TABLE OF CONTENTS
AGENDA
Accountability Breakout Session: Framework and Annual Cycle
 A Regional Environmental Strategic Plan (RESP) for U.S. EPA end the States of
 Region 4, May 1996
Summary of Region 5 Activities; Guide for Developing Environmental Goals,
Milestones, and Indicators
                                                              •<'-.«..
                                                                         1

                                                                         2
 Report from the Environmental Indicators Workgroup - !996 Indicators
 Report, May 1996 (Region IX)	;   ' "

 Environmental Goals and Indicators; Linkages Between Regional and State
 Activities and National Efforts, June 1996 (Background Paper)     "**

 Chesapeake Bay Program Case Study on Performance Measurement: July 1996
 Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States: EPA Office of
 Water, June 1996

 National Environmental Goals Project (OPPE)
	.	.
 Prospective Indicators for State Use in Performance Agreement: 8/2/95 -
 (SEGIP); Results of the Survey of Environmental Management Activities in
 State Environmental and Natural Resource Agencies (SEGIP), May 1996

 Environmental Indicators and Associated Data Sources Catalog, July 17,1
 Florida Center for Public Management
 Community-Level Indicators
                                           U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
                                                 Mail oodo agoi
11
12
13
14
15
Sustainable Development Indicators
                                          1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                                             Washington DC 20460
Environmental Information Acquisition Plan
Preliminary List of Attendees
Note Paper
                 P.O. BOX 4084, NEW WINDSOR, NY 12553
                                                                       TM
                                                          REPRODUCIBLE INDEXSYS1EM

-------

-------
            MANAGING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS
                     USING GOALS AND INDICATORS

                              September 17-19, 1996
                        Doubletree Hotel, Tysons Corner, VA

                       WORKSHOP AGENDA - (Preliminary)
QUESTION: What has to happen for EPA to successfully implement a management and policy
framework based on environmental results?

PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP: The purpose of this workshop is to:

       1) examine the policy issues associated with using environmental goals and indicators as
       management tools by learning about and discussing existing national, regional and state
       activities and some successful case studies; and

       2) develop recommendations for better coordinating these efforts, reducing barriers, and
       addressing the main issues associated with the Agency's use of goals, indicators and
       environmental information..

DESIRED OUTCOME: A list of issues and barriers to using goals and indicators and specific
recommendations to improve the implementation and integration of the Agency's management,
budgeting, and environmental information efforts, which will be presented to senior management.
DAY ONE                                                               Salon B

8:30-9:00    REGISTRATION

9:00-9:30    WELCOME, PURPOSE/EXPECTATIONS, AND INTRODUCTIONS
            Rob Wolcott, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, OPPE

9:30-10:00   KEYNOTE SPEAKER
            Senior Agency Official

10:00-10:30  VISION FOR THE NEW OFFICE OF PLANNING, BUDGET AND
            ACCOUNTABILITY
            Sallyanne Harper, Acting Chief Financial Officer

10:30-10:45  BREAK
                                                                        961196

-------
 10:45-12:00  HQ ACTIVITIES RELATED TO INDICATORS
            Moderator: Art Koines
            1) PBA (in greater depth): David Davis - GPRA; STRATEGIC PLANNING,
              PERFORMANCE PLANS; GOALS; ACCOUNTABILITY
            2) OPPE: NATIONAL GOALS PROJECT - Peter Truitt; STATE INDICATORS
            - Otto Gutenson; EIAP - Margaret Conomos; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
            - Tim Stuart
12:00-1:30
1:30-2:45
3:00-5:00
5:00-5:15

Evening
LUNCH (on your own)
REGIONAL PLANNING MEETING
                             (Private Dining Room, Horizons Restaurant)

HQ ACTIVITIES, CONTINUED
3) OROSLR: NEPPS/PPG - Michelle Hiller
4) OTHER HQ OFFICES: OW Elizabeth Fellows; OAR - Mike Hadrick; OSWER
- Helena King; OPPTS Tom Hooven
2::45-3:00    BREAK
REGIONAL AND STATE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO INDICATORS
Moderator: Jenine Tankoos
1) INTRODUCTION - Presentation of regional background paper, "Linkages
Between Regional and State Activities and National Efforts "
2) PANEL - Presentations by 2 states and 2 regions
      Gerard Bulanowski, Colorado Department of Health
      Leslie McGeorge, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
      Katrina Kipp, Region 1
      Jon Capacasa or Henry Brubaker, Region 3
3) INTRODUCTION TO DISCUSSION - Presentation of conclusions section of
regional background paper followed by discussion
REVIEW AGENDA FOR DAY TWO / WRAP-UP
REGIONAL PLANNING MEETING, CONTINUED
Jenine Tankoos

-------
DAY TWO                                                              Salon B

8:30-8:45    INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF DAY TWO AGENDA    Jenine Tankoos

8:45-10:15   CASE STUDIES: INDICATORS IN ACTION
            Moderator: Kent Mountford
             1) OVERVIEW - Kent Mountford (Chesapeake Bay Program)
            2) TAMPA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM - Holly Greening
            3) TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - Neil Carriker
            4) GREAT LAKES PROGRAM OFFICE - Paul Bertram

10:15-10:30  BREAK

10:30-11:45  ACCOUNTABILITY - Led by PBA Accountability Workgroup
            Gordon Milbourn, Alex Wolfe, Henry Brubaker                      Salon B

11:45-12:00  INTRODUCTION TO BREAKOUT SESSIONS                  Art Koines
            Instructions; review issues raised during panel discussions

12:00-1:00   LUNCH (on your own)

1:00-4:00    BREAKOUT SESSIONS
            Three facilitated breakout sessions. Each group will define the issue (problem
            statement or goal), identify key barriers, and develop recommendations to
            address the barriers and issues. AII sessions will also address,
            COORDINATION AND CONSISTENCY - How should it all fit together and
            how consistent should it be within HQ,- and between HQ and the regions/states?

             Breakout sessions include:

            • EIAP - Environmental Information Acquisition Plan, including discussion about
            the technical and financial limitations of indicators (e.g., monitoring, data
            management)                                            Boardroom 8

            • NEPPS - Use of indicators in Performance Partnership Agreements
                                                                   Boardroom 4

            • ROLES OF EPA REGIONS AND PARTNERS - How should regions, states,
            and other agencies work together?  How do we set joint goals and objectives?
            Stakeholder/public involvement? .                            Boardroom 7
4:00-4:15
4:15-5:00
REVIEW AGENDA FOR DAY THREE / WRAP-UP
(Caucus, Facilitators & Recorders)

POSTER SESSION
                                                                  Salon B - Rear

-------
DAY THREE                                                         Salon B

9:00-9:15    INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF DAY THREE AGENDA      Art Koines

9:15-10:15   REPORTS FROM BREAKOUT SESSIONS           Art Koines: Moderator
           Report to Panel of Senior Managers

10:15-10:30  BREAK

10:30-11:15  HOW IT SHOULD ALL FIT TOGETHER         Derry Allen, Michelle Hiller,
           Facilitated Discussion and Agreement    Margaret Conomos, and David Davis

11:15-11:45  RESPONSE TO WORKSHOP FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
           Coordination and Consistency
           Panel of Senior Managers: A Regional Office Representative, Michelle Hiller,
           David Davis and Margaret Conomos

11:45-12:00  NEXT STEPS AND ACTION ITEMS                         Art Koines

12:00       ADJOURN

-------
                            ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS WORKSHOP
                                       SEPTEMBER 17-19,1996
                              ACCOUNTABILITYBREAKOUT SESSION
                   Introduction. Background on the Accountability Work Group and its efforts to date

                   FY 1997 accountability pilots

                         - Purposes
                         — 49 total pilots involving all AAs, Regions, OGC and OIG
                         — Accountability reporting
                         - Activities for 1998 and 1999

                   Preliminary accountability framework design

                         ~ Key concepts
                         — Agencywide input
                         ~ Customer / stakeholder input
                         - Detailed overview of framework
                         — Detailed overview of accountability cycle

                   Relationship of PBAA work to other ongoing Agency work, such as core measures
                   development

                   Challenging issues / major problems

                         — Establishing goals: long-term and annual performance
                         ~ Establishing performance indicators / measures
                         — Time lag in environmental measurement
                         « Cost of environmental measurement
                         -- Coordinating measurement from various sources: EPA, other Federal agencies,
                         States, others
                         — Defining outcomes as part of the goal-setting and measurement processes
if
i

-------
,    5  .  •>    '"       ,               ?
',"•'" "J,1.    '"••,-.  f J ,   s- ',> "*!,
'  ,.'   ••••'•'••, S-s ;       TX    ••

-------

-------

-------
 A Regional Environmental
   Strategic Plan (RESP)
for U.S. EPA and the States of
         Region 4
           May 1996

-------
               Table of Contents
Section A	Overview of the Region

Section B	Guiding Principles

Section C....	Vision Statement

Section D	Strategy Statement

Section E	Issues, Goals, and Strategies
               EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                          May 1996

-------
 A Regional Environmental
   Strategic Plan (RESP)
for U.S. EPA and the States of
         Region 4

-------
Section A
Overview of the
   Region

-------
                           The Context for the

Regional  Environmental  Strategic  Plan

                                    Overview
Region 4 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its member states are presently in
the initial stages of developing a multi-level planning process to guide themselves in dealing with the
important environmental issues facing the Region over the next  twenty years.   Specifically,  the
collective intent of this process  is to accomplish a number of objectives to include:
  identifying the strategic issues with which the
  EPA  and the states  of  the Region must
  collectively deal,
  preparing long-term goals and strategies for
  jointly dealing with those issues,
  organizing the actions of the EPA  and the
  states to carry out those strategies,
  creating a relationship of genuine partnership
  between the EPA and the states,
  changing the focus for guiding environmental
  policy and decision making from a focus on
program  performance  to  one  of  environ-
mental performance.
beginning to change the culture of both EPA
and the states to accommodate these new
orientations, and
changing the historic relationship  between the
EPA program  offices (and their tradition of
detailed   prescriptive  guidance) and  the
regional  offices to provide a  more flexible,
environmentally-based   relationship   that
provides  for  regional  differences  and for
regional participation in funding decisions.
The RESP reflects the collective efforts of Region 4 of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the eight state that comprise the Region. Over the past 10 months the management and staff of
Region 4 EPA and the management and staff of the environmental agencies of Alabama, Florida.
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,  North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee have been working
to develop this cornerstone planning product.

The RESP is a strategic plan and as such it is qualitatively different than other management tools
developed by EPA and the states. Most previous planning activities were for relatively short periods
(1 or 2 years) and focused on prescriptive program activities and achievements. This RESP is very
different in a number of important ways. The RESP:
• takes a long-term perspective, projecting environmental results, strategies and activities
 over a 20 year period.  The RESP recognizes that significant environmental improvement is often
 the product  of concerted  activities over long periods of time.  The  RESP attempts to focus
 attention, energy and resources on the achievement of important environmental results measured
 by dynamic quantitative goals.  The focus on the long-tern achievement provides the direction for
 our short-term activities.
• focuses on issue* that reflect the most important environmental concerns the Region will
 face over the next 20 years. The major issues of the RESP reflect the most important priorities
 for the environmental future of the Region.  As such the issues are quire different from most EPA-
 state planning efforts. Those differences are:
       the issues are more broadly defined,
       they reflect environmental outcomes more clearly,
       they include environmental concerns not presently a part of the statutory missions of
              either EPA or the states,
       they include environmental concerns that are the responsibility of other agencies - federal,
              state, or local.
 The intent of the RESP is not to plan for current  problems with current programs and current
 resources, but to identify all important environmental problems requiring treatment in the Region
                       EPA-Stata Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                       May 1996
                                         A-1

-------
                      over the next 20 years and begin the process of setting priorities, assigning responsibilities and
                      allocating resources so that those problems can be successfully addressed.  Only by taking such
                      a broad  view can we coordinate alt of the relevant  stakeholders, allocate  and coordinate
                      resources, integrate strategies and  acquire  the authorities we  need in order to achieve  the
                      environmental result we want to achieve.
                    •  is a cooperative and collaborative process. Most previous planning processes involving EPA
                      and the states were vehicles for specifying requirements for states in carrying out EPA program
                      direction.  The RESP is  a very different process.  Instead of  mandates and  requirements,  the
                      RESP presents a set of negotiated and consensual goals and strategies that EPA Region  4 and
                      the states will work toward. The RESP creates a framework for cooperative action in which EPA
                      and the states can voluntarily work together to address the major environmental issues facing the
                      region. The RESP is not a mandate: it should serve as the foundation for other planning activities
                      and as a springboard for discussion of future joint EPA-state activities.
                    •  has a regional focus.  Most other EPA-state planning activities have been restricted to EPA's
                      relationship  with  individual states.   The  RESP  is  regional in scope  and  focuses  on  the
                      environmental results that can be obtained for the region through the joint, collaborative efforts of
                      EPA and the eight states.

                    Finally, like all effective planning,  the RESP must be an evolving; dynamic process. This present
                    RESP is an  beginning effort and,  as such; reflects some limitations that can be expanded in  future
                    years. By design, this present RESP was developed by the  EPA and the eight state environmental
                    agencies corresponding to EPA in the Region.  Since the relationship between EPA and the states is
                    the fundamental element of the plan, the decision was made  to focus the initial plan on the roles and
                    relationships of these two participants.  Missing from the planning process is the participation of
                    other state and  federal environmental agencies, the  private sector, the environmental community
                    and the public.  The development of a fully effective  process  must certainly include  these
                    stakeholders. Future versions of the process will include their participation.
                                                        Next Steps
                   The RESP is just the first step in a process to ensure an effective planning process for the region.
                   Three additional planning activities are being considered to extend this process:

                   * Development of a Regional Strategic Implementation Plan that — at the regional level — takes
                     the direction provided by the strategies of the RESP and develops a series of specific actions that
                     EPA and the states will take to carry out those strategies and make them work. This step would
                     involve the creation of working groups or other coordination mechanisms to implement the RESP
                     strategies.

                   • Development of individually negotiated EPA-State Environmental Plans. EPA and each of the
                     states should use the same goal-driven, indicator-supported, and issue-based planning  process
                     used in the RESP to develop a joint plan that is supported both by regional goals and indicators as
                     well as state goals and indicators.  Each state plan should reflect the particular character and
                     distribution of environmental concerns for that state by identifying the key issues and developing a
                     strategic approach to implementing and measuring environmental performance. This plan would
                     then serve as the basis for a negotiation in the mix of  resources received from EPA.  State
                     performance would  be judged, not  by strictly program criteria,  but also  by  environmental
                     performance.

                   * Development of an Internal Operating Plan that outlines how  EPA will internally organize and
                     manage itself to accommodate these fundamental changes in operation.
                                            EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                                             May 1996
                                                               A-2
M

-------
                                  Policy Context

The context for this plan is in part being set by the desire of EPA Region 4 and its states to develop
a stronger and more effective means of cooperating and collaborating their activities to achieve the
best oossible environmental protection for the southeastern United States. Also heavily influencing
the development of this process is a number of trends that reflect national thinking about the
direction of environmental policy and management.
Environmental policy in this country is presently undergoing a rather dynamic re-evaluation.  At the
national level, there are concerns about foss of focus and clear sense of direction in regard to
attempted achievements in dealing with environmental issues, and that the management tools being
used need increased emphasis and evaluation.  In general, there are several major, fundamental
concerns driving this re-evaluation:


Focus on the Environment

The historic roles of EPA and the states  have centered around the requirements of large national
programs and the reporting of specific program results.  Most of the new environmental initiatives
are changing  (his focus to direct attention  to the achievement of environmental results.  To promote
this emphasis on results-oriented measurement, EPA is sponsoring a variety of activities designed
to increase its own use of measurement tools to drive its own decisional process, and it is working
dynamically with states to improve their capabilities of developing environmental indicator systems
as integral parts of their environmental management systems.

The current emphasis on environmental indicator systems is some of the clearest evidence  of this
trend.  EPA investment of funds in state indicator technical assistance programs through the Slate
Environmental Goals and Indicators Project and through the pivotal role assigned to indicators in the
Performance  Partnership Agreements demonstrates this trend.

Further, EPA's funding and technical support of comparative risk assessment studies for  states
demonstrate  a commitment  to identifying  and prioritizing environmental issues  as the core of
environmental planning processes.  These projects provide the technical information required to
restructure policy — and, ultimately, redefine programs and re-allocate resources — based on a
comprehensive assessment of relative risk of all significant environmental issues.

At the national level the Governmental Performance and Results Act will require all federal agencies,
including EPA, to set goals  regarding their missions and to measure their  achievement.  Both
environmental and program performance indicators will be used.


Direction

The current structure of environmental policy in this country is primarily the result of the passage of a
variety of pieces of federal legislation that have set direction for federal and state governments in
dealing with specific  media or problem-based issues.   However, the maturing of the regulatory
programs  and the emergence of a variety of  new environmental problems have  raised issues
concerning whether   the  overall  direction  of  environmental  policy  requires  an  integrated
reassessment to ensure a clear concept of sought-for achievements in the environment. The EPA
is responding to this concern through its implementation of the National Goals Project, an ambitious
attempt to open national discussion on the development of a series  of unified, integrated national
environmental goals that can serve as the foundation for the  structuring of  national environmental
policy.


Partnerships

Achievement  of  environmental progress in the coming decades will  require the resources of
governmental organizations, the private sector, and the public to be fully and  effectively used and
                         EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                         May 1996
                                           A-3

-------
coordinated.   A series  of  new partnerships and working arrangements will be required.  The
proposed Performance Partnership Agreements that structure a new relationship between EPA and
the states are one form of a new partnership. Project XL is another strong new initiative that would
offer new working relationships with individual facilities, economic sectors, community groups, and
governmental agencies.


                            Environmental  Context

In 1986 EPA began a process to reexamine its program and budgetary priorities by comprehensively
assessing ait  important environmental issues within the context of the relative risk each poses. This
effort resulted in the publication  of Unfinished  Business:   A Comparative  Assessment  of
Environmental Problems,  an attempt to assess the environmental risks that still remained after
twenty years.  A principal finding of this document was that EPA's program  structure reflected the
public's perception of  risk more closely than  it did a scientifically based assessment of risk. The
process used to conduct this analysis — comparative risk assessment — was then utilized  to
conduct studies in each of its ten  regional offices. Region 4 completed one of the more thorough
comparative risk studies. This study established the policy and scientific infrastructure required to
accomplish quality strategic planning.

These activities represent a collective effort on the part of states and the federal government  to
fundamentally reexamine environmental  policy  in this country.  By using this approach they are
recognizing that our present process of dealing with environmental needs is incomplete and requires
a comprehensive reassessment.  By emphasizing a scientific assessment of risk,  a new and more
objective basis for designing and implementing environmental policy and programs is established

By definition, comparative risk  assessment  is a  planning, management, and public policy toot
specifically designed to  assist environmental agencies  at the  national, state, regional, and local
levels. The comparative risk assessment process:     • '
• identifies the  critical  environmental issues
  with which an organization must deal,
* rigorously assembles  and  consolidates the
  best  available  scientific  information  con-
  cerning that issue,
• applies a process that considers this scientific
  information in combination with the judgments
  of the best available  technical  experts to
  produce the  best possible assessment of the
  risk that each issue poses to the  ecology,
  human health, and quality of life,
• establishes, based on these assessments of
  risk,  relative  rankings of  the  issues with
  regard to their separate risk impacts on the
  ecology, human health, and quality of life, and
• confirms these  rankings with the interested
  and general public  by conducting  a partici-
  pative public process  that culminates  in the
  development of  a single integrated ranking o-
  environmental risks.
The results of a comparative risk assessment project can be used in at least two major ways.  First,
the rankings can  become the basis for  educating  the  public with regard to where  the real
environmental risks lie. Comparative risk assessment — by focusing on scientific evidence — has
the potential to correct public perception of the relative risks of important environmental issues.
Second,  it provides  an  excellent  policy tool  that elected officials and  environmental agency
managers can use to restructure the priorities of environmental programs.  By reviewing existing
programs that may deal with issues of relatively low risk and by identifying issues of relatively high
risk that are receiving little or no attention, programs and budgets can be restructured to meet our
environmental needs.

