questions and Indicators
Human Health
mmmm
-------
| I "li'ill l!"i'liilli"d'"!!l'iliJiill!iiiiUi:'!!l!i 1 Bill UlbuBniilinifiU'! l«Li:illll.i«l.llliiliiillflii|ii«i|ii.llilii|iill!illililU liiiih
Ecological Condition - Summary of Questions and Indicators
!!liiili;!!s '• r . , j|:« :, *.!•' '••!•."!,''.• <"<;;< :»<::.... '• '-ii^a^iii'Sii.ir'-Jkv «i: t,:^ >f 1 .>•• : '•••>. ;•,'.>! : i '"U"H; '••:::' ill " .<• -'i-1' i1 < t1 .fiij: 1
;-* ::!!":;: : :: ; ':•": '!",;!; t ! ' i! ;• • !':; ::.! U ?: ^.- 'I :{ • • ; .' : ' Nationa Eco pgical Cprid tieni;^ J:.;:;[« : • iiiili ternm W& Sfi il?i .^•;itv,?dfe ;t ••; .; ;.;,; E; , i; l.f.di
—! -k"f"! !'"1:i: '••) rj'-f1' ; •! ; • l"'1 f'1"' :!'": ':' ::! !' f ' ' • '•!': t';"fif ; -']"'•"'• !!.:f;|!fj»n «| it-f.) ••iffiKtxK'tf&W.SySl&K k&t ilfel! 'f;!'! fcl!:'-;,?::*'' *': '.I1'".: 3'xV- rfH:!}* 1
Question
Wlut Is the Kotogkal condition of the United States?
landscape Condition
Biotie Condition
Cbcmkjl and Pliysial Characteristics
Etolojkjl Processes
Hydrology and Geomwphology
Natural Disturbance Regimes
Indicator Name
Extent of ecosystem/land cover types (forests, farmlands, urban/suburban,
grasslands/shrublands, fresh waters, coasts and oceans)
At-risk native species
Benthic Community Index
Populations trends of invasive and native non-invasive bird species
Tree condition
Nitrate levels in streams by ecosystems
Terrestrial Plant Growth Index
Movement of nitrogen
Changing stream flows
Soil erosion
Forest disturbances: fire, insects, and disease
Technical Document Reference
5.8
3.J .1 , 3.1 .2, 3.13, 3.1.4,
5.6, 5.7
S.8
5.7
5.4
5.2
2.2.4.b
5.8
5.8
2.2.4.a
5.2, 5.3
Appendix A - Summary of Questions and Indicators
Ecological Condition
SS3S8I
-------
•KB*
-------
^^ 1 1 :.: "i:' Til • "L • If *" " «'. •• i ' !•:": ir-i'' •;». 'fill1 • : !• 1 i 1" ftf ••" E f''-; V '.ipi !k.» '•; *•;. ';•"„: i," •' I * ii SV ii |. ,.:*! .4|i' iii- i
Types of Waste
Type
Description
Municipal Solid Waste
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Radioactive Waste
Extraction Wastes
Industrial Non-Hazardous
Waste
Household Hazardous Waste
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is the waste discarded by households, hotels/motels, and com-
mercial, institutional, and industrial sources. MSW typically consists of everyday items such as
product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appli-
ances, paint, and batteries. It does not include waste water. In 2000, 232 million tons of MSW
were generated.1
The term "RCRA hazardous waste" applies to certain types of hazardous wastes that appear on
EPA's regulatory listing (RCRA) or that exhibit specific characteristics of ignitabil.ty, corros.ve-
ness, reactivity, or excessive toxicity. More than 40 million tons of RCRA hazardous waste were
generated in 1999.2
Radioactive waste is the garbage, refuse, sludge, and other discarded material, including solid,
liquid semi-solid, or contained gaseous material that must be managed for its rad.oact.ve con-
tent 3 The technical names for the types of waste that are considered "radioactive waste for
this report are high-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, low-level waste, m.xed low-
level waste, and contaminated media (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 5 billion tons
of mining wastes were generated in 1988.4
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 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 1988.5 '
Most household products that contain corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive ingredients are
considered household hazardous waste. Examples include most paints, stains, varnishes, sol-
vents 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 dis-
posed 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 100 pounds annually.6
Appendix fi - Types of Waste and Contaminated Lands
mmmm
me"g»
•mm
-------
Type
Types of Waste
Description
Agricultural Waste
Construction and
Demolition Waste
Medical Waste
Oil and Gas Waste
Sludge
Agricultural solid waste is waste 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
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 pro-
duction 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.'! 8 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 demoli-
tion 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 avail-
able.
Oil and gas production wastes are the drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associ-
ated with the exploration, development, and production of crude oil or natural gas that are con-
ditionally 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.
Appendix 8 - Types of Waste and Contaminated Lands
mmmm
-mmmm
-------
Types of Contaminated Lands
Type
Description
itiperfund National
'riorities List Sites
ICRA Corrective Action
Sites
.caking Underground
Storage Tanks
Accidental Spill Sites
Land contaminated with
radioactive and other
hazardous materials
Brownfields
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 National Priorities
jst (NPL). As of October 2002, there were 1 ,498 sites on the NPL9
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 environ-
ment10 Some RCRA Corrective Action sites are also identified by the Superfund Program as
sites.
Many petroleum and hazardous substances are stored in underground storage tanks (USTs).
EPA regulates many categories of UST systems, including those at gas stations, convenience
stores and bus depots. USTs that have failed due to faulty materials, installation, operating pro-
cedures, 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 con-
fined area such as a basement. LUSTs are the most common source of groundwater contamina-
tion, and petroleum is the most common groundwater contaminant.11- 12 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). The number of national USTs within each area
of the U.S. has not fluctuated significantly between 1996-2001 . As of the fall of 2002,
427,307 UST releases (LUSTs) were confirmed.13
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.
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.14
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse of which may be compli-
cated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contami-
nate.15 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.16 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.17
Appendix 8 - Types of Waste and Contaminated Land'
nans
r'tfora
•fa-aa
-------
Type
Some Military Bases
Waste management sites
that were poorly designed
or poorly managed
Illegal dumping sites
Abandoned mine lands
lypes of Contaminated Lands
Description
Some (exact number or percentage unknown) military bases are contaminated as a result of a
variety of activities. A national assessment of land contaminated at military bases has not been
conducted. However, under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) laws, closed military
bases undergo site investigation processes to determine extent of possible contamination and
the need for s.te 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.18
Prior to the 1970s, untreated waste was typically placed in open pits dr 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 con-
struction waste, abandoned automobiles, appliances, household waste, and medical waste raises
concerns for safety, property values, and quality of life. People tend to dump illegally because
legal dumping costs money and/or is inconvenient. 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 rang-
ing 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 pri-
vate organizations have made estimates over the years about the total number of abandoned
and inactive mmes 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.19
Appendix 6 - Types of Waste and Contaminated Lands
mmmm
-------
Appendix 8 - Endnotes
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 2000 Facts and Figures, EPA S30-S-02-001.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, June 2002.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Biennial RCRA
Hazardous Waste Report, EPA S30-R-01-009. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, June 2001.
J U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Radioactive Waste
Management Order 435.1. July, 1999.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Report to Congress, Solid
Waste Disposal in the United States, Volumes /-//, EPA 530-SW-88-
011 (B). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, October 1988.
slbld
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Household hazardous waste. October 29,
2002. (February 25, 2003;
http://wwWiepa.gw/epaosYfer/non-hvf/muncpl/hhvf.htm).
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, fact Sheet: Notice of Data
Availability Concerning Proposed National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,
EPA 821-F-01-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, November 200T.
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Animal
feeding operations. 2002. (June 2002;
hUp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home,cfm?program_id=*7).
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Emergency
Response Program. National Priorities List Site Totals by Status and
Milestone. February 6, 2003. (October 2002;
hUp://epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/npltotal.htm).
ro U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Corrective action background. October 8,
2002. (October 15, 2002;
http://vfwvf.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/backgnd.htmffS).
11 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.
12 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.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. End-of-year activity report memorandum to
UST regional division directors. December 23, 2002. (February 25,
2003; http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/eoy02memo.pdf).
14 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-0563. January
2001.
15 U.S. Congress. Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act, Public Law 107-118 (H.R. 2869). Washington, DC:
January, 2002.
16 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.
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Brownfields assessment demonstration pilots.