Comparative risk assessment  is not a perfect policy tool for environmental issues, but it does
provide some substantial improvements over our current practices.  Some of the more important
improvements include:
                         EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                         May 1996
                                           A-4

-------
« the current unsystematic means of defining
  environmental policy is replaced by a means
 * of making decisions that is based on the best
  available science and the judgments  of the
  best available scientists,
. the current practice of dealing with environ-
  mental problems one at a time is replaced by
  a process that comprehensively assesses all
                environ-mental  issues,  allowing  decisions
                about environmental programs  and budgets
                to be made in a much more complete context,
                comparative   risk   assessment   actively
                involves the public  in  defining  the environ-
                mental  risks that will  drive environmental
                policy, a level of access not commonly found
                in the current system.
Region 4 EPA has conducted a comparative risk assessment specifically for the eight states in the
Region.  Twenty-five environmental problem areas were listed relative to one  another based on
residual risk, the risk that remains after the consideration of present controls and regulations.  For
each  environmental problem area, staff estimated human  health,  ecological, and welfare risks.
Human health risk considered cancer and/or non-cancer health effects; ecological risk examined the
seventy and extent of adverse effects on species, communities, and ecosystem structure and
function;  and welfare risk estimated the dollar value of impacts including direct  health care costs,
lost resource values, and diminished quality of life. The twenty-five issues are:
   •Accidental Chemical
      Releases
   •Acid Deposition
   •Airborne Lead
   •Degradation of Terrestrial
      Habitats
   •Degradation of Wetlands
   •Drinking Water
   •Global Warming
   •Ground Water
•Hazardous Waste
•Indoor Air Pollution
•Industrial Solid Waste Sites
•Industrial Wastewater
•Municipal Solid Waste Sites
•Municipal Wastewater
•Nonpoint Source Pollution
•Odor/Noise Pollution
•Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
•Particulate Matter
•Pesticides
•Radiation (Other Than
   Radon)
•Radon
•Storage Tanks
•Stratospheric Ozone
   Depletion
•Superfund Sites
•Toxic Air Pollutants
In addition to the regional comparative risk assessment, several states have undertaken their own
state comparative risk projects.  Three states have developed issue lists for their projects: Florida.
Kentucky  and Mississippi.  The overall  approach  of  each project was to determine which
environmental problems posed the greatest risk to each state. The initial step in each project was to
develop issue lists of the areas of greatest environmental concern. Each project looked at the risks
to human health, the ecology, and  quality of life associated  with  environmental problem areas
specific to their state.  Each project has produced a list of environmental  issue areas that were
determined to be of greatest concern.  The issues developed  for each, state are listed  on  the
following page. (These lists do not imply any order of significance or priority.)
                         SPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                         May 1996
                                           A-5

-------
       Florida
Alteration and Loss of
Ecosystems
Water Quantity
Surface Water Quality
Patterns of Development
Use and Management of
Public Lands
Soil Quality
Ground Water Quality
Transportation and
Storage of Hazardous
Materials
Ambient Air Quality
Degradation of Indoor Air
Environment
Loss of Scenic, Historic
and Cultural Resources
Environmentally
Contaminated Food

     Kentucky
Protecting/Maintaining
Biodiversity
Water Quality/Quantity
    Groundwater
    Surface Water
    Drinking Water
    Waste
    Land Quality
    Air Quality
    Food Safety
    Indoor Environmental
    Quality and Safety

        Mississippi
•   Industrial Wastewater
    Discharges to Oceans,
    Lakes and Rivers
•   Municipal Wastewater
    Discharges to Oceans.
    Lakes and Rivers
•   Aggregated Public and
    Private Drinking Water
    Supplies
•   Non-point Discharges to
    Oceans, Lakes and
    Rivers
•   Physical Degradation of
    Water and Wetland
    Habitats
•   Aggregated Groundwater
    Contamination
•   Storage Tanks
•   RCRA Hazardous Waste
•   Hazardous Waste Sites -
    Abandoned Superfund
    Sites
     Municipal Solid Waste
     Sites
     Industrial Solid Waste
     Sites
     Accidental Releases to
     the Environment
     Pesticides
     Sulfur Oxides and
     Nitrogen Oxides
     (Including Acidic
     Deposition)
     Ozone and Carbon
     Monoxide
     Lead (From ail Sources)
     Particulate Matter
     Hazardous/Toxic Air
     Pollutants
     Indoor Pollutants Other
     Than Radon
     Physical Degradation of
     Terrestrial
     Ecosystems/Habitats
     Odor and Noise Pollution
     Stratospheric Ozone
     Pollution
     C02 and Global Warming
     Water Quantity
                                  Human Health

Problem  areas with high rankings in the area of human health risk are primarily driven by large
populations of individuals exposed to chemical and physical contaminants.  For example, Jndoor Air
Pollution  is  ranked very high in  terms of  human health  risk because the exposed population
potentially equals residents of the entire southeastern U.S. Similarly, radon in homes, pesticides on
foodstuffs, workplace/home exposure, lead in drinking water, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides
and nitrogen oxides, other toxic air pollutants, and ultraviolet radiation also place large segments of
the population at risk.  For example, ozone non-attainment areas generally correspond to densely
populated counties and, as a result,  large numbers of people Region-wide are at risk.  The ranked
human health issues are:

                          Ranking of Human Health Issues
                                     (High to Low)
   Indoor Air Pollution
   Radon
  Acid Depositor
  Drinking Water
  Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
  Pesticides
  Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
  Toxic Air Pollutants
   Airborne Lead
   Ground Water
   Hazardous Waste
   industrial Solid waste Sites
   industrial Wastewater
   Municipal Solid Waste Sites
   Municipal Wastewater
   Nonpoint Source Pollution
   Partculaw Matter
   SuoerfurM Sites	
Accidental Chemical Releases
Odor/Noise Pollution
Storage Tanks
Radiation (Other Than Radon)
Degradation or Terrestrial
Habitats-
Degradation of Wetlands*"
Global Watming"
                                                                  'Not Ranked
                        EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                        May 1996
                                          A-6

-------
                                       Ecological
Similar to the findings of the human health risk assessment, many of the problem areas that pose
"very high" nsk to ecological systems are linked to population growth or to areas with high population
density.   Past  development has  physically degraded  formerly  healthy terrestrial  and  wetland
ecosystems; urban areas continue as the source of pollutants that stress natural ecosystems. The
environmental damage that results from Acid Deposition, Industrial and Municipal Wastewater. and
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide are all derived from activities of our industrialized society.  Some  of the
same  processes that contnbute to acid rain and tropospheric ozone formation  (such as electric
power generation and automobile transportation)  also contribute to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
and climate change, which were also ranked very high in the ecological risk assessment.

Ecological risk, moreover, is not limited to densely populated areas. Much nonpoint source pollution
is associated with agribusiness and is only  indirectly related to population density or rapid population
growth. The primary  factor remains the same — a large population using limited natural resources.
The ranked ecological issues are:

                             Ranking of Ecological Issues
                                       (High to Low)
   Degradation of Terrestrial
   Habitats
   Degradation of Wetlands
   Global Warming
   Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
   Acid Deposition
   Industrial Wastewater
   Municipal Wastewater
   Nonpoint Source Pollution
   Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
   Pesticides
Accidental Chemical Releases
Ground Water
Hazardous Waste
Industrial Solid Waste Sites
Municipal Solid Waste Sites
Storage Tanks
Superfund Sites
Toxic Air Pollutants
Airborne Lead
Paniculate Matter
Radiation (Other Than Radon)
Drinking Water"
Indoor Air Pollution"
Odor/Noise Pollution*
Radon"
  "Not Ranked
  'Not ranked within &QX
                                         Welfare
in terms of welfare risk, the problem areas identified as producing the highest economic damage
typically result because of their high health and ecological impacts.  Reductions  in ecological and
human health risks will produce concurrent reductions in welfare risk.   The ranked welfare issues
are:

                               Ranking of Welfare Issues
                                       (High to Low)
  Acid Deposition
  Drinking Water
  Global Warming
  Nonpoint Source Polutton
  Ozone/Cartoon Monoxide
  Paniculate Matter
  Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Accidental Chemical Releases
Degradation of Terrestrial Habitat
Ground Water
Indoor Air Pollution
Industrial Solid Waste
Industrial Wastewater
Municipal Solid Waste
Municipal Wastewater
Odor/Noise Pollution
Pesticides
Radon
Toxic Air Pollutants
Airborne Lead
Degradation of Wetlands
Hazardous Waste
Storage Tanks
Superfund Sites
Radiation (Other Than Radon)
                          EPA-Stat9 Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                           May 1996
                                             A-7

-------
                 Demographic and Economic Context

 The distribution and character of these environmental issues within the Region reflect demographic
 and economic trends and conditions.   Analysis shows that densely populated areas correspond
 closely to areas where existing health and ecological risks are high.  These are likely caused by
 unwise patterns of land use. water use,  or waste disposal — all of which must be addressed.
 Existing  risks require  clean-up/restoration type  activities  to  correct old problems  and source
 reduction efforts to eliminate or reduce continuing sources of pollution.

 Because the Region's population is showing significant growth, only offering a snapshot of present
 risks to the public and the environment — without a discussion of future trends — is simply planning
 for the past.  Demographic analysis connected to risk evaluations will allow the Region to reduce
 present and future environmental hsk and plan for sustainable development.  For example, air
 quality problems  have a  strong correlation  with  areas of high population  density and rapidly
 increasing population growth.  EPA's air emission trends data for 1988 show NAAQS exceedances
 for ozone in virtually every urban area with a population density greater than 500 persons per square
 mile. In the four coastal states, virtually all of these nonattainment areas are surrounded by counties
 with high growth rates.  Thus, an effective strategy must focus on both existing and future activities.
 In rapid growth areas, regional strategies should focus on preventing new nonattainment areas.

 Future environmental degradation will occur in those geographic locations which are environmentally
 sensitive and where  development  pressures are the greatest.   The degradation of natural
 environments in the Southeast may be especially  severe in coming years due to predicted rapid
 population growth. Region 4 is an especially diverse biological area and many of the natural areas
 are environmentally sensitive.   Areas of critical concern in the Southeast include ground water
 recharge areas, tidal wetlands, the Gulf  of Mexico drainage basin,  the Everglades, and many
fragmented terrestrial ecosystems.  Fragmented habitats are especially prone to localized species
 extinctions  due to development pressure.  Since prevention activities  are  especially useful  in
 averting likely future problems, this plan relies heavily on them to manage areas where significant
 growth is likely.

Taken together, the eight states of the southeastern United States are growing faster than any other
 Region of the country, except the desert southwest. The Region 4 states are projected to grow to a
 population of 52 million  by 2000, reflecting a growth of 34 percent from 1980 levels, while the nation
 as a whole is projected to grow only 18 percent.  With a high rate of growth will come increasing
 pressure on the natural environment.

                       EPA Regional Population Comparison

Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Regions
Region 6
Region?
Regions
Regions
Region 10
U.S. Totals
1980
(Thousands)
12.348
24,923
24,610
38,880
45.758
25,050
11.785
6.952
28.151
8,111
226.546
1990
(Thousands)
13,208
25.720
25.916
44,708
46.384
28.218
11.950
7,605
35,735
9.266
248,710
1980-1990
% Chang*
6.9
3.2
5.3
15.0
1.4
12.6
1.6
9.4
26.9
14.2
9.8
% Of 1990
U.S. Population
5.3
10.3
10.4
18.0
18.6
11.3
4.8
3.1
14.4
3.7

2000 {Protected)
(Thousands)
14,002
26.348
28.000
52.241
47,123
29,137
12.095
7,733
41.367
9,701
267,747
                        EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                         May 1996
                                           A-8

-------
There are dramatic differences in the rate and nature of growth among the eight states of Region 4.
Thus, the population patterns and changes in  Region 4 can best be discussed by bisecting the
Region into two geographic areas which we have called: 1) Coastal states, comprising the states of
North Carolina.  South Carolina. Georgia, and Florida; Alabama, and Mississippi (although the latter
two states have short Gulf coastlines and 2) Inland states, composed of Kentucky and Tennessee.
The split dramatically documents where growth will likely occur in the Southeast.

                              Population  Growth Rate
                                                      -*• Region 4
                                                      -•-U.S.    i
                  1960-1970    1970-1980    1980-1990    1990-2000    2000-2010

                                  Source; U.S. Census Bureau

The patterns of growth, immigration, and land use differ in character between the Coastal and Inland
sub-regions, in agriculture, the Mississippi Valley is more intensely cultivated than anywhere else in
the Southeast and is subjected to a pesticide load that is among the highesj in the U.S. In the Inland
states, mining and  heavy manufacturing have been key components of the industrial base for over
one hundred years, building the Region's major metropolitan centers.' For example, more  chemical
emissions from the Industrial Toxics Project are released from Inland states than from Coastal
states.                              .  '

                                 Population Density
1960     1970      1980     1990     2000

           Source: U.S. Census Bureau
                                                                     2010
In contrast, much of the future pressure from population growth and development is likely to occur in
the Coastal states, in general, while the Coastal states have exceeded the rate of population growth
in the U.S. during the past two decades, the Inland States have lagged behind.
                         EPA-Stato Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                         May 1996
                                           A-9

-------
                                                                                                  II
 State 'sponsored population projections through the year 2000 show considerably higher growth in
 the Coastal states than in the Inland ones. For example, 33 counties in four (FL, QA, NC, SC) the
 Coastal states of have projected increases in population exceeding 100 percent between 1980 and
 2000, compared with none in the Inland states. Overall, between 1960 and 2000. these four Coastal
 states are projected to experience a 44 percent  increase in population, exceeding the  national
 average of 18 percent; the Inland states' projected population growth is 11 percent.
                                                              II
TRENDS IN POPULATION 1970 TO 2000, COASTAL STATES

Total population  growth in the Coastal states outpaced the national average by a considerable
margin in both of the reported periods (1970-1980 and 1980-1987), and this trend is projected to
continue through  the year 2000.  With this growth has come a steady increase in pressures on the
environment (for example, lack of suitable landfill sites in North Carolina and inadequate freshwater
supplies in Florida).
                        Percent Change In Population Density
                                              JD% Change 1970-1987
                                               O% Change 1970-2000!
                             Coastal State*
       N.CaMkii  S-Camra  TOO* U.S.  K*ncuc*y  TOTMNNM*

                             Inland States
In each ten-year period, the Coastal states in Region 4 rank in the top quartile of the country's
fastest growing states, with Florida consistently among the top five states, along with less populous
Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Net migration data for the Coastal states in Region
4 show that much of the  above growth in population is drawn from other states outside of the
Region, especially from the northeast and midwest.

                      Population of Coastal States (In thousands)



• 197O
D1980
D 1990
•2000



                           Georgia
N. Cmttw
                     S.Canttm
                        EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                        May 1996
                                         A-10

-------
                     Coastal States' Population, in thousands
I
State
Alaoama
Ronda
Georgia
Uississiopi
M. Carolina
S. Carolina
U.S. Total
1970
3,444
6.791
4568
2.217
5.084
2,591
203.302

1980
3.894
9.746
5.463
2,521
5.882
3.122
226.546
% Change
1970-80
13.1
43.5
19.1
13.7
15.7
20.5
11.4

1990
4.181
12.818
6.663
2.699
6,690
3,549
249,891
% Change
1980-90
7.4
31.5
22.0
7.1
13.7
13.7
10.3

2000
4,410
15.415
7,957
2,877
7,483
3,906
267,747
% Change
1990-2000
5.5
20.3
19.4
6.6
11.9
10.1
7.1
% Change
1970-2000
28.0
127.0
73.4
29.8
472
50.8
31.7
As indicated by the migration data, the four states with the largest stretches of coastline (PL, GA,
NC, SC) are growing by virtue of migration and not as a function of a particularly high birth rate or
low death  rate.  This  influx has created and will continue to create rapidly increasing immediate
pressures on the local environment (e.g., new houses, transportation corridors, etc.)-
               Percent of Coastal States' Population Change
                                Due To Migration
                Florida
Georgia
N.CaroUna
S. Carolina
Total US
         Net Total Migration — Coastal States (in thousands of people)
State
Ronda
Georgia
N. Carolina
S. Carolina
U.S. Total
1970-1980
Change
2,955
875
797
531
23.244
Migration
2.519
329
278
210
4,516
%
35.2
37.6
34.9
39.5
19.4
1980-1987
Chang*
2,277
759
531
303
16,854
| jljM^aijBai
Mtgraoon
2,007
424
275
121
4,884
%
88.1
55.9
51.8
39.9
29.0
When arrayed by county, a pattern emerges showing the differential growth by state.  By the year
2000, the most intense growth in the Region  is'projected to occur in the coastal counties of the
Carolinas, the northwestern counties surrounding Atlanta, and central and southern Florida.

                        EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                       May 1996
                                         A-11

-------
As a demographic measure, the change in population in the Coastal states lacks the dimension of
density, an important  factor  indicative of preexisting population pressure and related ecological
damage.  Cities were built at the  expense of native habitats and the  infrastructure to support
society's activities are in place.  Population  density increased by more than 25 percent in the
Coastal states from 1970 to 1987 and is projected to increase through the end of the century.
                        Coastal States1 Population Density
                            (Population Per Square Mile)
          Ftonoa    N. Carolina    Qaorgw    S.Canlin*    Manama    Mwaappi     Total US
                Population Density (Pop/sq. mile) - Coastal States

State
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
N. Carolina
S.Carolina
U.S. Total
1970
67.9
125.5
79.0
46.9
104.1
85.7
57.4
1980
76.7
180.0
94.1
53.4
120.4
103.4
64.0
1987
80.4
222.0
107.2
55.6
131.3
113.4
68.8

2000
86.9
284.7
137.1
60.9
153.2
129.4
75.6
% Change
1970-87
18.41
76.89
35.70
29.85
26.13
32.32
19.86
% Change
1970-2000
27.98
126.85
73.54
29.85
47.17
50.99
31.71
Population density change is best represented at the county level.  The areas of greatest increase in
total population do not always correspond with the areas with the highest population density. Some
Standard  Metropolitan Statistical Areas become stagnant with respect to population  density.
Comparing 1980 data to the projected 2000 levels  shows  that  density is increasing throughout
central Florida, in the counties surrounding Atlanta,  along coastal South Carolina,  and in  North
Carolina in the central Piedmont area and around the city of Charlotte. In general, the counties with
the greatest  sustained  growth between  1980 and  2000  (projected)  are those with moderate
population densities (between 50 and 500 persons per square mile). As noted before, air quality
problems  have a strong  correlation with areas of high population density and rapidly increasing
population growth.  Continued growth in these areas and in similar counties will more than likely
aggravate air quality problems and increase the probability of ground water and surface water quality
problems.
                         EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                         May 1996
                                           A-12

-------
TRENDS IN POPULATION 1970 TO 2000, INLAND STATES

In contrast to  population trends in the Coastal states in Region 4, the Inland states are projected to
grow at a pace at or below the national  average of 32 percent between 1970 and 2000, and
therefore are  not facing the same degree of environmental pressure resulting from the burgeoning
population and development. The  greatest growth in the inland states occurs  between 1970 and
1980, with only modest growth occurring in the following decade and projected to 2000.  In  the
penod 1990 to 2000. in fact, Kentucky is expected to suffer a net decrease in population, due in pan
to decreasing demand for two of Kentucky's most significant commodities, tobacco and high sulfur
coal.
          6.000^
          S.OOOK^
          4,000^'
          3.000,
          2,000
          1.0001
                         Changes in Inland States' Populations
                          Kentucky
Tennessee
                     Inland States' Population, in thousands

State
Kentucky
Tennessee
U.S. Total
1970
3.221
3.926
203.302
1980
3,661
4.591
226,546
% Change
1970-80
13.7
16.9
11.4

1990
3.745
4,972
249.891
% Change
1980-90
2.3
8.3
10.3

2000
3.733
5.266
267,747
% Change
1990-2000
•0.3
5.9
7.1
% Change
1970-2000
15.9
34.1
31.7
When the population changes are shown at the county level, significant differences emerge among
the two states. Kentucky shows population losses in a number of counties in every period whereas,
overall. Tennessee shows modest increases.  More than one third of the counties in the two Inland
states experienced no appreciable growth or lost population. Between  1988 and 2000 only a few
suburban counties, bordering metropolitan areas, are projected to increase as much as 25 percent.

Population density in the Inland states is expected to change relatively little through the year 2000.
Similar to the patterns apparent through the last decade and projected through 2000 in the Coastal
states, the counties experiencing growth are those with moderate population density, surrounding
urban centers.
                        EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                        May 1996
                                         A-13

-------
                         Inland States' Population Density
                           (Population Per Square Mile)
                    Kentucky
                                                             Total US
                Population Density (Pop/sq. mile) - Inland States

State
Kentucky
Tennessee
U.S. Total
1970
81.2
94.9
57.4
1980
92.3
111.6
64.0
1987
94.0
118.0
68.8
2000
94.1
128.0
75.6
% Change
1970-87
15.76
24.34
19.86
% Change
1970-2000
15.89
34.88
31.71
EMERGING TRENDS IN BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL PATTERNS

To structure a macro-level assessment of patterns of business activity in Region 4, businesses have
been broken into three broad categories: manufacturing (construction and manufacturing), services
{transportation,  communication,  public  utilities, finance,  insurance,  real  estate,  recreation,
entertainment, and professional and related services), and trade (wholesale and retail). Agriculture
will  be discussed  separately due to the difficulties associated with assessing seasonal  versus
permanent employment.