October 17, 2002. (May 2002;
http://www. epa.gov/brownfields/jlocat. Mm).
18 U.S. Department of Defense. Fiscal Year 2001 Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress.
2001. (November 2002;
http;//63.88.245.60/derparcJyOl /derp/indexTen. htm).
19 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://\i
-------
-------
•IBiIlJj
AQl: Air Quality Index
BASE: Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation
BEACH: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Program
CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CO: carbon monoxide
COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
CRP: Conservation Reserve Program
CWA: Clean Water Act
CWS: community water system
DDT: dichlorodiphenyl trichlorethane
EMAP: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
ETS: environmental tobacco smoke
GIFMP: Great Lakes Rsh Monitoring Program
IBI: index of biotic integrity
IQ: intelligence quotient
LUST: leaking underground storage tank
MBSS: Maryland Biological Stream Survey
MSW: municipal solid waste
NAWQA: National Water Quality Assessment Program
NCFAP: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
NE1: National Emissions Inventory
NLCD: National Land Cover Dataset
2: nitrogen dioxide
*: nitrogen oxides
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPL: National Priorities List
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRI: National Resources Inventory
PBTs: persistent bioaccumulative toxics
PCBs: polychlorinated biphenyls
PDP: Pesticides Data Program
POPs: persistent organic pollutants
PM2.5: particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micro-
meters in diameter
PM10: particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers
in diameter
POPs: piersistent organic pollutants
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SAB: EFA Science Advisory Board
SAV: submerged aquatic vegetation
SO2: sulfur dioxide
TESS: Toxic Exposure Surveillance System
TRI: Toxics Release Inventory
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey •
UST: underground storage tank
UV: ultraviolet radiation
VOCs: volatile organic compounds
WBDGi: waterborne disease outbreak
WMPC: waste minimization priority chemicals
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations
at«it
102-
;-.«as«s
-------
dix U -
ppen
(glossary of lerms
-------
A complete glossary reference list can be found in EPA's Report on
the Environment Technical Document, Appendix E.
A
acid deposition: A complex chemical and atmospheric phe-
nomenon 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 partic-
ulate matter.
advisory: A nonregulatory document that communicates risk
information to those who may have to make risk management
decisions.
aerosol: 1. Small droplets or particles suspended in the
atmosphere, typically containing sulfur. They are emitted nat-
urally (e.g., in volcanic eruptions) and as a result of human
activities such as burning fossil fuels. 2. The pressurized gas
used to propel substances out of a container.
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 feed-
lot and paddock runoff) from livestock, dairy, and other ani-
mal-related agricultural and farming practices.
stituents, with or without photoactivation. Exclusive of pollen,
fog, and dust, which are of natural origin, about 100 contami-
nants have been identified. Air pollutants are often grouped
in categories for ease in classification; some of he categories
are: solids, sulfur compounds, volatile organic chemicals, par-
ticulate matter, nitrogen compounds, oxygen compounds,
halogen compounds, radioactive compound, and odors.
air pollution: The presence of contaminants or pollutant
substances in the air that interfere with human health or wel-
fare or produce other harmful environmental effects.
air qualify criteria: The levels of pollution and lengths of
exposure above which harmful health and welfare effects may
occur.
air quality standards: The level of pollutants prescribed by
regulations that are not to be exceeded during a given time in
a defined area.
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 num-
ber of industries.
algal blooms: Sudden spurts of algal growth, which can
degrade water quality and indicate potentially hazardous
changes in local water chemistry.
air pollutant: Any substance in air that could, in high enough
concentration, harm man, other animals, vegetation, or mate-
rial. Pollutants may include almost any natural or artificial
composition of matter capable of being airborne. It may be in
the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or a combi-
nation 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 pri-
mary pollutants, or by reaction with normal atmospheric con-
ambient air: Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere;
open air, surrounding air.
ambient air quality standards: See criteria pollutants and
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
anthropogenic: Originating from humans, not naturally
occurring.
Appendix D - Glossary of Terms
S? "S'^
-------
aquatic ecosystems: Salt water or fresh water ecosystems,
includes rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and coral
reefs.