The pattern of  non-farm  employment in the Region varies from the  national average,  generally
balancing employment in manufacturing, services, and trade.

                Employment by Non-Farm Business Sector, 1985
                           Area
                         U.S. Total
                         Region 4
29,5%
33.5%
          Services
30.9%
35.5%
         Trade
27.7%
28.5%
Trend analysis is an important part of demographic analysis. The demographics of the southeastern
U.S. are changing quickly: rapid migration is occurring into Coastal states and into selected urban
areas throughout the eight states. The change in demographics has spurred changing patterns of
business activity and employment and, potentially, the nature of environmental pressures in  Region
4.   Increases in the service industry are notable. Preliminary data from the most recent census-
taking suggest that the trend continues through' 1990. If the trend continues, those counties showing
significant increases  in employment in service and trade sectors may preface a longer trend away
from manufacturing, a lessening of the environmental pressures imposed  by the manufacturing

                        EPA-Stata Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                       May 1996
                                         A-14

-------
industry, and a  corresponding  increase in pressure on  landfills and other solid waste disposal
facilities as plastic and paper waste is generated by service and trade industries.  The ability of EPA
to focus attention and action on pollution prevention can mitigate the aforementioned problems.

Agriculture and silviculture are major industries in the southeast: approximately ten percent  of the
farm acreage and fifteen percent of the total national gross receipts from agriculture are controlled
Sy the eight Region 4 states. Unlike non-farm business sectors, the potential environmental pressure
applied  by (and use in  agriculture is not meaningfully  indicated by  statistics  on employment.
Indicators of potential environmental pressure are available as data on total cropland  and use of
irrigation.
                             Land in Farms (thousands of acres)
            16.000 r:
         o
         (A
         •o

         i
         o
                  AIMMRW
                           Rondm
       Minimi  N. Cwotina  S. Cwtim  K«nru*y  TWWMM*

Coaatal States                     Inland Stataa
Both the number of farms and the total cropland have steadily declined in the Region and the entire
U.S. over the past decade.  Commercially available timberiand in seven of the eight states exceeds
total farm land and  represents more than one quarter of the national total.
          Trends In Agricultural Land Use and Commercial Timberiand

State
Florida
Georgia
North CareNna
SouttiCaroMna
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
Tennessee
U.S. Total
Number of Farms
(in thousands)
1982
38
57
86
31
55
103
53
91
2401
1967
37
48
70
26
48
99
44
80
2213
%
Change
2.78
-15.79
08.60
-16.13
-10.91
-3.88
• 16.98
-12.09
-7.83
Land in Farms
(thousand acres)
1982
12.800
14,000
11,100
6,000
11,800
14,500
14,500
12,500
1,027,795
1987
11,200
13,000
10,500
5.200
10,700
14,400
13.800
11.700
1,002.603
%
Change
-12.50
-7.14
-5.41
-13.33
-9.32
-0.69
-4.83
•6.40
-2.45
Tt.j.fc. •••••. ai"
t imoenvKj
(thousand acres)
1987
15,238
23.384
18.358
12,179
21.659
11.909
16,674
12,840
483.072
       • Land clwwfiwl M cwnnwrciml ttnttwland indudM own public and |XlvMsty^h««tof»«!isflde*psW«o»p«duang20cub(e
       FMI per acre per y*sr.
                         EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                         May 1996
                                           A-15

-------
 Since the distribution of agricultural land among the eight states vanes geographically, it is more
 useful to see the pattern of agricultural land use at the county level.  The greatest concentration of
 regional cropland is located in the Mississippi Valley and in the southeastern plains in the Coastal
 states. The decrease in agricultural land use in the four years preceding 1982 is reflected by the fact
 that 514 of the 736 counties in Region 4 lost acreage devoted to agriculture, for a total of 70 percent
 of the counties.

 Taken alone, a decrease in the acreage devoted to agricultural production might imply a potential
 reduction in pressure on the  environment from  a reduced rate of soil erosion and depletion and a
 reduction in the total pesticide load. But the drop in acreage devoted to agriculture does not exist in
 a vacuum. At  the same time total cropland has been shrinking, the level of intensity of the farming
 has been steadily  increasing.   One  example of this is the emergence of confinement farming
 practices for poultry and dairy production. Confinement farming is typified by housing hundreds to
 thousands of animals in a minimum amount of space, producing high  levels of animal  waste.  In
 addition, agricultural land taken out of production is generally put into a more intensive land use and
 thus decreases its potential use as regional habitat for wildlife.

 Many of the  counties showing a decrease  in  cropland are at the same time experiencing a rapid
 increase in population, presumably applying different environmental pressures to the land. For the
 land remaining in agricultural production,  in order to maintain or increase total crop yield, increased
 pressures have been applied to the  land  and natural resources.   For example, while trie total
 cropland  acreage has  been  decreasing, the use  of irrigation on  remaining cropland  has been
 increasing.  State agnculture departments also show an increased reliance on fertilizer applications
 in the eight states and the second highest rate of pesticide application in the nation (behind the six
 states of  Region 5).  Combining the increase in irrigation with an increasing use of fertilizers and
 pesticides has  resulted  in a steadily increasing pressure  on soil and ground water resources and
 increased the risk from non-point source runoff of the toxic chemicals used in modem, high intensity
 farming.

 Taken together, the employment data on manufacturing, services, and trade along with the land use
 data on agriculture and irrigation show two pictures.  First,  the counties which are heavily invested in
 manufacturing  or have a high percentage of cropland under irrigation change relatively little both in
 terms of employment/land use and  population.    Second,  the  geographic regions  in which
 employment  is more evenly divided among manufacturing, services, and trade industries, and in
 which the land is less heavily invested in agriculture, have grown most heavily in population and
 have increased employment in service industries relative to trade and especially manufacturing.


                 Reducing Future Environmental Risk

 The  Comparative  Risk Evaluation  provided   a  status  report — a snapshot of  the current
 environmental situation  — of environmental risk in the Southeast.  Although demographic data do
 not indicate the point sources of pollution, the smokestacks, the effluent pipes, and the landfills, the
 data can show the patterns of living which lead to more or less of those large point sources as well
 as multitudes of small sources, such as dry cleaners and gasoline service stations, which follow
 population growth and are hard to control.

 In  surveying  population trends,  areas of  environmental  sensitivity, and  already  identified
 environmental problem  areas in Region 4, two inferences emerge.   First, as demonstrated by the
 location of NAAQS  non-attainment areas, many of the Comparative Risk Evaluation problem areas
 identified  as 'high  risk* with respect to  human health are located in geographic  areas of  high
 population density.   This may seem  obvious, but  it reinforces the conclusion that without close
 monitoring and control,  environmental problems naturally follow in population centers and grow as
 density increases.

. Second, with regard to ecological risk, many of. the geographic areas of highest projected growth in
 the next decade are also environmentally sensitive.  A plot of the southeastern ecoregions overlaid
 with projected  high population growth rates indicates that new growth in many coastal and inland


                         EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                         May 1996
                                           A-16

-------
urban counties may severely stress natural environments.  The prime example of habitat at risk is
coastal wetlands.  Along the Atlantic  coastline, throughout Florida,  and in  the  Coastal Plain,
ecoregion population is projected to grow very rapidly. Around urban centers, population in counties
of both  high  and low density  is increasing and  spilling  into surrounding open land.   Without
supervision these areas of  highest growth  will degrade and follow the pattern of environmental
problems mentioned above.  Many of the areas of highest growth lack the infrastructure necessary
to manage the demands of a rapidly expanding population and will therefore feel the negative effects
especially acutely.
One key for reducing future risk is to integrate the concept of sustainable development into the fabric
of our society.  Environmental risk, regrettably too often, follows population growth. The assumption
underlying this discussion of demographic data as an environmental  indicator is that increasing
population  means increasing  pressure on the  environment through increased solid waste
generation, increased human waste disposal probfems, increased air emissions from automobiles
and residential fuel use, and decreased undeveloped open land.  EPA will reduce future risk by
targeting specific high risk stressors and protecting areas that are environmentally sensitive.
  The Issues of the Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
On June 7 and  8,  1996,  the eight secretaries and  commissioners of the  state environmental
agencies in Region 4 and the management of EPA Region 4 met at the Carter Presidential Center in
Atlanta. With the regional and state comparative risk studies as an informational basis, they began
work on this RESP with the development of a list of 10  environmental issues that they believed best
summarized the major environmental challenges facing the Region over the next 20 years.  Those
issues are:
    Alteration and Loss of Ecosystems
    Alteration and Loss of Coastal and Inland
    Wetlands
    Environmentally Damaged Lands
    Contaminants in the Environment
    Waste Management
Surface Water Quality
Ground Water Quality
Water Resources
Air Quality
Healthy Communities
The decision was made to leave the issues unranked; therefore, the order presented here reflects
no priority and no attempt should be made to associate the order of these issues with the prioritized
ranking of the regional and states comparative risk assessment studies presented above.

Over the past ten months the management and staff of the eight states and EPA have been meeting
to examine these issues to set goals and devise strategies for their resolution  The result is this
RESP.
                        EPA-Stato Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
                                       'May 1996
                                          A-17

-------

-------
Summary of  Region  5  Activities
  Environmental Indicators and Strategic Planning

  Region 5 is committed to relying heavily on environmental data to evaluate conditions, identify
  existing and emerging problems, set priorities, and make decisions to address the highest
  priorities  For FY 1997, Region 5 is developing environmental goals and indicators for our top
  six environmental problems which include: reducing toxics, especially mercury; attaining and
  maintaining the National ambient air quality standard for ozone, redeveloping brownfields,
  cleaning up contaminated sediments; ensuring environmental justice; and protecting and restoring
  critical habitat.  In addition, environmental goals and indicators are being developed for the ten
  critical places (e.g.,  Northwest Indiana, Southeast Michigan, Greater Chicago, Northeast
  Ohio, etc.) where the six environmental problems are the most serious, and for the ten critical
  approaches (e.g., community-based environmental protection, pollution prevention, using
  common sense, etc.) that Region 5 will use to solve the environmental problems.

  For FY 1997, Region 5's senior managers embarked on an innovative, strategic planning process
  that focuses on environmental results.  The strategic planning process includes four key steps.
  First, the senior managers set the environmental priorities for the year. Second, the Region
  collectively develops  an annual "Agenda for Action"-- the consolidated planning document that
  describes how the priorities will be addressed. For each priority, environmental goals, milestones
  and indicators will be developed as well as a set of actions which will be linked to the goals and
  milestones. Third, by the end of the third quarter, the Region will conduct an annual Self-
  Assessment — an internal examination and evaluation of how well the Agenda for Action was
  executed.  Finally, the Region will complete a State of the Environment Report on a two to three-
  year cycle which will  be a comprehensive evaluation of environmental trends and other
  information (e.g., socio-economic) in order to measure progress toward achieving the Region's
  environmental goals and milestones, and to identify emerging environmental issues.
  Environmental Indicators Workgroup

  In September 1995, the Region formed an indicators workgroup which has members from all
  Divisions and Offices, and is led by the Office of Strategic Environmental Analysis (OSEA). The
  Workgroup is responsible for the following: developing guidance and a consistent process for
  establishing Regional goals, milestones and indicators; serving as a clearinghouse and consultant
  to the Regional Teams, Divisions and Programs for developing and integrating environmental
  goals, milestones and indicators; assisting OSEA in developing a Regional State of the
  Environment Report; and supporting the Office of Public Affairs in communicating environmental
  goals and indicators, and trends information to the public and other stakeholders.

-------
Guide for Developing Environmental Goals. Milestones and Indicators

The Environmental Indicators Workgroup authored a guide to assist the Region 5 Teams and
Program Managers in developing environmental goals, milestones and indicators.  The guide is
based on the "pressure-state-response" approach being taken by USEPA's National Goals
Project and  the Interagency Sustainable Development Indicators Workgroup. The pressure-
state-response approach involves linking environmental indicators to environmental conditions, to
stressors that impact the environment, and to program activities.  The guidance provides a list of
steps to follow which focus on the following key concepts: 1) develop a good set of overarching
environmental  goals that represent the suite of desired future conditions; 2) develop milestones
for the goals which are reasonable, and which track interim progress towards the desired changes
in environmental conditions and pressures; 3) select a mixture of indicators that measure
environmental  conditions and pressures; and 4) select key program activities and performance
measures which are linked to the milestones and indicators.
Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report

In August 1996, Region 5 issued a 25th anniversary report which describes the major
environmental accomplishments achieved in the Great Lakes Basin and Region 5 States, and the
remaining challenges. The report has sections on Indian lands, air quality, water quality, Great
Lakes, hazardous wastes,  superfund, and toxicants. It contains colorful pictures, graphs, figures
and success stories that document changes in environmental conditions.
Partnering with States

Region 5 and the six States have agreed that measuring and managing for environmental results is
a joint priority.  USEPA and the States have formed a senior management Steering Committee to
oversee and direct the implementation of this joint priority, including identifying the
commonalities in environmental goals and indicators being used by USEPA and the States and
weaving them into a common approach. The major vehicle for documenting how the States and
USEPA will measure and manage for environmental results is the Environmental Performance
Partnership Agreements (EnPPAs) which will include joint priorities; National goals and
indicators, as appropriate; Regional priorities and indicators, as appropriate; and State-specific
priorities and indicators.
State EnPPAs

In FY 1996, Illinois was the only Region 5 State to enter into an EnPPA with USEPA.  Illinois' EnPPA
contains 23 environmental goals and 26 environmental indicators. In July 1996, Illinois completed its
"Annual Environmental Conditions Report" which describes progress made over the past five or more years
in achieving the State's environmental goals.

-------
In 1997. five States i.lL. IN. MN, OH, and WI) will enter into EnPPAs with Region 5  Two of these States
(IL. IN) are pursuing performance partnership grants; one State (MN) is replacing traditional workpians with
the EnPPA; and two States (OH and WI) are developing EnPPAs and traditional workpians. Three of the
States (IL. IN and OH) will have environmental goals and indicators in their EnPPAs, while the other two
States (MN and WI) will develop environmental goals and indicators during FY 1997 for their FY 1998
EnPPAs

State/EPA Watersheds Indicators Workgroup

The six Region 5 State Water Directors in conjunction with EPA Region 5 Water Division and the Ohio
River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO), have put together a workgroup to address the use
of environmental indicators on a watershed basis.  Since the point source indicators will be easier to address,
the group agreed to focus primarily on the more difficult nonpoint source component of the watershed using
a three tier approach to indicator development.  Tier one is the condition indicator, tier two is the stressor
indicator, and tier three is the activity indicator.

The initial objective of the workgroup was to identify a common nonpoint source indicator for each of the
three tiers.  However due to a scarcity of data and different criteria and standards across States, only one
common tracking indicator (stressor indicator, tier two) was identified, nutrient concentrations. Region 5 is
proposing a pilot project to track nonpoint source nutrients within the States to determine if a relationship
can be drawn between the activity and the condition response.  This project will also be evaluating the
consistency in  the application of environmental indicators. The consistency of environmental indicators was
considered to be a critical component of the pilot project.

Environmental Indicators Pilots for Water

Region 5 is currently conducting two national environmental indicator pilot projects in the States of Wisconsin
and Ohio. The purpose of the projects is to determine if there is a relationship between activities\stressor controls
and ambient water quality  protection or improvement The Wisconsin project is expected to be completed by
the end of September 1996.  The Ohio project experienced some delay which resulted in a grant extension.  Phase
one has been completed and phase two is scheduled to be completed by February 1997.

The U.S. Geological Survey has organized a workgroup to continue the efforts of the Intergovernmental Task
Force on Monitoring (ITFM). Membership consists of State,  Federal and local agencies with other public and
private concerns. The focus of this workgroup  is to evaluate all water monitoring activities within the State of
Wisconsin. The purpose is to develop recommendations and  report these finding on the following categories;
water monitoring, the need for long term water monitoring, evaluation of  the current monitoring network and how
to apply the use of environmental indicators to this process to establish relationships to stressor controls-and
activities. The workgroup developed a questionnaire to identify water monitoring activities and needs within the
State of Wisconsin. A report on the findings of that survey is being compiled The group is currently compiling
a technical report to address overall water monitoring and a need to  support long term trend monitoring which
could establish condition environmental indicators.
For more information, please contact:

Linda Hoist      .      Al Fenedick
(312) 886-6758 (312) 886-6872

-------
                                                                     FINAL - 8/6/96
         REGION 5 GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS,
                          MILESTONES AND INDICATORS

OVERVIEW

In the era of increased public and political scrutiny on government agencies, it is imperative
for USEPA Region 5 to focus its limited resources on achieving environmental results for the
most important environmental problems facing public health and the environment.  By
developing an appropriate mix of environmental indicators and performance measures, the
Region will be better positioned to evaluate environmental conditions, identify existing and
emerging environmental problems, set environmental priorities, and make program-specific
decisions to address the highest priorities.  Environmental indicators will also allow for more
effective means of communicating environmental successes and remaining challenges to the
public and other stakeholders.

The purpose of this document is to provide the Region 5 Teams and Program Managers with
some guidance for developing Regional environmental goals, milestones and indicators.  This
document was developed by the Region 5 Environmental Indicators Workgroup, and is based
on the " Pressure-State-Response " approach being taken by USEPA's National Goals Project,
the Interagency Sustainable Development Indicators Workgroup, and the Region 5/State
Watershed Indicators Development Workgroup. The Pressure-State-Response approach
involves linking environmental indicators to stressors that impact the environment and to
program activities. Use of this approach should promote consistency in the development and
application of environmental indicators within Region S, and will result in Regional goals that
are consistent with USEPA's twelve national goals.
DEFINITIONS

In order to implement the Pressure-State-Response approach that is recommended in this
guidance,  it is critical to understand the following terms:

Pressure or stressor: a factor that can adversely impact environmental conditions. Pressures
and stressors can be human-induced or nature-induced. Examples of human-induced pressures
include: toxic pollutants, nutrients, habitat loss, sedimentation, hydrological changes (flow),
and exotic species introduction.  Examples of some natural pressures include:  predation,
volcanic eruptions, and floods.

State or condition:  the actual biological, chemical or physical quality of the environment,
including ecosystem and human health. Some examples of environmental conditions include:
toxic chemical concentrations in air, water, soil, or blood; species diversity; and number of
respiratory illnesses.

-------
                                            2

Response or program activity: for the purposes of the Pressure-State-Response approach.
"response" is not a biological, ecological or ecosystem response.  Rather, "response" refers to
the regulatory or voluntary actions taken by government agencies or other parties (e.g.,
industries) to address or remedy an identified stressor/pressure on the environment.  The
ultimate goal of the response or program activity is to improve the quality of the environment.
Some examples of responses include: passing legislation, promulgating regulations, installing
new treatment technologies, issuing permits, taking enforcement actions, implementing best
management practices, and remediating a "hotspot."  The administrative response actions
taken by environmental agencies are often tracked by performance measures, program
measures, or program indicators.

Goal:  a broad statement which identifies the overall desired, future environmental condition.
Goals are generally long-range targets.  If very broad goals are used, they are often broken
down into subgoals or objectives which have specific desired end points.  USEPA has
developed 12 national goals which will provide a very useful framework for developing
Regional goals.  An example national  goal is as follows:  "America's rivers, lakes,  and coastal
waters will support healthy communities of fish, plants, and other aquatic life, and will
support uses such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water supply for people."

Milestone: a specific interim step that is necessary to meet a stated goal. Milestones are
check points which are established in order to identify "shorter-term" responses in
environmental stressors or conditions that will lead toward the overall goal. Usually, a goal
will have several milestones which will have to be met to achieve the goal.  An example
milestone is as follows: by  2005, the  average mercury concentrations in fish tissue from lakes
with mercury fish consumption advisories  will be reduced by 50 percent. In terms of
timeframe for milestones, the National Goals Project uses a 10-year duration.

Environmental indicator: a measure of environmental conditions (e.g.,  human health, quality
of life, and ecological integrity) or stressors which provides useful information on patterns and
trends.  Indicators are invaluable for measuring achievement of the milestones and progress
towards the environmental goal. Indicators can also function as early warning signals for
detecting relatively small adverse changes  in environmental quality.  Three examples of
environmental indicators are as follows: concentration of total and methyl mercury in walleye
fillets; concentration of total mercury in ambient waters; and total pounds per year of mercury
released to waterways by NPDES facilities.

The timeframe for monitoring, assessing, and reporting on an environmental indicator may
range from as little as several times per year to once every year or longer. Also, a change in
ecological or human health conditions may not be manifested or discernable for several or
perhaps many years.
                                                                       Region 5 Ciudtfor Devttopmt
                                                                       Goats. Miltaoiuj and Initiators

-------
                                           3

Performance measure or program indicator:  a program, policy or administrative response to
an environmental problem. These measures are commonly referred to as "beans" when
tracked routinely and represent a large portion of what environmental agencies have tracked
and reported in the past.  Performance measures may or may not lead to detectable
improvements in environmental conditions.  Two examples of performance measures are as
follows: number of NPDES permits issued with water quality-based permit limits for
mercury, and number of enforcement actions taken which involve mercury.  In terms of time
frames, performance measures are usually tracked on an annual or more frequent basis.
PRESSURE-STATF-RESPONSE APPROACH

The "Pressure-State-Response" approach is a way of conveniently classifying and
understanding the interaction between the pressures on the environment, the state of the
environment due to these pressures, and the response or action taken by environmental
agencies or other parties to address the environmental conditions and pressures.  The Pressure-
State-Response is the organizing framework used in or by the National Goals Project, the State
Environmental Goals and Indicators Project, the Interagency Sustainable Development
Indicators Workgroup, and the Region 5/State Watershed Indicators Development Workgroup.

One way to display the Pressure-State-Response approach is in a straight continuum which
shows the movement from a program activity, to a stressor control, and to the desired outcome
or environmental condition (see Figure 1).  Regardless of how the Pressure-State-Response
approach is displayed, in order to be successful, it  is  absolutely necessary to select indicators
that are measurable and can be monitored and link  the pressures with the environmental
conditions. Otherwise, it will be difficult or impossible to tell whether the changes in
environmental trends are due to program activities  and agency actions or something else.
STEPS FOR DEVELOPING ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS. MILESTONES AND
INDICATORS

Listed below are some steps designed to assist in developing environmental goals, milestones
and indicators under the Pressure-State-Response approach. The first set of steps involves
setting environmental goals and identifying environmental priorities. Nationally, USEPA has
developed a set of national goals and milestones which provide a very useful framework for the
Region. The second set of steps involves identifying the stressors and pressures on the
environment which have caused or contributed to the environmental problems. Finally, the third
set of steps involves identifying what actions and responses are necessary to address the stressors
and pressures and ultimately address the environmental problem and achieve the environmental
goals.

                                                                      Rtgion 5 Guutefor Developing
                                                                     Coals. Milestones and Indicators

-------

SZ,
( m
1^
Action* •
byGoVl J
0-0KD-0-
-f- Action* by Cnange* in Change*
Source Emi»*ion»/ in Ambient
^<— " ~^^ (».g., Loading* Concen.
/f P^\ irdu*lr*) -^
/ \ NPOES \ \
1 1 ftrm» \ 1 ylm

Program
Measures •
d&2)

Response
(1&2)

I

7


WVCMW. In Witt

I A A
V'lA A •


Change* in
Health or
Ecology
-0-0
Change* jf.
in Uptake ^
M«K«ifv A FWI
*^
k Environmental Indicators
* (3-6)

L Pressure
f (3)


j State
" (4, 5 & 6)

               Figure 1.  Pressure-State-Response Indicator Continuum
The steps listed below are provided as guidance. Each situation will be different when
developing goals, milestones and indicators. Some of these steps may be unnecessary or may be
more useful when taken in a different order. The order of the steps is not as important as the
content, and focussing on the following key concepts: 1) develop a good set of overarching
environmental goals that represent the suite of desired future conditions, 2) develop milestones
for the goals which are reasonable, and which track interim progress towards the desired changes
in environmental conditions and pressures, 3) select a mixture of indicators that measure
environmental conditions and pressures, and 4) select key program activities and performance
measures which are linked to the milestones and indicators.
                                                                         Rlfton ! Giadtfor Dcvttoping
                                                                        Coats, Milestones and Indicators

-------
If assistance is needed in developing goals, milestones, or indicators, the Regional
Environmental Indicators Workgroup is available and can be consulted by contacting Linda
Hoist at (312) 886-6758.
/.  Develop Environmental Goals, Analyze Environmental Conditions and Identify
Environmental Problems

Step 1. Form a stakeholders group to assist in developing goals, milestones and indicators.
Appropriate stakeholders may include other federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service/etc.), State environmental and natural
resource agencies, environmental groups, the regulated community, public interest groups,
local church groups, etc.  Implement the remaining steps with this  stakeholder group, as
deemed appropriate. In some situations, it may be feasible and effective to have all
stakeholders involved throughout the process.  In other cases, it may be more appropriate to
have stakeholders brought in under a phased approach where a smaller group of stakeholders
develops some initial goals, milestones and indicators and presents it to a larger group of
stakeholders for their reaction and modification.  Whatever approach is used, it is critical to
have stakeholders involved to get broad representation  and buy-in to the goals, milestones and
indicators that are ultimately developed.

Step 2. Identify the desired future environmental conditions (i.e.,  environmental goals).
These goals may take decades or longer to achieve. It  is desirable  for the goal to be consistent
with the national goals. If the goal selected is very broad, it can be divided further into
subgoals or objectives, if desired, in order to make it easier to develop milestones and
indicators,

Step 3. Examine existing reports, survey information and data on environmental conditions to
determine the state of the environment.  Existing information could include comparative risk
studies, public opinion surveys,  monitoring reports, etc.  For each environmental goal,
identify environmental problems which need to be addressed and environmental conditions  .
which need to be maintained or protected, in order to meet the environmental goal.

Step 4. If necessary, prioritize the environmental problems/conditions in order of importance
(e.g., risk) and ability to be addressed.  In some cases the prioritization may have already been
done.  In other cases, the number of environmental problems may be sufficiently few that
prioritization is not warranted. If prioritization is necessary, comparative risk  techniques are
very useful tools for ranking  issues.  If assistance or information on comparative risk is
needed, please contact Carole Braverman in the Office  of Strategic Environmental Analysis at
(312) 886-2910.

                                                                        Region 5 Gmdtfor Devfloping
                                                                       Goals, ttileaona and indicators

-------
Step 5.   For each environmental goal (or subgoal), identify interim targets (i.e., state
milestones) to achieving the desired environmental condition. These milestones should focus
on environmental conditions, and should have quantifiable targets (e.g., 50% reduction in X
contaminant in surface water) and a specific target date (e.g., by the year 2005).  The National
Goals Project contains more than 60 milestones that may provide a useful starting point.

There is some imprecision in developing milestones because of the difficulty in being able to
predict changes in environmental conditions based on future actions. Care should be taken to
select milestones that will be challenging to attain but not totally unachievable.

Step 6.  For each state milestone, select environmental measures (i.e., state indicators) that
will track progress towards the milestone and goal.  In Figure 1, the state indicators would
correspond to level 4-6 indicators on the continuum.  In order to ensure maintenance of a
healthy environmental condition, it is critical to have some indicators that will act as an early
warning to pending or potential problems before they are actual environmental problems.
Selection of indicators should not be solely reactive to existing environmental problems, but
should also be proactive and preventative, when possible.

For each indicator, identify possible data sources which will provide a sufficient amount of
information with sufficient quality to track the indicator. Information may  be housed in
National. Regional, State or local data systems.

When finalizing the list of indicators, consideration should be given to whether data of
sufficient quantity and quality will be available in the  future to be able to monitor trends.  If it
is determined that the indicator is valuable but sufficient information is not available, this
indicator should be "flagged" for further discussion by the stakeholder group to determine if
appropriate data can/should be collected in the future.
//.  Identify Causes of Environmental Problems/Issues

Step 1.  For each environmental problem or issue, identify the stressors/pressures that cause
or contribute to the problem/issue. Classify the stressors/pressures as "known/strongly
suspected" or "possible."

Step 2.  For the stressors/pressures classified as "possible,11 identify what additional data or
information are necessary to link the cause to the environmental problem or issue. Flag these
as items that need to be investigated further.

Step 3.  For each "known/strongly suspected" stressor and pressure, identify interim targets
(i.e., pressure milestones) that will achieve the environmental goal by addressing the

                                                                         Region 5 Guultfor Developing
                                                                        Goals. Milestone} oiut Indicator:

-------
pressure/stressor. Again, the milestones should have quantifiable targets (e.g., 20% reduction
in discharges of mercury) and a specific target date (e.g., by the year 2005).

Step 4.  For each pressure milestone, select environmental measures (i.e., pressure
indicators) that will track progress towards the milestone and goal.  In Figure 1, pressure
indicators would correspond to level 3 indicators on the continuum.
///.  Actions to Address Environmental Problems/Issues

Step 1. For each state and pressure milestone, identity possible programs that can impact the
environmental conditions or address some of the environmental pressures.

Step 2. For each program, develop a list of activities or actions that the program conducts or
could conduct to affect the environmental condition, or address the state and pressure
milestones.

Step 3.  For each activity, identify performance measure(s) that will track progress of the
activity.  It is critical for the state and pressure indicators and performance measures to be
linked to each other and to the milestone. The objective is to select performance measures and
indicators that are meaningful and not duplicative.  In addition, where performance
measures/program activities have been shown to be correlated with an environmental
indicator, it may be appropriate to track only one of them.

For each performance measure, identify possible data sources which will provide a sufficient
amount of information with sufficient quality to track the measure.  Again, information may be
housed in National, Regional, State or local data systems.

Step 4. Monitor the indicators and performance measures and determine their utility in
measuring progress towards the goal and milestones.  Report results back to the public and
solicit feedback.

Step 5. Make necessary adjustments to the environmental goals, milestones, indicators, and
performance measures, based on their usefulness, data availability and public input.
                                                                        Rtfion 5 Guide far Dtvetopwg
                                                                       Goals. MUexoaa aid Indicator*

-------
                                                                                                 4
                                                                                                 •4
EXAMPLES OF GOALS. MILESTONES AND INDICATORS FOR THE GREAT LAKES

Listed below are some draft goals, milestones and indicators for the Great Lakes that are
being developed by the Region 5 Great Lakes Teams.  These will likely be revised, but are
provided here for illustrative purposes.

       Goal: Human Health in the Great Lakes Ecosystem is not at risk from contaminants of
             human origin.

       Objective 1: Concentration of toxic chemicals in fish and wildlife are below levels that
       limit consumption by humans.
        Milestones:

        1.  By 2015, concentration of
        contaminants in fish fillets have
        decreased by X percent (per
        contaminant).
1.  Concentration of contaminants (e.g.,
PCBs, toxaphene, aldrin and DDT) in
fish fillet of coho and Chinook salmon
(for Lakes Superior and Michigan) and
walleye (for Lake Erie).
        2.  By 2005, concentration of
        contaminants in water has decreased
        by X percent.
2. Concentration of contaminants in
water.
        3.  By 2005, loadings of key
        parameters have decreased by X
        percent.
3. Contaminant loadings of key
parameters.  (Note: Although this is a
good indicator, current available data
may not be sufficient for total load
estimates, except under Lake Michigan
Mass Balance.)
        4. By 2005, effluent emissions of
        key parameters (e.g., mercury,
        PCBs, dioxin, aldrin, toxaphene)
        have decreased by X percent.
4. Effluent/emissions of key
parameters.

(Note: Sources of effluent/emissions
data- TRI (all media); PCS (water);
RAPIDS (air).)
                                                                      Region 5 Cuuttfor Dtvetcping
                                                                     Goait, Milestones and Indicators

-------
5. By 2002, reduce chlorine use in
pulp/paper process by X percent or
annually chlorine use is reduced by
X percent.
 5.  Chlorine use in pulp/paper industry
. (tons).
6. By 2002, 80% of Great Lakes
Basin counties have participated in
clean sweeps activities.
 6a. Number of counties participating in
 Clean Sweeps.

 6b.  Volume of materials recovered.
7. By 2005, remedial activities have
been completed at X percent of
contaminated sediment sites.
(Note: Remediation activity
completed means sediments are
removed or managed inplace.)
 7a.  Volume of sediment
 removed/managed.

 7b.  Number of complete remedial
 activities.
8. Annually X percent of PCBs are
removed from use in the Great
Lakes Basin.
 8.  Amount and percentage of PCBs
 removed from use.  (Indicators need to
 be refined through interaction with
 Programs.)
9. By	, pollution prevention
and other emission controls result in
decreases of X percent of PCB,
dioxin and mercury releases.
 9.  Emissions of PCBs, dioxins,
 mercury (in pounds) released from
 hazardous waste incinerators, municipal
 incinerators and medical waste
 incinerators.
10.  By	, emission controls and
pollution prevention activities result
in a decrease or, at a minimum, no
increase, in pounds of mercury and
dioxin released per user population.
 lOa. Emissions of mercury and dioxin
 from electric generating boilers (in
 pounds).

 lOb. Pounds of mercury and dioxin
 released per user population.

                                                               Region 5 Guide for Dtwtopmg
                                                              Coat*. Milestones and Indicator!

-------
     Report from the
 Environmental Indicators
        Workgroup
II
    1996 Indicators Report
       (Discussion Draft)
          May, 1996

-------
 MAY 1996
 Message  from  the
 Environmental  Indicators  Workgroup
   Last year, senior managers at EPA
   Region 9 and the Region's State
environmental agencies established
an interagency Environmental Indica-
tors Workgroup to investigate the use
of environmental goals and indicators
as a management tool for assessing
the achievements of environmental
programs and to provide insights into
long term environmental trends.
    Government agencies tend to
measure program achievements by
how many administrative actions are
completed, such as the number of
permits issued, enforcement actions
completed, and grants awarded. But
these activity measures do not tell us
if the environment is cleaner or if
human health has improved.
    The Environmental Indicators
Workgroup was asked to prepare a
status report on the environment in
Region 9 which would identify key
goals and assemble the relevant data.
Such a report could assist the Region
and states in assessing the effective-
ness of goals and indicators as a
component of environmental program
management. This report is the result
of the Workgroup's efforts. You are
  invited to review it and send com-
  ments to the Workgroup.


  Initial Conclusions	
      Based on the data collected, the
  Workgroup has drawn some initial
  conclusions about the effectiveness of
  government environmental programs.
  It appears EPA Region 9 and the
  Region's State environmental agencies
  have achieved progress in environ-
  mental protection. The programs
  established under the key national
  environmental statutes appear to have
  made a difference in Region 9.
  Exposure to key air and water pollut-
  ants has decreased, protection for
  food and water has increased, indus-
  trial releases of toxics and pollutants
  to air and water have dropped, and
  many hazardous waste problems at
  "Superfund" sites have been ad-
  dressed. Government agencies have
  made progress in addressing those
  environmental problems that can be
  managed with traditional, legislative
  mandates such as standards setting,
  enforcement, and financial investment
  in pollution control facilities.
            As good as this news is, the
         remaining problems should not be
         overlooked. For example, air pollution
         remains a serious problem in several
         western cities; water pollution origi-
         nating from nonpoint sources (e.g.,
         agricultural return flows and munici-
         pal storm runoff) impairs many surface
         and ground water supplies; and
         drinking water supplies may contain
         new contaminants of concern, such as
         Cryptosporidium. Also, though current
         programs manage hazardous wastes
         well, production of wastes is increas-
         ing.
            Of particular concern is the
         significant decline in populations of
         plants and animals unique to this area.
         For example, in the four states in EPA
         Region 9, a large percentage of the
         native fish species are extinct or
         endangered. Although there are some
         local successes, the loss of critical
         habitat means that the long term
         prospects for the survival of many of
         these species are not good.
   Workgroup Members and Supporters
   This report was prepared by the Environmental Indkators Workgroup which represents the major environmental programs administered by the U.S. Environmental
   Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 and the Slate environmental agencies in Arizona, California, Hawaii and Nevada. The members of the Workgroup are:
   Jean Circiello, EPA
lanet Hashimoto, EPA
Additional valuable assistance was provided by:
   David Cowperthwaite, Nevada      Karen Heidel, Arizona Department
    Division of Environmental Protection  of Environmental Quality
   Allen Demorest, EPA              Bobbie Kahan, EPA
   Patrick F. Felling, Hawaii Department Tom McMenamin, EPA
    of Health
   Laura Fujii, EPA
   Stephen D. Hanna, California
    Environmental Protection Agency
Coe Owen, EPA
Derek Scott, EPA
Wayne Aemi, AZDEQ
Jim Bernard. State Environmental
Coals and Indicators Project,
Florida Center for Public Management
Sheldon Gen, EPA
Anna Hackenbracht, EPA
Olof Hanxn, USBR
Susan Hatfteld. EPA
Rich Hennecke, EPA
Bruce Herbold, EPA
Don Hodge, EPA
Diana Marsh. AZDEQ
lalayne McCune. EPA/ISSI
Dave Mowday. EPA
Raima Risler. EPA
Marian Slavin, AZDEQ
Mike Schulz. EPA
Mike Stenburg, EPA
PamTMi, EPA
Diana Woods. EPA
Marvin Young, EPA
SamYun, EPA
      Also special thanks to our champions for this effort: John Wise, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA and Nora Me Gee, Assistant Regional Administrator, EPA
        Comments can be addressed to the workgroup in care of EPA Region 9. Planning & Analysis Section, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
4

-------
                                                                               ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
    Issues Related to Use of
•Environmental Indicators

        Initially, the Environmental
     ndicators Workgroup members
    selected 29 potential environmental
    indicators in five areas (air and water
    quality, waste management, public
    health, and ecological health), along
    with some background indicators.
    Available data was then assembled. As
    the work proceeded, several indica-
    tors were dropped, for various rea-
    sons, including:
      -  the necessary data were not
        available {for example, data on
        blood lead levels in children,
        population trends for endangered
        species);
      •  the data were available, but were
        not representative of the
        environment's condition, or did
        not allow for comparisons from
        year to year or State to State (for
        example, data on beach closures,
•        fish advisories, wastewater
        recycling};
      •  changes in the indicator were not
        attributable to the effects of
        environmental programs (for
        example, data on asthma hospital-
        ization rates);
      •  the indicator was a measure of
        administrative activity, not a
        measure of environmental quality
        (for example, the number of
        hazardous waste disposal facili-
        ties).
        It is also important to  remember
    that this report takes a "big picture"
    view.  It is likely that there are smaller
    geographic areas and communities
    whose environmental conditions are
    not accurately  reflected at the scafe
    used in this report. For example, some
    concerns have been raised that
    minority communities may bear more
    than their fair share of the burden of
    environmental pollution. Also, this
    report generally does not address
    conditions on tribal lands and in
    Pacific Islands other than  Hawaii. If
    the Region and States decide to
    continue this effort, it wilt be impor-
tant to expand the report to include
indicator data for these communities.
    These and other issues associated
with indicators are explored more
fully in a companion report, Environ-
mental Indicator Quality (January
1996) copies of which are available
from Planning and Analysis Section,
EPA, Region 9.

Next Steps
    Workgroup members have
invested time and effort in preparing
this report and we hope it will provide
a strong platform from which to
consider the use of goals and indica-
tors as a tool to manage for environ-
mental results. The Workgroup
recognizes the following issues which
will need to be addressed:
  •  can these data be used to begin
    establishing regional environmen-
    tal goals?
  •  what process should be estab-
    lished to continue this effort and
    to allow for additions and im-
    provements?
  •  how can the public's input be
    incorporated?
     CONTENTS
       AIR QUALITY
   cleaner skies...fewer
   pollution alert days

             8
     WATER QUALITY
      cleaner waters

            16
   WASTE MANAGEMENT
      waste is better
   managed...volume is
        increasing

            22
      PUBLIC HEALTH
   safer drinking water
       ...safer food

            26
   ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
     the challenge is
     to protect habitat

            32
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
     continued growth
            Figure 1  Region.il Population
                                                        57,626.000
                                                     pro/ectea population
                                                      for the year 2020
    1950       '60

   Sauce: U.S. Cmu timu
                      •70
                              •90
                                               2000
                                                                 '20

-------
 PACE  4
                                                                               ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
      1.200.000.000 •
      1.000,000.000
      BOO.OOO.OOO _
      400.000.000 4-
      200.000,000 •
D Unhealthy Days

• V«y Unhealthy Days
              1980   '81   '82   'S3   'M   'tS  '86  '87  'M   89  '90
Figure 2
Unhealthy and VERY
Unhealthy Days
Region 9 (Except the
Los Angeles Area)
Based on 1980 population;
pollutants include ozone,
CO, NO2, SO2, and PMW
Source: AIRS

                                                         a Unhealthy Days

                                                         • Very UnhMMhy Days
                          Figure 3
                          Unhealthy and VERY
                          Unhealthy Days
                          Los Angeles Area*
                          "The Metropolitan Los
                          Angeles AQCR includes
                          parts of Los Angeies,
                          Riverside, San Bernardino,
                          and Santa Barbara counties
                          plus Orange and Ventura
                          counties.
                          Based on 1980 population;
                          pollutants include ozone,
                          CO, NO2, SOj, and PM,Q
                          Source: AIRS
1 Unhealthy days are those in which the Pollutant Standard Index (PSl) is over 100. Very unhealthy days are those with
a PSl score above 200. The PSl is designed to give a community a sense of the seriousness of the air pollution for a
given day. A score over 100 (unhealthy^ means the community has exceeded the federal air quality standards for.at
least one of six air pollutants. A score over 200 (very unhealthy) means the air quality is particularly bad and citizens
should limit their exposure by refraining from vigorous physical exercise and staying indoors.