'••&*$&?ISM! I
benthic organisms: The worms, clams, crustaceans, and
other organisms that live at the bottom of the estuaries and
the sea.
aquifer: An underground geological formation, or group of
formations, containing water; source of ground water for wells
and springs.
arsenic: A silvery, nonmetallic element that occurs naturally in
rocks, 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 indus-
trial arsenic in the U.S. is used as a wood preservative, but
arsenic is also used in paints, dyes, metals, drugs, soaps, and
semiconductors. Agricultural applications (used in rodent poi-
sons and some herbicides), mining, and smelting also con-
tribute to arsenic releases in the environment. It is a known
human carcinogen.
asbestos: Naturally occurring strong, flexible fibers that can
be separated into thin threads and woven. These fibers resist
heat and 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.
assemblage: The association of interacting populations of
organisms in a selected habitat.
fi
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.
benthos: In fresh water and marine ecosystems, organisms
attached to, resting on, or burrowed into bottom sediments.
bioaccumulation: A process whereby chemicals (e.g., DDTs,
PCBs) are retained by plants and animals and increase in con-
centration over time. Uptake can occur through feeding or
direct absorption from water or sediments.
biodiversity: The variety and variability among living organ-
isms 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.
biomass: All of the living material in a given area; often refers
to vegetation.
biomonitoring: The assessment of human exposure to chem-
icals by measuring the chemicals or their metabolites (break-
down products) in human tissues or fluids such as blood or
urine. Blood and urine levels reflect the amount of the chemi-
cal in the environment that actually gets into the body.
biotic: Refers to living organisms.
biotic condition: The state of living things.
biotic integrity: The ability to support and maintain bal-
anced, integrated functionality in the natural habitat of a
given region.
body burden: The amount of various contaminants retained
in a person's tissues.
Appendix D - (ulossary or lerms
Ffvi
-------
brownfield: Real property, the expansion, redevelopment or
reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or poten-
tial presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contami-
nant
C
cadmium: A metal found in natural deposits as ores contain-
ing other elements. The greatest use of cadmium is primarily
for metal plating and coating operations, including trans-
portation equipment, machinery and baking enamels, photog-
raphy, and television phosphors. It is also used in
nickelcadmium and solar batteries and in pigments.
carcinogen: An agent that causes cancer.
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.
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.
coastal amd ocean ecosystem: An ecosystem that consists
primarily of estuaries and ocean waters under a country's
jurisdiction. U.S. waters extend to the boundaries of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone, 200 miles from the U.S. coast.
coastal wetland: Ecosystem found along the 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 fluctuating
water levels and salinities to create tidal salt marshes, man-
grove swamps, and tidal fresh water wetlands, which form
beyond the upper edges of tidal salt marshes where the influ-
ence 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.
construction and demolition debris: Waste generated dur-
ing 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 radiologi-
cal substance or matter that has an adverse effect on air,
water, or soil.
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).
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."
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
Appendix D - (ulossary of Terms
-------
water in a concentration that makes the medium unfit for its
next intended use. Also applies to surfaces of objects, build-
ings, and various household and agricultural use products.
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 com-
mon air pollutants regulated by the EPA on the basis of stan-
dards set to protect public health or the environment. These
six criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
ly during combustion, chlorine bleaching of pulp and paper,
and some types of chemical manufacturing. Tests on laborato-
ry animals indicate that it is one of the more toxic anthro-
pogenic (manmade) compounds.
disinfection by-product: A compound formed by the reac-
tion of a disinfectant such as chlorine with organic material in
the water supply; a chemical byproduct of the disinfection
process.
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."
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 pasture-
land that is in a rotation with row or close-grown crops.
Noncultivated cropland includes permanent hayland and hor-
ticultural cropland.
D
designated uses: Those water 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.
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.
dioxin: A group of chemically similar compounds, known
chemically as dibenzo-p-dioxins, that are created inadvertent-
ecological indicators: Measurable characteristics related to
the structure, composition, or functioning of ecological sys-
tems; a measure, an index of measures, or a model that char-
acterizes an ecosystem or one of its critical components; 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.-
ecological processes: The metabolic functions of ecosys-
tems—energy flow, elemental cycling, and the production,
consumption, and decomposition of organic matter.
ecosystem: 1. The interacting system of a biological commu-
nity and its nonliving environmental surroundings. 2. A geo-
graphic area including all living organisms (people, plants,
animals, and microorganisms), their physical surroundings
(such as soil, water and air), and the natural cycles that sus-
tain them.
emissions standard: The maximum amount of air-polluting
discharge legally allowed from a single source, mobile or sta-
tionary.