-------
        MAY 1 996
                                                                PAGE  3
        Air   Quality
        cleaner skies...fewer pollution alert days
        Exposure to very
        unhealthy air has
        declined and now
        occurs rarely.
i>
             n
             3
             go§
             e « <
             « W  o
             m ° ">. tS,
            T= ~ « 31
            X S C .C
             «a
            HI   D- «3
            zi   5!
    Air quality has improved dramatically since the passage of the Clean Air Act
    (CAA) in 1970. Figure 2 shows the number of unhealthy and very unhealthy1
days in all areas of Region 9 except the Los Angeles area. Figure 3 shows the
same data for the Los Angeles area, the part of the nation which faces the greatest
air quality challenge. Both charts show that the exposure of citizens to "very
unhealthy" air has declined over the last fifteen years and now occurs rarely.  It is
especially encouraging that, in the Los Angeles area, the number of "very un-
healthy" days is 80% lower in 1994 that it was 15 years ago. Exposure of citizens
to "unhealthy air", a situation of particular concern to children, the elderly, and
people with respiratory problems, also declined, although not as dramatically.
   These gains are particularly impressive in view of the growing stresses on air
quality such as increases in the  Region's population {see Figure 1), in automobile
use (see Figure 5), and in economic activity (see Figure 32). Air quality gains have
been achieved  by means of pollution control measures imposed on automobiles
and industries.  Between 1970 and 1990 cars were redesigned to emit 70% to
90% less pollution.  At the same time, industries have adopted a number of
measures to control their emissions. Figure 4 shows how industries have limited
their releases of "criteria" air pollutants and contributed to improvements in the
Region's air quality. The Clean Air Act identifies six criteria air pollutants consid-
ered  to have the most significant impact on human health and the environment.
These are sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO),
ozone (O3), lead (Pb), and paniculate matter. (Sunlight creates ozone from vola-
tile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), emissions of which
are controlled.)

But  challenges remain	
   Air quality varies from community to community and from year to year. Some
citizens enjoy good quality air all the time. Overall, in  1994, air pollution ex-
ceeded standards about 5% of the time. Not surprisingly, the Los Angeles area
continues to have the worst problems, with air pollution exceeding the standards
on 151 days (about 40%) in 1994. Citizens in the Southeast Desert Region of
California had air pollution above the standards on 106 days in 1994.
   Ground-level ozone is  a significant and widespread air pollution problem in
the Region. Ground-level ozone — the product of photochemical reactions
involving primarily volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) — contributes to respiratory irritation and asthma, damage to sensitive
plant species, and deterioration of outdoor structures. Approximately 25 million
people in Region 9 reside in areas where the national ozone standard is some-
times exceeded.
   Two factors will make additional air quality improvements difficult to
achieve: the growth in population (see Figure 1) and the expanding use of auto-
mobiles as shown in the  increase in vehicle miles travelled (see Figure 5). Auto-
mobiles contribute a targe portion of total air pollutant emissions, including
VOCs and NOX. Improvements  in emission control technology, cleaner burning

-------
MAY 1 996
Air  Quality
           ...continued
Air releases of 17
widely used toxic
chemicals declined
by more than 50%.
fuels, and inspection and maintenance programs have resulted in significant
decreases in the amount of pollution emitted per car. Today's car is designed to
emit much less pollution than a car made in 1970. These technological advances,
however, have been offset by the growing number of cars on the road and total
miles driven. Air quality improvements can only be retained if we continue to
promote emission reduction for automobiles and moderate the increase in miles
driven.

Innovations	
   Two innovative programs have produced dramatic reductions in non-criteria
industrial emissions. One of these is the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Under
TRI, industries report annually on their emissions to air. The reports are available
to the public and reported in the news media. Although the legislation includes
no permitting or direct enforcement authority, air releases for 17 widely used
toxic chemicals declined by more than 50% between 1988 and 1993 (Figure 6).
   Green Lights is an innovative, voluntary, EPA program which  helps prevent
air pollution emissions from power plants by reducing energy demand. Partici-
pants include government agencies, hospitals, universities, and non-profit as well
as for-profit companies. To join, an organization agrees to survey  its facilities and
upgrade the lighting to include more energy-efficient lighting technologies.
provides information about these technologies and financing alternatives and
help participants decide which technologies are best for them. Participants can
reduce their energy bills at the same time they help the environment. As of
September 1995, the 279 participants throughout EPA Region 9 had reduced
carbon dioxide emissions by 167,000 tons. When currently planned improve-
ments are complete, Green Lights will prevent the release of over 700,000 tons of
carbon dioxide annually.

-------
P\GE   6
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
    0.00
       1985       '86        '87         '88         '89        '90       '91        'X        '93
       Figures rrtlea wmwons in million short tons, axoapt laad in thousand short tons and carton mononda in lan miHIon shoo tons
                                                                                                 Figure 4
                                                                                                 Air Pollutant Emission
                                                                                                 Trends
                                                                                                 Source: AIRS
                                                                                                 Figure 5
                                                                                                 Vehicle Miles Travelled
                                                                                                 Source: Statistical Abstract and
                                                                                             4   Highway Statistics
           1967   '69    '71     '73    75   '77    '79    '81    '83    '85    '87   '89   '91    '93

                                                                                                 Figure 6
                                                                                                 Reported Releases to Air
                                                                                                 for Selected Chemicals
                                                                                                 Source: Toxics Release
                                                                                                 Inventory
              1986

-------
MAT  1996
Water  Quality
cleaner waters
Despite overall
increases in the
populations served,
direct discharges
from sewage plants
declined.
   The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first comprehensive attempt
   by the federal government to protect water quality; however, it included no
federal goals, objectives, limits, or guidelines, and relied almost entirely on the
states for administration and enforcement. By the late 1950s, little progress had
been made toward water pollution control, and further federal action was clearly
needed. Several laws passed during the late 1950s and early 1960s targeted
pollution from municipal wastewater treatment (sewer) plants and provided some
federal assistance for plant upgrades. By 1965, water quality standards were also
a prominent part of the federal water quality program. Through the 1960s and
into the early 1970s, the country experienced a period of sustained economic
growth, but the perception persisted that quality of life was declining as the
quality of the nation's waters continued to decline. These concerns led to passage
of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA).

Clean Water Act successes	
   The goal of the 1972 CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters, (t retains provisions for water
quality standards from earlier statutes, but adds national pollutant limits and
large-scale funding for state-run water quality management programs. The
Act also provides money for municipal wastewater treatment plant upgrades
mandates "pretreatment" for controlling industrial discharges.
   Figures 7 through 11 present 22 years of monitoring data for the four largest
wastewater treatment plants in California and the EPA Region 9 area. Flows from
the plants for City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Orange County, and City
of San Diego comprise over 90% of the municipal wastewater discharged directly
to California coastal waters. Despite overall increases in the populations served
and the amount of sewage processed, direct pollutant discharges from these
municipal plants declined. Figure 7 shows that the combined flow from the four
southern California facilities increased 16% between 1971  and 1993. Despite the
flow increase, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) in
these flows decreased 74% and 52%, respectively {see Figure 8). SS and BOD are
key indicators of water quality and pollutant loading. Concentrations of three
toxic heavy metals, cadmium, mercury, and lead, decreased as much as 91% (see
Figures 9,10, and 11). The most dramatic pollutant declines occurred prior to
1989 due to wastewater treatment innovations to remove pollutants and effective
"pretreatment" or removal of pollutants by industries prior to discharging to the
municipal wastewater treatment plant. Recent data for 14 major municipal
wastewater treatment plants in Region 9 (see Figure 12) indicate that BOD and
SS discharges have been stable or slightly decreasing since 1989.
   Data collected through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) indicate that there
have also been significant declines  in the amount of chemical pollutants that
industries release directly  to waterways. Figure 13 shows the pounds of prior
pollutants, key chemicals regulated under the CWA, that were released by the
larger manufacturers in Region 9 from 1987 to 1993. Combined discharges to

-------
                                                                          ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
                                                                               Figure 7
                                                                               Combined Average Flow
                                                                               Discharged from the Four
                                                                               Largest Wastewater
                                                                               Treatment Plants
                                                                               in California
                                                                               Source:  Southern California
                                                                               Coastal Water Research
                                                                               Project (SCCWRP) Annual
                                                                               Report, 1995
300
      -•- Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) -*- Suspended Solids (SS)|
Figure 8
BOD and SS Discharged
from the Four Largest
Wastewater Treatment
Plants in California
Source: Southern California
Coastal Water Research
Pra/ect (SCCWRP) Annual
Report, 1995

-------
MAY 1996
Water  Quality
A Regional overview
of contaminant
trends shows a
decline in surface
water pollutants.
                     ...continued
surface waters of these chemicals declined over 90% from approximately
200,000 pounds in 1987 to less than 20,000 pounds in 1993. The amount of
chemicals injected underground by manufacturers also decreased.
   The cumulative effects of CWA municipal and industrial pollution controls on
the environment are reflected in the amount of contamination in surface water
sampled at over 7,500 sites in Region 9 (Figures 14-16). "Surface water" includes
streams, lakes, and estuaries, and is distinct from  "groundwater", which occurs
below the earth's surface. To obtain a general overview of the trends in surface
water quality in the Region, EPA aggregated the results for three contaminants
from over 150,000 water samples taken in Region 9 over the 20 year-period
between 1974 and 1994. These three chemicals,  phosphorus, a representative
nutrient, and two heavy metals, cadmium and lead, are examples of major
pollutants in our surface waters. Although this large-scale data aggregation is not
appropriate for addressing site-specific water quality issues, it does provide
Region-wide, median annual values for each constituent. The data  show signifi-
cant reductions in phosphorus (Figure 14), cadmium (Figure 15), and lead (Figure
16). The reductions in these and other pollutants are attributable in part to CWA
programs.

Future challenges	
   CWA programs and the efforts of many state and local partners have made
significant progress in improving the nation's water quality over the past 25 yearsT
However, many challenges remain. For example, pollutants entering waterways
by way of rainwater as it runs off the land are harder to monitor and control than
pollutants released directly from the pipes of wastewater treatment plants or
industrial facilities. According to the national EPA Office of Water, nonpoint
source pollution (or pollution that does not emanate from a single identifiable
facility or point source) accounts for most of the pollution in the nation's water-
ways. In Region 9, over half of the assessed surface waters are polluted to an
extent that interferes with uses such as swimming, fishing, and drinking water.
Nonpoint source pollution is the single most important cause. Solving the prob-
lem of nonpoint source pollution is a big task that will require cooperation
between EPA, the States, and many other public and private stakeholders.
    Restoring the integrity of waterways that have been subjected to many de-
cades of large-scale physical alterations is another challenge for water resource
agencies in Region 9. Demands for water, flood control, and power have led to
irrigation diversions, impoundments,  and extensive diking, channelization, and
dewatering of western stream systems. These alterations have adversely affected
water quality and the abundance and distribution of nearly all of the native
aquatic plant and animal species in the Region. California, for example, has more
large dams than any other state in the Union and, along with Nevada, is among
the states with the highest number of imperiled native fish species (NBS, 1995).

-------
 PACE  10
                                                                        ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
jfcadmium, mercury and lead decreased as much as 91 % over a 22 year period
350

300


250
      tz

   M50

   100

    50
     0 -—
     1971
             CADMIUM
           '73
                 '75
                       •77
                             79
               '87
                           '91
    '83     PB5

w^^imsm»ms^^^m?^^^f
                                 '93
                                                                          Figure 9
                                                                          Combined Cadmium
                                                                          Discharged from the Four
                                                                          Largest YVastewater
                                                                          Treatment Plants
                                                                          in California
                                                                          Source: Southern California
                                                                          Coastal Water Research
                                                                          Project (SCCWRP) Annual
                                                                          Report. 1995
                                                                            Figure 10
                                                                            Combined Mercury
                                                                            Discharged from the Four
                                                                            Largest Wastewater
                                                                            Treatment Plants
                                                                            in California
                                                                            Source:  Southern California
                                                                            Coastal Water Research
                                                                            Project (SCCWRP) Annual
                                                                            Report, 1995
  1400

  1200

  1000


{-
| 600

  400

  200
                           r\
                               \
      1971
             73
                  75
                        77
                              79
                                   '81
                                         •83
                                                     LEAD
                                               '85
                                                    'a?
                                        Figure 11
                                        Combined Lead Discharged
                                        from the Four Largest
                                        Wastewater Treatment
                                        Plants in California
                                        Source: Southern California
                                        Coastal Water Research
                                        Project (SCCWRP} Annual
                                        Report, 1995

-------
MAY 1996
                                                           PAGE  1 1
Water Quality
                    ...continued
Wastewater reuse
has significantly
increased and is
expected to continue
rising.
                       Wastewater recycling
   The scarcity of water in the arid west is another critical issue. The link be-
tween water quantity and quality must be recognized and accommodated when-
ever restoration efforts, water development, and/or land use changes are consid-
ered. The West has relied on reclaimed water for non-potable uses for nearly a
century. However, wastewater reuse has significantly increased in recent years
and is expected to continue expanding as public awareness of its importance to
overall water resource management grows. Wastewater reuse can be divided into
two broad categories: uses that directly displace potable water demands (e.g.,
landscape irrigation), and those that simply put the reclaimed water to uses that
would not otherwise occur, such as recreational impoundments and environmen-
tal enhancement.
   The states in Region 9 all have growing wastewater recycling programs.
California currently recycles over 400,000 acre-feet of water per year,  and has
goals of achieving 700,000 acre-feet by the year 2000 and surpassing one mil-
lion acre-feet by 2010. Hawaii adopted a goal of increasing its wastewater reuse
from approximately 175,000 acre-feet in 1994 to over 470,000 acre-feet by the
year 2000. Arizona currently reuses approximately 35% of its total wastewater
stream (approximately 70,000 acre-feet per year) and expects to be recycling
65% of its wastewater by 2015. Nevada used approximately 180,000 acre-feet of
wastewater for irrigating golf courses, parks, and urban green belts in 1994,
also expects to increase its reliance on reclamation in coming years.

-------
                                                                             ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
t
  100 —
    1989
•Susp«ndad Solids (SS) -*-8ioen«micai Onyoan Damana |BOD);
                   •90
                                 •91
                                               '92
                                                             •93
                      :-;-~«-~~^rr*$
                                                                           •94
                                                                                   Figure 12
                                                                                   Combined BOD and SS
                                                                                   Discharged from 14 Major
                                                                                   Municipal Wastewater
                                                                                   Treatment Plants in EPA
                                                                                   Region 9
                                                                                   Source:  EPA Permit
                                                                                   Compliance System Data
  200,000

  180,000

  160,000

  140,000

  120,000

* 100,000

   80,000
                                                                                         Figure 13
                                                                                         Priority Pollutant
                                                                                         Discharges by
                                                                                         Manufacturers Potentially
                                                                                         Impacting Water Quality
                                                                                         Source: Toxics Release
                                                                                         Inventory

                                                                                         Note: Excludes discharges to
                                                                                         wastewater treatment plants
                                                                                         and off-site disposals. Water
                                                                                         includes groundwater and
                                                                                         surface water.
                                    Median concentration of phosphorus
                                    in surface water based on
                                    102,097 samples
                                                                                         Figure 14
                                                                                         Surface Water Quality
                                                                                         Phosphorus
                                                                                         Source:  STORET

-------
MAY 1996
                                PAGE 13
Water Quality
...continued

-------
PAGE   14
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
                              Median concentration of cadmium
                              in surface water based on
                             i 25,432 samples	
     Figure 15
     Surface Water Quality
     Cadmium
     Source:  STORET
                                    Median concentration of lead
                                    in surface water
                                    based on 28,434 samples
      1974 75 76  77  78  79 '80  -81  '82  'SB »»
                                                                                 Figure 16
                                                                                 Surface Water Quality
                                                                                 Lead
                                                                                 Source:  STORET
   Figure 17 Surface Water Quality, Pesticides

   (Note: This indicator is still under consideration. The Workgroup had planned to use
   existing data to show median concentrations of pesticides in surface waters for the
   past twenty years. However, data quality problems arose from merging data for the
   different pesticides. Presenting median values given these difficulties would be
   misleading.)
                                                                                 Figure 17

-------
MAY 1996
PA.CE  15
Waste  Management
waste is better managed...volume is increasing
                         In the 1970s, citizens became concerned that industrial use of hazardous
                         materials could leave a legacy of serious health problems for local communi-
                       ties. These wastes can also damage the environment by seeping into surface
                       waters and killing fish or other organisms. Legislation was developed to insure
                       industries dealt responsibly with the hazardous wastes they were generating
                       (RCRA, 1 976), to tax industry to pay the cost of cleaning up waste sites created
                       before the new law took effect (CERCLA, or Superfund, 1980) and to assure that
                       underground storage tanks, widely used for storing gasoline and other hazardous
                       materials, were not leaking into the nation's groundwater (RCRA, 1986).
                          The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its amendments
                       establish a nationwide program to protect human health and the environment
                       from the risks of hazardous waste. The Act defines a waste as hazardous if it is
                       ignitable, corrosive, or toxic. Such wastes, improperly disposed of, can pose
                       dangers to human health ranging from headaches to cancer and can damage the
                       environment by seeping into surface waters and killing fish or other organisms,
                       for example.
                          RCRA establishes a "cradle to grave" effort to track hazardous wastes from the
                       point of generation, through transportation, to the point of ultimate treatment,
4,1 50 Superfund sites  storage, or disposal. Wastes are tracked via the Uniform Hazardous Waste
have been addressed,  fest. Record keeping and reporting requirements for generators provide a
and work has been     *or tracking the quantities of waste generated and its movements. Figure 18
   m  leted on 3 650   snows tne amount of hazardous waste generated from 1 989 to 1 993. The passage
comp ereo o   ,       ^ thg Toxjcjty characteristic Rule in 1 980 resulted in a substantial increase in the
                       universe of hazardous waste regulated.
                          Until 1 976, when RCRA passed, management of hazardous waste was un-
                       regulated. As a result, some wastes were disposed of in ways that threatened
                       human health or the environment. The Comprehensive Emergency Response,
                       Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also called Superfund) was passed in
                       1 980 to correct these problems. Figure 19 shows that, of the 4,600 potential
                       hazardous waste sites identified in Region 9 since the program began, 4,1 50 have
                       been addressed, and work has been completed on 3,650 of these. Sites are
                       considered "completed" when EPA decides no further action is warranted at the
                       site, or when the engineering and construction projects necessary to implement
                       the cleanup are done. The majority of completed sites received a "no further
                       action" designation after preliminary assessments and inspections. However,
                       several hundred sites required emergency responses such as excavations or
                       actions to remove wastes immediately, and 115 have been  added to the Super-
                       fund National Priorities List (NPL). These NPL sites generally require careful
                       studies, detailed designs, and expensive construction projects to successfully
                       remedy the problems. Parties determined to be responsible for the waste, includ-
                       ing individuals, corporations and government agencies, conduct over 85% of
                       these long term remediation projects. By the end of 1 994, 29 NPL sites had
                       completed.