/Appendix L) - Culossary of lerms
1BBKB
-------
endangered species: Animals, birds, fish, plants, or other liv-
ing organisms threatened with extinction by anthropogenic
(human-caused) or natural changes in their environment.
Requirements for declaring a species "endangered" are con-
tained in the Endangered Species Act.
enrichment: The addition of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phos-
phorus, 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.
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 ecolog-
ical condition and human health. Indicators show progress in
making the air cleaner and the water purer and in protecting
land.
environmental tobacco smoke (ETS): A mixure of smoke
exhaled by a smoker and the smoke from the burning end of a
smoker's cigarette, pipe, or cigar. Also known as secondhand
smoke.
body is choked by abundant plant life that result from higher
levels of nutritive compounds such as nitrogen and phospho-
rus. Human activities can accelerate the process.
extraction waste: Byproducts produced as a result of mining
practices.
farmlands: Include both croplands lands used for production
of annual and perennial crops and livestock and on the sur-
rounding landscape, which includes field borders and wind-
breaks, small woodlots, grassland or shrubland areas,
wetlands, farmsteads, small villages and other built-up areas,
and similcir areas within and adjacent to croplands.
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.
erosion: The wearing away of land surface by wind or water,
intensified by land-clearing practices related to farming, resi-
dential or industrial development, road building, or logging.
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.
eutrophic: Pertaining to a lake or other body of water char-
acterized 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
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).
forest land: Land that is at least 10 percent stocked by for-
est 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.
Appendix D - Glossary of Terms
3IO1
iHi
-------
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 emer-
gent wetlands (marshes), and open water ponds
• Riparian areas—the usually vegetated margins of streams
and rivers (although this term can also apply to lake mar-
gins).
G
hazardous waste: Byproducts of society that can pose a
substantial or potential threat to human health or the envi-
ronment when improperly managed. Hazardous waste pos-
sesses at least one of four characteristics: ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.
health outcomes: An outcome measured by the quality of
life, likelihood of disease, life expectancy and overall health of
individuals or communities.
heavy metals: Metallic elements with high atomic weights
(e.g., mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, lead); can dam-
age living things at low concentrations and tend to accumu-
late in the food chain.
herbicide: A form of pesticide used to control weeds that
limit or inhibit the growth of the desired crop.
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 hay-
lands fit well within the grassland/shrubland system; more
heavily managed ones fit well as part of the farmlands system.
groundlevel ozone: See ozone.
ground water: Subsurface water that occurs beneath the
water table in soils and geologic formations that are fully sat-
urated.
•H
habitat: The place where a population (e.g., human, animal,
plant, microorganism) lives and its surroundings, both living
and nonliving.
high-level radioactive waste: Highly radioactive material
produced as a byproduct of the reactions that occur inside
nuclear reactors. High-level waste takes one of two forms:
spent (used) reactor fuel; waste materials remaining after
spent fuel is reprocessed.
ho'usehold 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.
hydrologic cycle: Movement or exchange of water between
the atmosphere and earth.
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.
Appendix U - (ulossary of lerms
'm
mmmm
-------
I
K-L
-U-l
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.
incidence rate of disease: The number of new cases of a dis-
ease or condition in a given period of time in a specified pop-
ulation.
indoor air: The breathable air inside a habitable structure or
conveyance.
Indoor air pollution: Chemical, physical, or biological con-
taminants in indoor air.
industrial waste: Process waste associated with manufactur-
ing. This waste usually is not classified as either municipal
waste or hazardous waste by federal or state laws.
industrial non-hazardous waste: Process waste associated
with generation of electric power and manufacture of materi-
als 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.
invasive species: See normative species.
land cover: The ecological status and physical structure of
the vegetation on the land, surface.
land uses 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 prac-
tical 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 environ-
ment.
landscape: The traits, patterns, and structure of a specific
geographic area, including its biological composition, its
physical environment, and its anthropogenic or social pat-
terns. An area where interacting ecosystems are grouped and
repeated in similar form.
landscape condition: The extent, composition, and pattern •
of habitats in a landscape.
large urban 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.