-------
16
                                                                        ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
                                                                             Figure 18
                                                                             RCRA Hazardous Waste
                                                                             Generation in Region 9
                                                                             Source:  EPA Biennial RCRA
                                                                             Hazardous Waste Report
                I D sites completed
                 • sites addressed
                                                                              Figure 19
                                                                              Superfund Progress
                                                                              Source: EPACERCUS
                                                                              Figure 20
                                                                              Cleanup of Leaking
                                                                              Underground Storage
                                                                              Tanks, Cumulative
                                                                              Numbers
                                                                              Source: EPA Strategic Tracking
                                                                              and Reporting System (STARS)
                 •9t
                                   •92
                                                    •93
                                                                      •94

-------
MAY 1996                                                                            PAGE  17
Waste  Management
...continued
                           Abandoned hazardous waste sites are not the only sources of contamination.
                       Of the over 200,000 underground storage tanks in Region 9, fifteen percent have
                       leaked (Figure 20). These leaks contaminate surrounding soil and in some cases
                       affect ground water supplies. EPA's Underground Storage Tanks program, together
                       with parallel State program offices, has been working to identify and address
                       these leaking tanks. Roughly 28% of the leaking tank sites have been cleaned up
                       to date. Innovative techniques for assessing the extent of contamination and for
                       remediating contamination, including risk-based decision making and stream-
                       lined administrative processes,  are expected to increase the rate at which sites are
                       cleaned up.
                           Dealing with existing hazardous wastes responsibly is important, but it would
                       be even better if products could be manufactured without these chemicals.  In
                       1986 Congress passed amendments to Superfund that established the Toxics
                       Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements. Under TRI, industries report
                       annually on their releases of toxic substances, and the results are publicly re-
                       leased and fairly widely reported in the news media. Although the TRI legislation
                       includes no permitting or enforcement authority against chemical  releases,  it has
                       been successful in reducing the direct release of toxics to the environment.  Some
                       TRI information appears in Figures 6 and 13. Figure 21  presents additional TRI
                       information for Region 9. It includes all releases to the environment and off-site
                       transfers. Releases to the environment include direct releases to air (fugitive
                       stack), water, and releases underground and to land. These numbers have
                       declining, and by 1993 direct releases to the environment were less than half
                       what they were in 1988. Off-site transfers include transfers to municipal waste-
                       water treatment plants and to facilities off-site for treatment or disposal, or for
                       recycling or energy recovery. Some of the growth in off-site transfers is due  to
                       increased reporting requirements implemented in 1991.
                           Solid waste includes all the non-hazardous waste generated by households
                       and industry. Twenty-five years ago, much solid waste was disposed of in open
                       dumps, most of which have now been closed. Modern waste dumps are designed
                       to prevent pollutants from seeping into ground or surface waters. In 1994, citi-
                       zens in Region 9 produced more than 2800 pounds of waste per person, per year
                       (Figure 22), down slightly from a high of 3000 pounds in 1990. Although the
                       decline in Volume has been small, more of the waste that is generated is now
                       recycled. Recycled materials presently comprise more than 20% of the  total solid
                       wastes generated, up from only 10% in 1988.

                       Challenges and innovations
                           Important as it  is, recycling alone cannot solve our waste problem. For  both
                       hazardous and solid waste, the challenge is to reduce the volume of waste
                       generated, to reuse wastes whenever possible, and then to recycle what remains
                       into new products. EPA and the states are beginning to explore alternative pro-
                       grams and cooperative efforts with industry and other government agencies
                       can help achieve these goals.
                           The California Incinerable  Hazardous Waste Minimization Project is an
                       example of a state-initiated partnership between government and  industry. This

-------
PACE   18
                                                                                     ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
                     D Off-site Transfers for Disposal and
                      Treatment
    Figure 21
    Summary of Reported
    Releases and Transfers
    Source:  Toxics Release
 •   Inventory

 ;•   Note: Beginning in 1991,
    industries were required to
    report on toxic chemicals
=*  transferred off-site for energy
    recovery and recycling.
                         JBLandftlled •Incinerated •Recycled •Total For Parson|
     Figure 22
     Generation and Disposal of
     Solid Waste Per Person
     Source:  BioCyde

-------
MAY 1996
                          19
Waste  Management
...continued
                     project resulted in a 53 percent reduction in the generation and off-site shipment
                     of incinerable hazardous wastes between 1987 and 1992. The project was
                     conceived by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to
                     address the State's inadequate incinerator capacity. DTSC wanted to demonstrate
                     that a waste minimization effort, focused on a specific universe of wastes and
                     associated facilities, could lead to greater reductions and more efficient use of
                     government and industry resources.
                        Fifty-nine of the largest generators of incinerable wastes were targeted.
                     Participants were selected from five major industry groups: aerospace,  petroleum,
                     electronics, chemical and paint manufacturers, and commercial hazardous waste
                     recyclers. Thirty-nine facilities agreed to participate. In return, DTSC agreed to
                     help facilities overcome technical, permitting, and regulatory barriers to reducing
                     wastes.
                        This successful effort was the first attempt in the nation to determine if a
                     focused waste minimization effort, through a voluntary public and private part-
                     nership, could affect changes in a specific group of facilities which generate a
                     targeted range of hazardous wastes.

-------
I'MLE  20
                     ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
                        U.S.  NAVAL AIR FACILITY
                                     El Centre, California
        The U.S. Naval Air Facility in El Centre, California,
        as part of a recent enforcement settlement under
        RCRA agreed to perform two projects involving
  significant pollution prevention efforts. The goals of
  these projects were to reduce hazardous waste gener-
  ated by 25 percent and to reduce hazardous materials
  inventories by 40 percent.
      For the first project, six new jet parts washers were
  installed to clean and degrease airplane parts using
  detergent and high-velocity water jets instead of
  chemical solvents.  This project resulted in a 90 percent
  reduction in hazardous waste generated from this
  activity,  and total elimination of solvents.
    The second project established a program embodying
the following waste minimization principles: 1) central-
ized ordering of hazardous materials to eliminate over-
ordering and reduce the potential for materials expiring
and becoming hazardous waste; 2) centralized delivery
and control so  that warehouse employees deliver only the
quantity needed, reducing the volume of materials at
work sites and  the likelihood of improper handling and
disposal; and 3) substitution by warehouse employees of
alternative materials, reducing the amount of hazardous
materials purchased.

-------
MAY 1996
                                                              PAGE  21
 Public   Health
safer drinking water...safer food
Drinking water is
safer now than ever
before.
Dramatic success has
been achieved in
reducing exposure to
lead.
     Many environmental programs have a public health component. This chapter
     focuses on four environmental programs whose primary goal is to promote
and protect public health: protection of drinking water, reducing exposure to
lead, and two pesticide programs, pesticide related illnesses and pesticide resi-
dues in food.
   Drinking water is safer now than ever before. The Safe Drinking Water Act
amendments of 1986 mandated more stringent monitoring and reporting require-
ments for coliform bacteria and nitrate, routinely monitored contaminants that
can cause serious (acute) human illness. Despite stricter regulations and in-
creased monitoring and reporting, both the number of acute violations of drinking
water standards (Figure 23} and the  number of people potentially exposed during
a violation (Figure 24) have been declining.
   Another dramatic environmental success is the reduction of exposure to lead
(Pb). Lead has had a long history of  use in industry. It improves the coating
capabilities of paint and boosts the octane of gasoline. However, lead is highly
toxic and is especially devastating to children and fetuses. As the brain and
nervous systems develop, lead poisoning can cause neurobehavioral problems,
learning disabilities, and deficits in IQ. Concerns about these toxic effects
prompted Congress to make lead reduction key environmental goal. Lead was
banned from interior paints in 1978  and phased out of gasoline, a process com-'
pleted in January 1996. Federal and  state environmental agencies have been
limiting releases of lead to the environment in other ways as well.
   The results of these activities have been fairly dramatic. Since the mid 1970s,
emissions of lead to air have dropped 90% (Figure 4), and median concentrations
of lead in surface waters dropped tenfold between 1974 and 1994 (Figure 11}.
   Although many uses of lead have been curtailed, children are still exposed to
lead releases originating from historical uses. Programs to measure the magnitude
of the problem by determining the percentage of children with elevated blood
lead levels have begun, but Region-wide data are not yet available. One source
of lead in the environment which could affect children is lead paint in houses
built before 1979,  the year that lead in paint was banned. Since older housing is
more likely to contain lead-based paint, the age of the housing stock correlates
with the number of homes with lead-based paint. This information, coupled with
data on the number of homes with children under the age of 7, can provide an
estimate of the number of children exposed to lead (Figure 25).
    Another class of contaminants of public health concern is pesticides. Two
States, California and Arizona, have laws that require the reporting and investiga-
tion of illness  and  injury whenever pesticide exposure is suspected as the cause.
Both states' programs  include agricultural and non-agricultural uses of pesticides.
Factors associated with these incidents are investigated, documented, and evalu-
ated as part of the efforts to assure safe pesticide usage. Possible pesticide e
sure cases are classified as "definite", "probable", "possible", "unlikely", or
"unrelated". Of the 2,140 possible cases reported in 1993, 896 (42%) were
definitely or probably caused by pesticides.

-------
   22
                                                                  ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
                                                                                       Figure 23
                                                                                       Number of Acute National
                                                                                  [ ?    Drinking Water Standards
                                                                                       Violations
                                                                                       Source:  EPA FRDS/SDWIS
2.500
2,000
1.500
1,000
 500
                                                                        Figure 24
                                                                        Annual Average Population
                                                                        Exposed Per Acute
                                                                        violation of National
                                                                        Drinking Water Standards
                                                                        Source:  EPA FRDS/SDWIS
6,000,000 •
5.000,000 •
4.000.000 •
3,000.000
1.000.000
O Estimated housing without
  lead-based paint

• Estimated housing with lead-]
  based paint
           units built
          prior to 1940
             units built
              1940-59
units built
 1960-79
               Sale ol lead-baaed paint
               tor use in housing units
                was banned in 1978
units built
 1980-90
                          Figure 25
                          Total Region 9 Housing
                          Units and Estimate of Units
                          with Lead-based Paint
                          Source:  1990 Census of
                          Population and Housing
                          Summary Tape File 3C

-------
MAY 1996
                                                                    PACE  23
Public   Health
                     ...continued
       Biologically Integrated
      Orchard  Systems (BIOS)
      BIOS is an innovative technology transfer
  program that is assisting California almond
  growers to use biologically-based farming
  practices. By replacing chemicals with biologi-
  cally-intensive pest, nutrient, and soil manage-
  ment systems, BIOS farmers are achieving many
  environmental benefits, including:
    •  reducing and/or eliminating priority
      pesticides which are known to be contami-
      nating ground water, surface water, and air;
    •  reducing synthetic nitrogen use;
    •  eliminating open-air burning of orchard
      pruning debris; and
    •  building soils with improved water holding
      capacity, and lower potentials for erosion
      and the generation of paniculate air
      pollutants (PM-10).
      Central to the success of this program is the
  locally-based BIOS Management Team. Com-
  posed of local farmers, pest control advisors,
  project/farmer organizers, the local Cooperative
  Extension agent, and agricultural scientists, this
  team oversees a package of financial and
  technical incentives which includes develop-
  ment of a comprehensive farm transition plan
  tailored to the needs of each participating
  grower. BIOS is managed by a grassroots
  organization, the Community Alliance with
  Family Farmers Foundation, with a grant from
  EPA. Other critical players  include: State
  agencies, the California Legislature, the Almond
  Commodity Board of California, the University
  of California, the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
  private foundations, and corporate sponsors.
      The BIOS model appears to be well suited
  for replication and institutionalization beyond
  the  $600 million almond industry. In one year,
  this technology transfer model has spread from
  one commodity in one county to three different
  commodities (almonds, oranges, walnuts) in five
 ' counties. California Assembly Bill 3383, if
  enacted, will extend the model to five different
  commodities in California.
    Figure 26 suggests a decline in pesticide related illnesses. This decline is
partly attributable to increased pesticide reentry intervals (the time between when
a pesticide is applied and when workers can return to the site), and regulatory
modifications to address specific problem chemicals. However, obtaining an
                  accurate picture of the frequency and extent to which pesti-
                  cides are responsible for illnesses is often hindered by under-
                  reporting,  lack of access to medical evaluation, threat of job
                  loss if a report  is made, and the apparent higher incidence of
                  more easily reported exposures.
                      As part of its program to regulate the use of pesticides, EPA
                  is responsible for setting tolerances for pesticide residues to
                  ensure the public is protected from unreasonable health risks
                  posed by eating foods that have been treated with pesticides.
                  Tolerances are the maximum amount of pesticide residues
                  that may legally remain  in food.  Establishing tolerances
                  ensures that when pesticides are used according to label
                  directions, the residues remaining will not pose an unaccept-
                  able health risk to consumers.
                      California and Hawaii participate in a national program
                  with the U.S. Food and  Drug Administration to sample for
                  pesticide residues in selected commodities. Data collected
                  California  and  Hawaii show a violation rate between one a
                  two percent (Figure 27), numbers which are consistent with
                  other states. This information is valuable for risk assessments
                  and the review of pesticide tolerances.

-------
'ACE   24
                                                                                    ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
                                                                                         Figure 26
                                                                                         Reported Pesticide-related
                                                                                         Illnesses in California and
                                                                                         Arizona
                                                                                         Source:  Arizona Department
                                                                                         of Health Services  and
                                                                                         California £PA
   7,000
   6,000
   5,000
   4,000
   3,000
   2,000
   1,000

--











.91%
significant

63



D Total Samples
• Number Significant








1.66%
significant

78











1.08%
significant-


53



2.2
sig





0%
iificant
113
 Figure 27
 Pesticide Residues in
 Commodities Sampled in
 California and Hawaii
 Source: Residue Monitoring,
 FDA

 Note: A significant finding
. denotes a residue that either
 exceeds federal or state
 regulatory limits, is not
 covered by a tolerance for the
 chemical/food combination, or
 indicates  an unusual finding.
                1991
                                    •92
                                                       •93
                                                                          •94

-------
 MAY 1 996
                                                                PAGE  25
 Ecological   Health
 the challenge is to protect habitat
Region 9 has the
largest number of
endangered and
threatened species in
the nation.
    Region 9 occupies close to 250 million acres rich with natural wonders. The
    geographical diversity of the Region is one of its most valuable and cherished
environmental assets. It is home to a wide range of native plant and animal
species, many of which occur nowhere else. This chapter considers some of the
Region's unique ecological resources, pressures faced by many native species,
and some of the efforts designed to address these issues.
    Region 9 encompasses much of the western U.S., lands that were not densely
settled until recently. A growing human population has reduced habitat and
created pressure on  native species. However, some increase in protection for
these species may be provided by the growth in lands set aside for rural parks and
wildlife refuges. Figure 28 shows that between 1959 and 1987 the number of
acres where natural  habitats are protected in this way has more than doubled,
from 9 million acres to 20 million acres. During the same years, developed land
(that is, cities and other human  communities) has grown by 3  million acres,
totaling 19.8 million acres in 1987.
                                  SF BAY DELTA: CALIFORNIA'S LIFEBLOOD
                           The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary has
                            I been called "the lifeblood of
                           California's economy and environment" (SF
                           Chronicle, 1994), and demands for its
                           water have appeared limitless. The Delta is
                           the largest wetland system in the western
                           United States and supports 120 species of
                           fish. However, it also supplies 60% of all of
                           the fresh water used in California. Irrigation
                           accounts for 80% of this use; the remaining
                           20% goes to municipal and industrial
                           needs. In attempting to meet California's
                           water demands, the Delta has suffered
                           extensive environmental damage. Two
                           species of native fish, the winter-run
                           Chinook salmon and the delta smelt, are
                           currently listed as endangered, and federal
                           wildlife officials estimate that more than a
                           dozen other species may be in need of
                           similar protection.
                              On December 15,1994, Federal, State,
                           agricultural, urban and environmental
                           representatives signed an historic accord for
                           the area that balances the needs of natural
                           resources with those of urban and agricul-
                           tural interests. A key element of the accord
is to restore salinity and hydrologic flow
conditions to the levels of the eariy 1970s,
using indicator-based water quality
standards. Near-bottom salinity was
determined to be the best indicator of
overall habitat quality in the estuary
because it influences or controls fish
spawning and rearing, food supply, and
population size of various aquatic organ-
isms. Under the agreement, more water
will be allowed to flow through the Delta
in order to lessen the intrusion of salt
water. Protection of fish migration through
the Bay-Delta system is another key goal of
the agreement. The main indicator that will
be used for assessing success is the survival
of smolts (young salmon) migrating out to
sea. The agreement also includes a
narrative objective to double the current
production of Chinook salmon in the
estuary. Salmon production was specifi-
cally incorporated into the accord as an
environmental indicator to insure that all of
the prescribed protective measures will be
in place for the various salmon runs
passing through the Delta.
                                                                      of
                                                                      4

-------
     'AGE  26
                                               ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
4
Land Use,  1959
         Grassland
          Pasture
          Range
           46%
                                             Forest Land
                                                29%
                         • Forest Land
                         •All Other Land uses
                         D Developed Und
                         • Cropland
                         • Rural Parks and Wildlife Areas
                         • Grassland Pasture. Range
                                               All Other Land uses
                                                     8%
                                          Developed Land
                                               7%
                  Rural Parks &
                    Wildlife
                    Areas
                     4%
Figure 28
Land Use in Region 9 for
the Years 1959 and 1987
Source: USDA
                              Land Use, 1987
      Grassland
       Pasture,
        Range
         45%
          Rural Parks &
        Wildlife Areas 8%
                                          Forest Land
                                             25%
                                               All Other
                                              Land uses
                                                 8%
                           • Forest Land,

                           • All Other Land uses

                           D Developed Land

                           • Cropland

                           • Rural Parks and Wildlife
                             Areas
                           • Grassland Pasture, Range
                                              Developed Land
                                                   8%
      Cropland
         6%

-------
MAY 1 996
                                                           PAGE  2:
 Ecological   Health
                              ...continued
Between 1780 and
1980, Arizona, Cali-
fornia, Hawaii, and
Nevada lost 79% of
their wetlands.
   However, the overall picture is not very encouraging. Figure 29 shows that
Region 9 states, compared with the rest of the country, have some of the largest
numbers of endangered and threatened species. Some of the causes include loss
of wetlands in the arid west and the impacts of dams and stream channelization
projects.
   Wetlands are the transitional lands between terrestrial and aquatic systems,
where the water level is near, at, or slightly above the ground surface. The ben-
efits they provide - as wildlife habitats; groundwater recharging areas, and ero-
sion barriers - are better appreciated today. Historically,  however, agricultural and
urban development interests have seen wetlands as a  barrier. These longstanding
forces have limited wetlands to a fraction of their original acreage. In the two
hundred years between 1780 and 1980, the land area now defined by the states
of Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada lost 79%  of its wetlands. California's
Central Valley is a notable example. In 1850, approximately 31% of the Central
Valley's total area (13 million acres) were wetlands. By 1980, that amount had
declined to just 4%. Development pressures remain a challenge in land manage-
ment.
   The arid conditions that occur in much of the west have encouraged building
of dams and irrigation and channelization projects. While these have benefited
agriculture and local communities,  they often affect fish populations by blocki
access of native fish to their traditional spawning grounds, changing the water
temperature to levels that are lethal to fish, or changing natural spring runoff
conditions. These effects can be especially severe during drought conditions.
Figure 29
Total Number of Listed
Threatened and
Endangered Species by
State, (includes Candidate 1
and Proposed Species)
Source: USFWS, Our Living
Resources, 1995

-------
PACE   28
                                        ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
                                              HAWAIIAN  ECOSYSTEMS
Although most,of us think of Hawaii a
  tropical island, its landscape is
  actually quite diverse. It ranges from
  sun drenched atolls less that 20 feet
   above the sea to snow-capped
   peaks up to 14,000 feet. Rainfall
   can vary from less that 20 inches
   to more that 450 inches per year.
  This diversity combined with the
 islands extreme isolation (they are
almost 2500 miles from the nearest
continent) has resulted in a spectacu-
lar variety of species. The islands are a
showcase of evolution that includes
the highest number of endemic, i.e.,
unique, species of any area in the
world.
   Unfortunately, the loss of species
on the Hawaiian islands has been
staggering, and those species that
remain often occupy only a fraction of
their  historical range. Seventy percent
of the extinctions known to have
occurred in the U.S. took place in
                                                                       Hawaii. The islands have lost more than
                                                                       50% of their birds, and perhaps 50% of
                                                                       their plants. The reasons for these losses
                                                                       are many, but loss of habitat and introduc-
                                                                       tion of non-native species are key.
                                                                       Particularly important has been the
                                                                       introduction of non-native grazers such as
                                                                       pigs, goats, sheep, and cattle. There are
                                                                       no native grazers in Hawaii so the native
                                                                       plants evolved with no way to protect
                                                                       themselves from grazing animals. Pigs
                                                                       have been particularly damaging, rooting
                                                                       through the understory, devastating large
                                                                       tracts of land, and creating a seedbed for
                                                                       alien plants and severe erosion, especially
                                                                       on the steep slopes of older islands. For
                                                                       more information, see NBS report, Our
                                                                       Living Resources, from which much of this
                                                                       information on Hawaii was adapted.
                      PRESERVING  BIODIVERSITY
      In the face of environmental pressures, a number of programs have been implemented to restore and protect native
  species. The paragraphs below highlight two efforts to preserve biodiversity: the Hawaiian stilt and the California gnat-
  '- xher.
      The middle of an oil refinery doesn't sound tike the best place for endangered Hawaiian waterbirds to build their nests,
  but to a number of ae'o or Hawaiian stilt, it's an attractive home. Over the last three years, Chevron USA's Oahu refinery
  may have produced more young stilt than any other comparably sized wetland area on the island. Only 1,200-1,600
  Hawaiian stilt are estimated to occur throughout the islands. In 1993, Chevron USA entered into a cooperative agreement
  with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to protect stilt and migratory shorebirds at the refinery, and to provide suitable
  feeding and nesting habitat for them at Roland Pond. Chevron maintains specified water levels in the pond during
  breeding season (March through August) to ensure adequate foraging habitat for adults and chicks. The FWS is
  allowed access to monitor the birds throughout the nesting season. In 1992, 24 Hawaiian stilt successfully fledged
  from Roland  Pond. In 1993, the number of fledged birds increased to 36, and in 1994, 51 birds
  were raised at the site.
      The coastal sage scrub habitat of southern California is the home of the California
  gnatcatcher, a small gray songbird listed as threatened by FWS. It .is also home to as many as 40
  other species whose continued survival is uncertain. The Natural Communities Conservation Plan
  (NCCP) is designed to save large tracts of habitat to ensure the survival of all these species. At the_
  same time, the NCCP renpoves obstacles to development in areas outside of the designated
  habitat preserves. The NCCP's 6000-square-mile planning area encompasses approximately 394,000 acres
  of coastal sage scrub habitat. So far about 210,000 acres of this habitat have been preserved. The NCCP's anticipatory,
  preventive approach is likely to serve as a model for other state and local governments seeking to protect critical habitats
  while allowing economic development.