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.
lead: A heavy metal used in many materials and products. It is
a natural element and does not break down in the environ-
Appendix D - Glossary of Terms
aata.ii
r«,/4«a»
-------
ment. When absorbed into the body, it can be highly toxic to
many organs and systems.
bon, which readily occurs in water, it forms more bioavailable
•organic mercury compounds (e.g., methylmercury).
levee: A natural or manmade earthen barrier along the edge
of a stream, lake, or river. Land alongside rivers can be pro-
tected from flooding by levees.
metabolites: Compounds that result from human digestion
(metabolism) of contaminants and that serve as a biomarkers
of exposure.
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 pop-
ulation 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 birth weight: Refers to children born weighing less than
2,500 grams (5.5 pounds).
low-level waste: Radioactive waste, including accelerator pro-
duced 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
media: Specific environments—air, water, soil—that are the
subject of regulatory concern and activities.
medical waste: Any solid waste generated during the diagno-
sis, treatment, or immunization of human beings or animals, in
research, production, or testing.
mercury: A metallic element that occurs in many forms and in
combination with other elements. When combined with car-
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.
mobile sources: Moving objects that release pollution from
combustion of fossil fuels, such as cars, trucks, buses, planes,
trains, lawn mowers, construction equipment, and snowmo-
biles. Some mobile sources, such as some construction equip-
ment or movable diesel generators, are called nonroad
sources, because they are usually operated off road.
morbidity: Sickness, illness, or disease that does not result in
death.
mortality: Death rate.
mortality rate: The proportion of the population who die of
a disease; 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 prod-
uct 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 estab-
lished by EPA under the Clean Air Act that apply to outdoor
air throughout the country. See criteria pollutants.
Appendix D - Glossary of Terms
mmmm
•rfias
tlM®
mmm*
-------
ErAs Draft Report on trie ErJvirorirrient 266^
nitrate: The primary chemical form of nitrogen in most
aquatic systems; occurs naturally; a plant nutrient and fertiliz-
er; can be harmful to humans and animals.
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.
nitrogen dioxide (NO2): The result of nitric oxide combin-
ing with oxygen in the atmosphere; major component of pho-
tochemical smog.
nitrogen oxides (NOx): The result of photochemical reac-
tions of nitric oxide in ambient air; major component of pho-
tochemical smog. Product of combustion from transportation
and stationary sources and a major contributor to the forma-
tion of ozone in the troposphere and to acid deposition.
non-community 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 non-
community water systems provide water in a place where peo-
ple do not remain for long periods of time (e.g., a gas station
or campground).
non-hazardous waste: See solid waste.
non-isolated 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 rain-
fall, 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 pollu-
tion include sediments, nutrients, pesticides, pathogens (bac-
teria and viruses), toxic chemicals and heavy metals that
runoff from agricultural land, urban development, and .roads.
nutrient: Any substance assimilated by living things that pro-
motes growth. The term is generally applied to nitrogen and
phosphorus, but is also applied to other essential and trace
elements,
nutrient enrichment: See eutmphication.
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.
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 clus-
ters.
organophosphate: Pesticides that contain phosphorus;
shortlived, but some can be toxic when first applied.
ozone: A very reactive form of oxygen that is a bluish irritat-
ing gas of pungent odor. It is formed naturally in the atmos-
phere 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 pho-
tochemical reactions when there are conditions of air pollu-
tants, brijght sunlight, and stagnant weather.
Appendix D - Glossary of Terms
._!•*«...
-------
^
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.
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 poten-
tially harmful radiation that reaches earth's surface.
ozone precursors: Chemicals that contribute to the forma-
tion of ozone.
particulate matter: Solid particles or liquid droplets sus-
pended or carried in the air (e.g., soot, dust, fumes, mist).
passive smoking: Exposure to tobacco smoke, or the chemi-
cals in tobacco smoke, without actually smoking. It usually
refers to a situation .where a nonsmoker inhales smoke emit-
ted into the environment by other people smoking. This
smoke is known as "environmental tobacco smoke" (ETS).
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 live-
stock.
pathogen: Microorganism (e.g., bacteria, viruses, or para-
sites) that can cause disease in humans, animals, and plants.
persistent organic pollutants: Chemicals that endure in the
environment and bioaccumulate as they move up trough the
food chain. They include organochlorine pesticides, polychlo-
rinated 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.
photosynthesis: The manufacture by plants of carbohydrates
and oxygen from carbon dioxide mediated by chlorophyll in
the presence of sunlight.
phytoplankton: That portion of the plankton community
composed of tiny plants (e.g., algae, diatoms).
PM2 5: Fine particles that are less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers in diameter.
PM10: Particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diam-
eter.
point source pollution: Effluent or discharges directly from a
pipe into a waterway (e.g., from many industries and sewage
treatment plants).
Appendix D - (Glossary or lerms
mmmm
iiii
mmmm
-------
Jill!!!, I "!*•!'!•!! li'-i'ii"*!!-
tsiatssssJ
pollutant: Generally, any substance introduced into the envi-
ronment that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource or
the health of humans, animals, or ecosystems.
pollution: Generally, the presence of a substance in the envi-
ronment that, because of its chemical composition or quanti-
ty, 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 and
other media.
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): A group of synthetic
chemicals that can exist as oily liquids and waxy solids. They
have been commercially used in electrical transformers and
capacitors, hydraulic equipment, paint elasticizers, plastics,
rubber products, pigments, dyes, and carbonless copy paper.
PCBs can produce toxic effects and are probable carcinogens.
pressure: See stressoK
prevalence of disease: That part of the total population
affected by a condition or disease.
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 (prin-
cipally solar energy) to fix atmospheric carbon dioxide.
R
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.
rangelarids: A National Resources Inventory land cover/use
category on which the climax or potential plant cover is com-
posed principally of native grasses, grasslike plants, fcirbs or
shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing, and introduced for-
age 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 tun-
dra are considered to be rangeland. Certain communities of
low forb<; and shrubs, such as mesquite, chaparral, mountain
shrub, and pinyon-juniper, are also included as rangeland.
rare and at-risk species: Rare species are those that are par-
ticularly vulnerable to both human-induced threats and natu-
ral 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 haz-
ardous wastes that appear on EPA's regulatory listing (RCRA)
or that exhibit specific characteristics of ignitability, corrosive-
ness, reactivity, or excessive toxicity.
radioactive waste: Garbage, refuse, sludge, and other dis-
carded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained
gaseous material that must be managed for its radioactive
content. Types of radioactive waste include high-level waste,
spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, low-level waste, mixed
(owlevel waste, and contaminated media.
remediation: Cleanup or other methods used to remove or
contain a toxic spill or hazardous materials from a contami-
nated site.
Appendix D - Glossary of T«
erms
-------
risk: The probability that a health problem, injury, or disease
will occur.
include sewage sludge, agricultural refuse, demolition wastes,
mining residues, and liquids and gases in containers.
risk factor: A characteristic (e.g., race, sex, age, obesity) or
variable (e.g., smoking, occupational exposure level) associat-
ed with increased probability of an adverse effect.
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 receiv-
ing waters.
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.
s
secondhand smoke: See environmental tobacco smoke.
sedimentation: The process of forming or depositing sedi-
ment; letting solids settle out of wastewater by gravity during
treatment.
/>
sludge: Solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated from a
municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater 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.
solid waste: Nonliquid, nonsoluble materials ranging from
municipal garbage to industrial wastes that contain complex
and sometimes hazardous substances. Solid wastes also
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 chain
reaction.
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.
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.
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV): Rooted vegetation
that grows under water in shallow zones where light pene-
trates.
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.
Superfund site: Any land in the U.S. that has been contami-
nated by hazardous waste and identified by EPA as a candi-
date for cleanup because it poses a risk to human health, the
environment, or both.
Appendix D - G
ossary of lerms
-------
ETTAS Draft Report on the Environment 2(i>03
surface water: Water in rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, reser-
voirs, estuaries, and wetlands (found at the surface, in con-
trast to ground water).
u
T
threatened and endangered species: Those species that
are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant por-
tion of their range or are likely to become endangered in the
future.
threshold: 1 .The lowest dose of a chemical at which a speci-
fied measurable effect is observed and below which it is not
observed. 2.The dose or exposure level below which a signifi-
cant adverse effect is not expected.