-------
MAY 1996
                             P*CE  29
Ecological   Health
...continued
                          Figures 30 and 31 show the general relationship between salmon populations
                       and human use of water. The percentage of the San Francisco estuary's water that
                       has been diverted for human uses gradually increased over the last 40 years (see
                       Figure 30). At the same time,  populations of both fall-run and winter-run chinook
                        salmon returning to the Sacramento River, which flows into the estuary, have
                         declined (see Figure 31). During the most recent drought years (1987-1992), as
                         much as 50% of the estuary's water was diverted. By 1991 winter-run chinook
                       salmon populations had declined to just 191 fish.
                                              UNIQUE FISH
                           The Colorado Basin in the south
                           west includes a range of land-
                        scapes: lowland deserts, riparian
                        areas and oases, and high mountains
                        and plateaus. Getting water can be a
                        particular challenge in any desert
                        where evaporation rates exceed
                        rainfall. Flash floods are a major
                        source of water for many plants and
                        animals. Runoff and seasonal rains
                        feed deep, river-forged canyons, and
                        can create floods and rapids during
                        the spring that, in summer, become
                        isolated pools or dry river beds. This
                        is home to several rare and unique
                        native Colorado River Basin fish.
                           Native chubs,  minnows, suckers,
                        pupfishes,  and topminnows that live
                        in the Basin have large, strong fins,
                        powerful muscles, leathery skin with
                        deeply embedded scales, and large
                        and streamlined bodies adapted to
                        jiving in deep eddies, white water, or
    steady flows characteristic of can-
    yons. Short life spans, the ability to
    disperse quickly and spawn anytime
    of the year, and resistance to
    drought, low oxygen levels, and
    crowding are adaptations to areas
    where high flows can appear sud-
    denly after a long dry spell. Early
    settlers believed that the longfin dace
    sprang out of the sand because it
    emerged so quickly after  the rains
    began.
      Water management practices,
    misuse of watersheds, the introduc-
    tion of competitive or predatory
    species, and hybridization have all
    contributed to the decline of native
    fish species in the lower Colorado
    River. The introduction of exotic
    species has increased the number of
    species on the Colorado to nearly
    three times that of original popula-
    tions.

-------
PACE  30
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
                                                                                 Figure 30
                                                                                 Water Diversion for
                                                                                 Human Uses from
                                                                                 San Francisco Estuary
                                                                                 Source: California Department
                                                                                 of Fish and Game
                                                                                  Figure 31
                                                                                  Annual Estimates of Adult
                                                                                  Fall-Run and Winter-Run
                                                                                  Chinook Salmon Returning
                                                                                  to the Mainstem
                                                                                  Sacramento River
                                                                                  Source: California Department
                                                                                  of Fish and Came

-------
MAY 1996
                                                   PACE  31
Background  Information
continued growth...
                        Region 9 has experienced 200% increase in population in the last four
                        decades, (see Figure 1). This has been accompanied by similar economic
                     growth (Figure 32). The 1980s were especially prosperous. The aggregate Gross
                     State Products of the states in Region 9 increased by 45 percent during the de-
                     cade, although these states were not immune to the 1990 recession.
                        Energy consumption (Figure 33) grew from less than 8 billion BTUs per year
                     in 1986 to almost 9 billion in 1990.1991 saw a slight decline, due in part to the
                     introduction of energy efficient technology. Energy production does pose a stress
                     on the natural environment (see Green Lights discussion, p. 6). Reductions in
                     energy consumption can contribute to clean air.
                        The amount of fresh water removed from its source for consumption purposes
                     grew steadily for the twenty years between 1960 and 1980, but it has declined
                     since and in 1990 was about 45 billion gallons per day (Figure 34). Although
                     increased population created new demand for water, agriculture uses most water
                     in Region 9. A reduction in water consumption means water is allowed to stay in-
                     stream, which is necessary to maintain delicate riparian, wetland, and aquatic
                     habitats and ecosystems.
                        Life expectancy is one measure of a healthy population. Figure 35 shows
                     for the U.S. as a whole, and reveals an increase in life expectancy from 55 in
                     1920 to over 75 in 1990.
Figure 32
Region 9 States Gross State
Product
Source: Survey of Current
Business
$800,000
                                             •82  •83  W  'BS  '88  '87  "88  89  *>

-------
PAGE  32
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
                                                                                       Figure 33
                                                                                       Region 9 Total Energy
                                                                                       Consumption
                                                                                       Source: Statistical Abstract of
                                                                                       the United States
   35
   30
   25
JT ! •
i jf i j 1
! ^ '. 1 1
jT . \ \
' jr \ ' 1



i 1 i



                                                                                       Figure 34
                                                                                       Total Fresh Water
                                                                                       Consumption
                                                                                       Source: Estimated Use of
                                                                                       Water in the U.S., USCS
   so -
                                                                                       Figure 35
                                                                                       Expectation of Life at Birth
                                                                                       Source: U.S. National Center
                                                                                       for Health Statistics

-------
MAY 1996	P^CE  33


Significant  Environmental  Events(


Date Event
1875  John Wesley Powell navigates the Colorado River
1892  John Muir founds the Sierra Club
1913  Congress allows use of part of Yosemite Park for Hetch Hetchy reservoir
1918  Nation's first comprehensive river basin plan completed for the Colorado River
1944  Shasta Dam completed, limiting salmon spawning in the Sacramento River
1947  Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (last amended 1988)
1955  Clean Air Act (last amended 1990)
1961  Hawaii passes the nation's first state land use legislation
1961  Founding of the Save San Francisco Bay Association
1962  Rachel Carson publishes Silent Spring
1965  Solid Waste Disposal Act {last amended 1988)
1969  Santa Barbara oil spill
1969  National Environmental Policy Act
1970  California Environmental Quality Act
1970  First Earth Day is celebrated
1970  EPA is established by President Nixon, Ruckleshaus is first Administrator
1970  Clean Air Act
1971  EPA establishes standards for six major air pollutants
1972  First UN Conference on the Human Environment
1972  DDT is banned partly because of its impact on birds like the brown pelican
1972  Clean Water Act
1972  Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
1972  Coastal Zone Management Act
 1972 California Water Project pumps begin operating
 1974 Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) is dedicated
 1973 EPA proposes restricting gasoline sales in Los Angeles to  improve air quality
 1973 Endangered  Species Act
 1973  U.S. faces an energy crisis
 1973  EPA issues regulations limiting lead in gasoline
 1974  Safe Drinking Water Act (last amended 1986)
 1975  Energy Policy and Conservation Act sets fuel economy standards for cars
 1976  Toxics Substances Control Act (last amended 1988)
 1976  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
 1978  EPA bans chloroflurocarbons (CFC) for use as  a propellant

-------
'ACE  34
                                                                           ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS REPORT
1982
1982
 1979   Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant accident
  980   Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act)
 1980   Asbestos School Hazard Detection and Control Act
        Nuclear Waste Policy Act created to provide safe disposal of radioactive wastes
        Yucca Mountain in Nevada selected as a disposal site
 1982   Hawaii's entire milk supply is found to be contaminated with heptachlor
 1982   Brown pelican is removed from the Endangered Species List
 1982   Kesterson Reservoir
 1984   Union Carbide underground storage tank accident in Bhopal, India
 1985   The Vienna Convention for the protection of the ozone layer
 1986   Emergency and Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
 1986   Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident (USSR)
 1987   24 nations sign the Montreal  Protocol to phase out production on CFCs
 1987   Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act, prohibits dumping plastics at sea
 1988   Metam-sodium spill into the Sacramento River at Dunsmuir
 1988   Ocean Dumping Ban Act (prohibits industrial waste dumping in ocean)
 1988   Shore Protection Act,  regulates waste hauling by vessels to prevent spills
 1989   Exxon Valdez spills 11  million gallons of oil  at Prince William Sound, Alaska
 1989   U.S.  EPA announces the availability of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
  990   Oil Pollution Control Act regulates oil spill response activities
 1992   U.N. Conference on  Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
 1993   EPA releases research on health risks of second-hand tobacco smoke
 1994   American bald eagle is upgraded from an endangered to a threatened species
 1994   President Clinton issues environmental justice Executive Order
 1994   San Francisco Bay Delta accord is signed
 References	
 BioCycle: Journal of Composting and Recycling. 1988-94. (The April issue each year includes a nationwide survey on the state
 of garbage in the U.S.)
 CaJifornia Department of Fish and Game. Native Fishes Recovery Plan.
 Dahl, Thomas E. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC, 1990.
 Prayer, W.E., Dennis D. Peters, and H. Ross Pywell. Wetlands of the California Central Valley: Status and Trends 1939 to Mid-
 1980's. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC.
 LaRoe, Edward T., et. al. Our Living Resources: A Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance and Health of U.S.
 Plants, Animals and Ecosystems. U.S. National Biological Service, Washington DC. 1995.
 Rinne, John N. and W. I. Minckley. Native Fishes of Arid Lands: A Dwindling Resource of the Desert Southwest. U.S. Depart-
 ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-206.
 1991.
 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority. Annual Report, 1993-1994.1995.
 U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality: The Twenty-fourth Annual Report. 1994.
|U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report 1989,1991, & 1993.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Update: Environmental Progress and Challenges. August 1988.
 U .S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1994.

-------
L

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND INDICATORS	
LINKAGES BETWEEN REGIONAL AND STATE ACTIVITIES
AND NATIONAL EFFORTS
BACKGROUND PAPER FOR EPA CONFERENCE ON
MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND INDICATORS
JUNE 1996

-------
                                     Prepared by:
                                     EPA Region II
                             Office of Policy and Management
                             Planning and Evaluation Branch
                                     290 Broadway
                               New York, NY 10007-1866
                                    (212)637-3570

                                  with assistance from:
                                     EPA Region I
                                Strategic Planning Office
                                    (617) 565-3520

                                         and

                                    EPA Region IX
                             Contracts and Planning Branch
                                    (415) 744-1623
Analysis of reports referred to in this paper was accomplished through an informal review in
order to provide a general summary of activities and concerns related to environmental goals
and indicators. Most of this review was conducted during November 1995 to January 1996.
The documents reviewed include four reports prepared by the Florida Center for Public
Management that summarize state and regional activities, and summaries of interviews with
representatives of four states and three regions (see appendices). Therefore, the information
contained herein does not represent all work done by states and regions on environmental goals
and indicators. In addition, since the use of environmental indicators is a rapidly developing
area, it should be noted that additional work most certainly has been performed by states and
regions since this review was conducted. As all responses were included in the lists of
"bulleted" items herein, items on some lists may contradict each other where individuals had
differing opinions.

-------
|l     m  TABLE OF CONTENTS

      Introduction 	I

      State Activities
       Current Activities	2
         Summary	2
         Environmental Goals	2
         Environmental Indicators	3
         Joint State and Regional Activities	3
       Long-Term Vision  	4

      Regional Activities
       Current Activities	5
         Summary	5
         Environmental Goals	5
         Environmental Indicators	5
       Long-Term Vision  	6

      Problems Faced By Regions and States
       Barriers to Using Indicators 	7
       Anticipated Needs for Increasing Reliance on Indicators	9

      What Type of Assistance is Needed?
        What Do Regions Want From Headquarters?	10
        What Do States Want From Headquarters?	10
        What Do States Want From Regions?	11

      Conclusions
        How can State, Regional, and National Efforts Better Fit Together?	12
         Recommendations for Action	12
        Food for Thought: Questions for Discussion	13

      Appendix A: Questionnaire on Environmental Goals and Indicators, and responses

      Appendix B: Summaries of State and Environmental Indicator Initiatives with Completed
                  Reports

      Appendix C: State Environmental Goals and Indicators Activity

      Appendix D: Place-Based Environmental Indicator Activity

      Appendix E: Contacts for Planning and Environmental Indicators in the U.S. Environmental
                  Protection Agency Regions and Regional Environmental Indicator Activities

-------
 B INTRODUCTION

 This document is one of three papers written to provide background information and stimulate
 discussion ideas for the upcoming Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conference,
 "Managing Environmental Results: Using Goals and Indicators." This paper discusses linkages
 between federal efforts involving environmental goals and indicators and such efforts at the
 regional and state levels  A summary of related activities and long term visions at both the state
 and EPA regional level is provided. In addition, information is included about obstacles that
 states and regions face and the types of assistance that will facilitate progress. The issue of how
 state and regional activities may relate to and complement national efforts, and vice versa, is also
 addressed.

 In preparation for development of this paper, four state representatives (from New York, New
 Jersey, Massachusetts, and Hawaii) were interviewed using a fixed set of questions about their
 current activities, plans, obstacles, future needs, and the type of assistance they would like from
EPA. Regions I, II and IX also responded to the interview questions. Appendix A contains a
 copy of the interview questions and the state and regional responses.  Four reports that
 summarize activities in states and regions, which were prepared by the Florida Center for Public
Management for the State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project, were also used as
 references (Appendices B-E).

 A separate background paper for the conference is being prepared by EPA Headquarters to
 examine the relationship between various national goals and indicators projects.  Therefore, this
 document does not present detailed information about national efforts. Current national activities
with goals and indicators components include: the Government Performance and Results Act,
National Goals Project, National Environmental Performance Partnership System,  State Goals and
Indicators Project, OAR indicator projects, Office of Water Pilot State Projects, Project XL,
Community Based Environmental Protection, REMAP, EMAP, and the Regional Geographic
Initiatives Program.

-------
   STATE ACTIVITIES
CURRENT ACTIVITIES1

Summary
At the time this paper was prepared, there was considerably more information available regarding
state activities relating to indicators than on goals development.  It is clear, however, that for both
environmental goals and indicators, progress by states has been varied.  Some states do not have a
formal process for developing goals and indicators nor plans to develop one. Others have already
completed environmental indicator/state of the environment reports (Appendix B), while some are
concentrating on developing goals and/or indicators for only a limited number of program areas. See
below for a more detailed overview of the number of states at different levels. Most of the work
being conducted cooperatively by states and EPA regional  offices include activities related to the
National Environmental Performance Partnerships System (NEPPS), Office of Water pilot states,
and regions that are also developing state of the environment reports. The information below is based
mainly upon summaries in State Environmental Goals and Indicators Activity (Appendix C) by the
Florida Center,  Additional information was obtained from  the interviews in Appendix A and
discussion with  EPA Headquarters representatives.

Environmental Goals
An informal analysis of the draft State Environmental Goals and Indicators Activity Report by the
Florida Center for Public Management1 (Appendix C) and the four state interviews (Appendix A)
shows that 6 states are in the process of developing goals, and 1 1 have already adopted goals. Of
the 1 1 states that already have goals in place, about half describe a set of broad goals, while the other
half describe having comprehensive, specific, or departmental goals.

The Florida Center Report (Appendix A) does not include any information about goals development
for 28 states.2 According to the report's author, this means that either the state did not set goals or
the Florida Center had not determined whether or not the state had a goals project. However, 5
states specifically identified that they did not yet have goals. Three of those 5 reported plans to
develop goals in the future. Of the remaining 2, one specifically stated that there were no plans to
        1 In conjunction with the State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project, the Florida
 Center For Public management has conducted a comprehensive survey of about 90 state
 representatives to gather details about what states have done and to document efforts to use new
 environmental management techniques and tools. A final report, just released by the Florida
 Center, summarizes the results of this survey.  It is available on the Internet at
 www fsu.edu/~cpm/segip.html under the "Project Product" icon.  It was not released in time to be
 used as background material in developing this document.

        2 The report also does not contain information about goals for two additional states. New
 York and New Jersey. However, interviews with these states (Appendix A) indicated that they
 have developed goals. Thus, they were omitted from the states for which the Florida Center
 report does not contain goals information.

-------
develop goals for the state while the other noted that the state recognizes the importance of
developing goals in the future.

There is limited information available about the types of goals which have been established by those
states that reported using them. The areas into which four states have categorized their goals are
listed in the table below  Although the number and type of categories differ for all four, it is not clear
from the information available whether or not the goals themselves are similar in scope.
STATE
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Washington
GOAL CATEGORIES
Resource Protection, Waste Prevention, Waste Site Cleanup
Air, Water, Land, Waste
Environmental Quality and Natural Resources/Conservation, Pollution
Prevention, Administrative Effectiveness, Quality Through Participation
(similar to Total Quality Management), Employees, Customers
Education, Cooperation, Knowledge Building
Environmental Indicators
According to the latest Florida Center activity report (Appendix C), 10 states report that they neither
have formal indicators nor an active process for developing them. Virtually all the remaining 40
states report that they are involved to some degree with indicator development, although the stage of
development and breadth of program areas involved varies. Many of these states reported that they
already have selected and begun utilizing some indicators.  All but 2 of the states that have already
begun using indicators also reported plans for further developing their use of indicators.

Appendix B contains a report by The Florida Center, Summaries of State Environmental Indicator
Initiatives with Completed Reports, that describes the work of 11 states that have environmental
indicator reports and 3  states that have benchmark and strategic planning reports containing
environmental indicators.  States reported that the environmental indicator reports were prepared to
depict environmental health and all appear to be comprehensive in scope, covering several media
(e.g., air, water, land).  However, judging by the length of each report, some are more
comprehensive than others.  Seven of the reports are under 20 pages, 1 is 90, and
2 are nearly 300 pages long.

Joint State and Regional Activity
Twelve of the states reported that they are working with EPA on an indicator related project. Eight
of these states were referring to their participation in the EPA State Environmental Indicator Project,
which involves indicators for water quality.  These 8 participating states are referred to as "Office of
Water pilot states." The EPA Office of Water has developed a list of 17 indicators to be used for
measuring water quality. The pilot states were provided funding to test some of these indicators and
provide a report of their findings.  They were also given the latitude to decide which and how many
of the indicators they would  test. The final reports, due this summer, will discuss what steps were

-------
necessary to begin using the tested indicators, what obstacles were encountered, and whether the
indicators appear to be sufficient to depict water quality.  The pilot states are working in cooperation
with their respective EPA regional office in addition to the Office of Water on this effort.

The remaining 4 states that reported joint activities with regional offices referred to an EPA project
on bioassessment, a place-based initiative, a project to track the effectiveness of that  state's
environmental programs, and the federal REMAP and EMAP programs.

There are also a number of states involved in the NEPPS  program. All the states involved in this
program are expected to negotiate a Performance Partnership Agreement, which should focus on the
use of environmental indicators to measure performance.  The State Environmental Goals and
Indicators Project of the Florida Center for Public Management, in conjunction with EPA and the
Indicators Subcommittee of the Environmental Council of the States, assembled an annotated listing
of prospective indicators to assist in the implementation of performance partnership agreements. To
date, 5 states have signed agreements (Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, and Utah).  There
are an additional 24 states that are actively working on agreements to be  signed for FY'97.  The
agreements, both those completed and those under preparation, vary as to how many state programs
are included.