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.
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.
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, swal-
lowed, or absorbed through the skin.
troposphere: The layer of the atmosphere closest to the
earth's surface.
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 the earth from UV radiation reaching the sur-
face.
underground storage tanks: Tanks and their underground
piping that have at least 10 percent of their combined volume
underground.
urban arid 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 sur-
rounded by urban areas. Also included are tracts of less than
10 acres that do not meet the above definition but are com-
pletely surrounded by urban and builtup land.
urban arid suburban areas: Places where the land is primari-
ly 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 land-
scape. This definition does not include all developed lands,
for example, small residential zones, the area of rural inter-
state highways, farmsteads, and the like, which are developed
but are not sufficiently built-up to be considered urban or
suburban.
urbanization: The concentration of development in relatively
small areas (cities and suburbs). The U.S. Census Bureau
Appendix D - (ulossary of lerms
-------
tt!fts y/rart ixepopt on the tnviranmenj: 2Q03
defines "urban" as areas with densities of people greater than
1.5 people per acre.
vz
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.
volatile organic compounds: Chemicals, such as gasoline
and perchloroethylene (a dry cleaning solvent) that contain
carbon and vaporize readily.
water quality 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: The significant occurrence of
acute illness associated with drinking water from a public
water system or exposure encountered in recreational or
occupational settings as determined by appropriate local or
state agencies. (The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention defines an outbreak as two or more cases associ-
ated with drinking water as the route of exposure.)
waste minimization priority chemicals: A group of 30
chemicals—3 metals (lead, mercury, and cadmium) and 27
organic chemicals—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, irriga-
tion, fish production, or industrial processes.
watershed: An area of land from which all water that drains
from it flows to a single water body.
wetland ecosystems: Areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration suffi-
cient 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.
Appendix D - Culossary or lerms
-------
-------
y^ iFi laK
BBS*
-------
EPAs Draft Report on the Environment 2003
ieopl
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Backgrounder "Working for America's Coasts: An Introduction to the
National Ocean Service." January 2002. (February 25, 2003; http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/grounders/pdf/nos.pdfy.
Pastor, P.N., D.M. Makuc, C. Reuben, H. Xia, et al. Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans. Health, United States, 2002,
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2002. |
U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States 2001: The National Data Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau,
2001.
Water ft
esources
Dahl, T.E. Status and Trends of Wetlands of 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, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1990.
Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Great Likes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book,
Toronto, Onfc Government of Canada and Chicago, IL: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress, EPA-841 -R-00-001.
Washington, DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, June 2000.
U.S. Geological Survey. Strategic Directions for the U.S. Ceological Survey Ground-Water Resources Program, A Report to Congress,
Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, November 30, 1998.
E
nergy
and t
conomy
Marlowe, Howard. Assessing The Economic Benefits Of America's Coastal Regions. October 2000. (February 25, 2003;
hUp://oceanservke.noaa.gov/websites/retiredsites/natdia_pdf/13marlowe.pdf)
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. GDP and Other Major NIPA Series, 1929-2002:1. August 2002.
(February 25, 2003; http://\vww.bea.gov/bea/ARTICLES/2002/08August/0802GDP_&Other_Major_NIPAs..pdf).
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review 2001. December 2002.
(February 25, 2003; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/overview.html).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends, EPA-454-K-02-001.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 2002.
Appendix t - .Sources for tnvironmental Trotection in (Context
IfiMlB
mi a »
-------
raftj\epo|t on tne :'Environrtier|; 2003
LandU
se
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.
U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States 2001: The National Data Book, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau,
2001. .
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Draft Resource Planning and Assessment Tables. August 2002. (September
2003; http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801 /FIADB/rpa_tabler/Draft_RPA_2002_Forest_Resource_Tables.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, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Summary Report 1997 National Resources Inventory
(Revised, December 2000). Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University,
Statistical Laboratory. December 1999, revised December 2000. . __
Appendix t - jources for tnvironrnental "Protection in (Context
mmmm
-------
-------
-------
....™ , ,
;';:'=!" :,:,:::„:?:::,;:":„,::: :ii:;v:! f :;:;;!!£: I?!
------- |