Some Regions are working with, or plan to work with, their states to prepare regionally based state
of the environment reports, although the extent of involvement varies. For example,  in Region IX
representatives from four states are members of the Environmental Indicators Workgroup and helped
to prepare their 1996 Indicators Report.  Region II recently began developing a state of the
environment report. In preliminary discussions, Region II states indicated that they are interested in
participating in the report's development. Region IV worked closely with its states to develop a
report titled "A Regional Environmental Strategic Plan for U.S. EPA and the State of Region IV."
Next, the region plans to conduct a pilot project for implementing the plan outlined by the report.
This project will focus on air pollution in one of Region IV's states.

LONG-TERM VISION

The 4 states interviewed for this paper (Appendix A) discussed the following visions  for their
environmental indicator programs:

• 3 of the 4 states are interested in eventually having a report to share with the public
   (i.e., a state of the environment report) on some regular basis.

• 1 state would like to have goals and indicators established annually for environmental
   projects as well as report environmental progress to the public on an annual basis.

• 2 of the 4 states expressed a desire to utilize more of the higher level indicators categorized
  by the Florida Center (1995 Environmental Indicators  Report),  while 1 state hopes to use the
  step-by-step process outlined by the Florida Center for development of an indicator program.

-------
 m REGIONAL ACTIVITIES

 CURRENT ACTIVITIES

 Summary
 Regions are at various stages of goal and indicator development and are working on a variety of
 indicator-related projects.  Most, if not all, regions are involved to some degree on working with
 their states to develop goals and indicators for specific place-based projects and/or other types of
 special initiatives.  Among these initiatives are the National Environmental Performance System,
 Regional Geographic Initiatives, and the National Estuary Program. Some regions have begun to
 develop a more comprehensive set of goals and indicators for their region.

 Environmental Goals
 Headquarters is leading the effort to create a national set of environmental goals, known as the
 National Goals Project.  Regions have  played a role in the development of these goals by
 participating in round table discussions and reviewing draft copies of the goals.  Some regions plan
 to rely on the national goals, while others are working on developing a core set of goals for use
 within their region.  For example, Region I is working with its states to develop environmental goals
 and indicators for use in the New England area by mid-1996.  The objective of the New England
 Goals and Indicators Project is to develop a menu of goals and indicators  that each state can choose
 from and tailor to address state-specific issues and conditions.  Other regions are involved in setting
 goals on a project-specific basis. For example, Region II does not have a  set of overarching  regional
 goals, but has developed goals for certain projects such as those under the Community Based
 Environmental Protection and the National Estuary Programs.

Environmental Indicators
 As with environmental goals, regional involvement with environmental indicators is varied. Some
 regions have only concentrated on developing indicators on a project-specific basis such as for
 estuary projects, REMAP projects, and other place-based initiatives (e.g.,  Mid-Atlantic Highlands
 Assessment in Region III, Great Plains Initiative in Region VII,  Clear Creek Watershed Initiative in
Region VIII).  Some regions have begun to form workgroups to coordinate the various indicator
 development projects in their regions.  Prospectively, much of the goals and indicators development
is being and will be done in conjunction with the negotiation of Performance Partnership Agreements
with states and the increased focus on environmental results. Some of these workgroups have been
formed with the intention of creating an indicator-based state of the environment report. At least
two regions, Region I (in 1995 and 1996) and Region III (in 1995), have produced such a report and
several others are in the process of producing similar reports.  These regions have also taken
different approaches with respect to working with states on their state of the environment reports,
ranging from not involving states at all  to having the state write  portions of the report.

A number of regions have included the topic of environmental indicators at workshops held over the
last year (e.g., Environmental Indicators Workshop, Region II; Oversight Reform Workshop, Region
IV; National Environmental Performance Partnership System Meeting, Region V).  And Region II
reports that, over the last four to five years, it has dedicated resources to the development of a GIS

-------
system that will support the development of an indicator tracking system for the region in the future.
LONG-TERM VISION

The 3 regions interviewed for this paper (Appendix A) discussed the following visions for
environmental indicator programs:

• honest, understandable environmental indicators that show both the impact of federal and
  state environment programs, and that as a whole, offer the public a clear picture of the state
  of the environment.

• a system with two sets of environmental indicators:
       1) indicators that measure the status of and trends in the environment to help regions
       determine if they are meeting long-term environmental goals, and

       2) indicators that measure the level of activity for each program and where possible the
       results or effects of these activities on the environment

• a closed loop system where goals and indicators are fully integrated into regional planning
and decision making. In such a system, indicators would help gauge the region's progress in meeting
environmental goals and to contribute to decisions on allocation of funds.

• More consistency than presently exists in types of data collection and analysis across regions and
states.

-------
m PROBLEMS FACED BY REGIONS AND STATES

Below are the concerns reported by states and regions in their interviews (Appendix A). Data
availability and lack of resources are a common theme throughout.

BARRIERS TO USING INDICATORS

Resources
• lack of staff with indicator experience
• no specific resources allocated toward goals/indicators
• lack of resources for monitoring and data collection
* need more funding for data management, assessment, and trend analysis (needed for this more
than for collection)

Setting Goals and Milestones
* difficult to assess how long it will take to detect changes and meet goals
• word smithing of goals leads to bureaucratic and technical goals that the public cannot
  understand
• time constraints (e.g., related to Performance Partnership schedule) sometimes do not allow
  for stakeholder input
• clarification needed on where EPA and states are heading on goals and indicators (still seems
  nebulous)

Selecting and Using Indicators
* figuring out if the best indicators have been chosen will  take years
* lack of certainty that higher level indicators truly reflect program's impact
* difficult to find good level 6 indicators3
• not enough data related to level 4, 5, and 6 indicators3
* It is unknown how well any given indicator will be received by the public and legislature
       3From Prospective Indicators for State Use in Performance Indicators by the Florida
Center for Public Management for State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project:
HIERARCHY OF INDICATORS
Administrative
1
Actions by
Federal or Slate
Regulatory
Agency
2
Responses of the
Regulatory
Community of
Emission
Quantities
Environmental
3
Changes in
Discharge or
Emission
Quantities
4
Changes in
Ambient
conditions
5
Changes in
Uptake and/or
Assimilation
6
Changes in
Health, Ecology
or Other Effects

-------
• the relationships between activity measures and environmental indicators/impacts are not
established, so judging progress is fairly experimental (eg., did permitting or enforcement have a
greater impact9).
• need for development of new and better indicators

Monitoring
• lack of resources, money, staff; significant cuts in ambient monitoring over past 5 years
• some data are not comparable state to state or year to year
• sometimes data quality has not been confirmed
• sometimes there are not enough years of data for an indicator
• state/region may not have enough data to support a state of the environment report

Data Quality
• lack of resources, money, staff
• not enough capability to combine information on pollution sources (typically collected by
  EPA) with pollution receptors (typically collected by agencies other than EPA).
• lack of information that directly correlates individual program activity to environmental
  impact (e.g., did permitting or enforcement have a greater impact?)
• poor data quality inhibits the ability to relate different levels of indicators to one
  another in a state of the environment report
• Some data are not accessible in the form needed, making it difficult to analyze or combine with
  other information
• data may not exist to relate to environmental goals (e.g., data for hazardous waste site
  cleanups is not centralized in many cases)
• addressing the challenge of finding good indicators/data to support their use

Other
• lack of a clear understanding of the qualities of a good indicator
* lack of experience on the part of EPA and the states in developing and using environmental
  indicators
* the misconception that a comprehensive environmental indicators system is developed by all
states
  with Performance Partnership Projects
* it will take political will for EPA to adopt goals and indicators as an integral component of its
  management program
• insufficient agency support; resistance to change and new initiatives

-------
ANTICIPATED NEEDS FOR INCREASING RELIANCE ON INDICATORS

* additional resources for monitoring, data assessment and improving and streamlining data
management systems
* improvements to data collection, data quality, and data analysis
• centralization of key data
• an FTE devoted to indicator management
• statisticians and others who can analyze data for trends
• more public outreach on the nature of indicator systems and our findings
* additional information on theoretical nature of indicators such as in Florida Center reports
* more research on relationship between cause and effect
* good indicators promoted by EPA and for which states are held accountable

-------
m WHAT TYPE OF ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED?

WHAT DO REGIONS WANT FROM HEADQUARTERS (HQ)?

On Information
• a conduit for information dissemination on indicator products
• information in the form of standard approaches that can be used by regions and states
  (e.g., a standard procedure for analyzing indicators)
• information on both successful and unsuccessful programs
• electronic information exchange

On Funding
Resources are needed for:
• regional programs on goals and indicators
• states and regions to meet and discuss issues
• collecting baseline and yearly data
• studies to further define correlation between program activities and environmental impacts

General
* single integrated approach to indicator development and use
• management framework based on environmental goals, indicators and improved performance
measures that enables EPA and states to link program activities to environmental improvement
* get Assistant Administrators to develop measurable goals, then monitor and report on
  performance
• a core set of indicators to measure nationally
* defined roles for regions and states to measure and meet national goals
* improve EPA's national data collection and management systems to facilitate use of indicators
  and data analysis
* build capacity at all levels to  develop and use indicators

WHAT DO STATES WANT FROM HEADQUARTERS (HQ)?
• funding
• training
• tools
• leadership
• core set of indicators
• a menu of environmental indicators and a demonstration of how they can be used
* a minimum set of goals
* HQ should be aware of differences between states in data collection and analysis. If states
  are compared, HQ must be certain that it is comparing apples with apples.
• continue HQ practice of information dissemination
• more information on how best to evaluate data and trends
                                         10

-------
WHAT DO STATES WANT FROM REGIONS?

• for regions to work with states to ensure that higher level indicators are accurately used to
  report progress of state agencies
• for regions to work with states to develop a list of indicators that would be used to reflect
  program performance and help determine how resources are distributed in the region
* for regions to work with states in preparing state of the environment reports
• information sharing
• keep states apprised of what HQ is doing and help states get involved in national efforts
                                          11

-------
m CONCLUSIONS

HOW CAN STATE, REGIONAL, AND NATIONAL EFFORTS BETTER FIT
TOGETHER?

With the enhanced state and EPA focus on environmental indicators that has been fueled by the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System and the movement towards goal-based
planning and budgeting at EPA, this is a critical time to better integrate the various indicator-
related efforts currently underway. It is essential that EPA provide leadership in this area. The
previous section of this report identified a number of the barriers to using indicators and the key
areas where assistance is needed by states and regions. Addressing these issues will require a
long-term commitment on the part of states and EPA.  Within the near-term, there are some ways
we could facilitate communication and better integrate our efforts.

Recommendations for action

      EPA should ensure that it has the ability to communicate electronically with any state that
      gains Internet access. The Internet should facilitate communication among states, regions
      and Headquarters.

      EPA Headquarters should set up and maintain a central source for products on
      environmental goals and indicators.

•     EPA Headquarters should serve as a clearinghouse for products on environmental goals
      and indicators.

•     Regions and states should meet periodically on matters related to environmental goals and
      indicators.

•     Regions should maintain communications with their states on a regular basis to review
      current goals and indicator projects in their regional office, their states, and at the national
      level.

*     When regions or states are developing indicator-based state of the environment  reports,
      they should assure that the other agency is involved in the preparation and evaluation of
      the report.
                                          12

-------
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

The items below all relate to the issue of consistency across states and regions:

*      Should EPA and the states adopt a core (or minimum) set of environmental indicators that
       states would need to report on (similar to the core set of performance indicators identified
       by each Headquarters program office for inclusion in Performance Partnership
       Agreements)?  All states or just NEPPS states?

•      Could EPA develop lists of indicators by ecosystem (e.g., ocean coastline, rivers) that
       states/regions with those ecosystems would utilize?

•      What type of information should the regions place on the Internet regarding indicators?
       How might the Internet be used to facilitate coordination of indicator activities among
       states, regions, and EPA Headquarters?
                                           13

-------
      \         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        1                      WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:   Chesapeake Bay Program Case Study on Performance Measurement

FROM:      David Gardiner, Assistant Administrator
             Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation

             W. Michael McCabe, Region IE
             Regional Administrator

TO:         FredHansen
             Deputy Administrator

       Attached for your transmittal to John Koskinen, Deputy Director of OMB is a case study
on the development and use of performance measures in the Chesapeake Bay Program. The case
study was prepared by members of the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and OPPE in response
to a January 31 request to the President's Management Council for help in identifying "lessons
learned" cases on strategic planning and performance measurement that could benefit all
agencies. We believe that the Chesapeake Bay Program's success in gaining strong support from
the public and private sectors proceeds from its ability to set clear environmental goals and to
use environmental indicators to monitor progress towards them.

       In addition to others in the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and OPPE,  the case study
reflects comments provided by the Office of Water; by Joe Wholey, Special Assistant to the
Director, OMB; and coordinator of the case study project; and by the Natural Resources Division
at OMB. We understand that completed case studies will be distributed by OMB, the American
Society for Public Administration and the Office of Personnel Management.

       Please call Jon Capacasa, Deputy Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, at (2IS)
566-5100 if you have any questions or comments.

cc:     Sallyanne Harper
       Robert Perciasepe
       William Matuszeski
       Deny Allen
                                                                              on Mp«r U*

-------
                          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 I
O
VO
(N
>	1

i
•—<
O
CN
<*•>
(VI
">.
r-
o
S1
         MEMORANDUM

         SUBJECT:   Chesapeake Bay Program Case Study on Performance Measurement

         FROM:      David Gardiner, Assistant Administrator
                      Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation

                      W. Michael McCabe, Region EH
                      Regional Administrator
         TO:
                    Fred Hansen
                    Deputy Administrator
              Attached for your transmittai to John Koskinen, Deputy Director of OMB is a case study
       on the development and use of performance measures in the Chesapeake Bay Program. The case
       study was prepared by members of the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and OPPE in response
       to a January 31 request to the President's Management Council for help in identifying "lessons
       learned" cases on strategic planning and performance measurement that could benefit all
       agencies. We believe that the Chesapeake Bay Program's success in gaining strong support from
       the public and private sectors proceeds from its ability to set clear environmental goals and to
       use environmental indicators to monitor progress towards them.

              In addition to others in the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and OPPE, the case study
       reflects comments provided by the Office of Water; by Joe Wholey, Special Assistant to the
       Director, OMB; and coordinator of the case study project; and by the Natural Resources Division
       at OMB. We understand that completed case studies will be distributed by OMB, the Americas
       Society for Public Administration and the Office of Personnel Management.

              Please call Jon Capacasa, Deputy Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, at (215)
       566-5100 if you have any questions or comments.

       cc:     Sallyanne Harper
              Robert Perciasepe
              William Matuszeski
              Deny Allen
                                              COMCUMtMCIS
SYMBOL

SURNAME|

OATC   I
                         »v

-------
NOTE TO FRT?D HANSEN

FROM:       David Gardiner

SUBJECT:    Proposed Case Study on Chesapeake Bay Program for OMB

      Attached for your signature is a letter to John Koskinen, responding to his request to the
President's Management Council for nominations of case studies of Federal agencies' use of
strategic planning or performance measurement.  The request supports OMB's ongoing evaluation
of efforts underway to implement the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).  Per
discussions with Joe Wholey ofOMB, a library of the case studies will be assembled and a
synthesis of lessons learned prepared. Five of the case studies will be presented in May at the
annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration. In addition, 0PM, which
was tasked under GPRA to conduct training for the government on planning and performance
measurement, may ask some of the case study authors to do a presentation for their classes.

      With the enthusiastic concurrence of Jon Capacasa, Deputy Director of the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office, we suggest that EPA nominate the Chesapeake Bay Program as a case study
in the use of outcome measures.  The program office has made notable progress in setting long-
term environmental goals with stakeholders and using environmental indicators to monitor
progress  and identify appropriate strategies. OMB and GAO staff are extremely pleased that we
are willing to share this example of managing for results.  OPPE will work with the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office to develop the case study.

       In a related effort, OPPE staff are working with OAR, OSWER, and OW staff to prepare
the FY 95 annual report for the GPRA performance pilots on the Acid Rain, Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks, and Surface Water Treatment Rule/Drinking Water programs,  due
to OMB  on March 31. This cross-agency team is also preparing its own internal "lessons learned"
evaluation of the EPA pilot experience, focusing on what the pilots portend for full GPRA
implementation in FY 97 for FY 99.  I will be happy to provide the results of that evaluation when
complete.

-------
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460



                            MAR   5 1996
                                                           OFFICE OF
                                                        THE ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. John A. Koskinen
Deputy Director for Management
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C.  20503
Dear Mr.
              nen:
     In response to your January 31  memorandum to members of the
President's Management Council,  I would like  to nominate the
Chesapeake Bay Program for  a  case study on the development and
use of performance measurement.   The Chesapeake Bay Program is
one of the pilots under the Government Performance  and Results
Act and I believe that much of  the progress made toward
restoration can be attributed to the participants'  efforts to set
bold, long-term environmental goals  and to use environmental
indicators (outcome measures) to monitor results and to set
interim milestones.  The enclosed paragraph,  which  includes
additional information on this  program and Agency contacts, has
been provided to Joe Wholey of  your  staff.

       I understand that OMB  will be assembling a library of
these case studies, and preparing a  synthesis of lessons learned.
I support your effort to collect and share federal  agencies'
experiences as we move further  into  strategic planning and
performance measurement, and  I  look  forward to your results.
                                    .Sincerely,
                                    Fred Hansen
                                    Deputy Administrator
Enclosure

-------
bee: David Gardiner
     Sallyanne Harper
     Robert: Perciasepe
     W. Michael McCabe
     William Hatuszeski

-------
  NOMINATION OF CASE STUDY  OH THE DEVELOPMENT AND USB OF OUTCOME
                           INFORMATION

     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:  CHESAPEAKE BAT PROGRAM

     The Chesapeake Bay is the nation's largest estuary and has
been subject to tremendous environmental and human stresses over
the past few decades.   The Chesapeake Bay Program is the unique
fadera1-state-local partnership vhich has directed and
coordinated the Chesapeake Bay restoration since the signing of
the historic 1983 Chesapeake Bay agreement.  Leadership is
provided by the Chesapeake Executive Council,  consisting of the
governors of the Bay states, the mayor of the District of
Columbia, the U.S.  EPA administrator, and the chair of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission.  EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office
manages the federal funds devoted to this effort and coordinates
an extensive network of regional experts and public interest
groups to achieve measurable environmental improvement goals.  An
ecosystem-based approach is used, in which air, water, land and
living resources are assessed and management decisions are
integrated to the extent feasible.

     The Chesapeake Bay Program Office believes that much of the
progress toward restoration can be attributed to the
participants' efforts to set bold, long-term environmental goals
and to use environmental indicators  (outcome measures) to monitor
results and set interim milestones.  Long-term goals are included
in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement and its 1992 amendments, as
well as annual directives,, signed by the Chesapeake Executive
Council.  A Strategic Implementation Plan for FY 1993-1996 was
developed through consensus by the principal's staff committee
and stakeholders to map strategies to achieve the long-term
goals.  Environmental and programmatic results attained are used
to regularly re-evaluate strategy, and set interim milestones by
responsible entities, providing  a link to annual budgeting
decisions.


CONTACTS: Jon Capacasa, Deputy Director, EPA Chesapeake Bay
            Program Office
          Telephone:  (215) 597-8228
          Fax: (215)  580-2009

          Sue Priftis/Margaret Saxton, EPA Office of Policy,
            Planning  and Evaluation
          Telephone:  (202) 26Q-6788/  (202) 260-8549
          Fax: (202)  260-0290

-------
                                                                                               1
OE=UTY DIRECTOR
FOR MANAGEME 1ST
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
   OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
            WASHINGTON, D.C. 2O5O3


                    January 31, 1996
    MEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

     FROM:      John A. Koskinen//->(

    SUBJECT:   Learning As We Go - A Follow-up Call

           As discussed in January, I would appreciate your agency's help in identifying "lessons
    learned" cases that will benefit all agencies as we move further into strategic planning and
    .performance measurement Much of the content for needed training and development efforts
    should come from case studies assessing progress made, challenges faced, and planned next steps
    in agencies that have already been using strategic planning or performance measurement  Our
    goal here is not to assemble press release material.  We know thaf implementation is not
    complete anywhere, that strategic planning and performance measurement are difficult, and that
    you are still in the midst of wrestling with some of the challenges. It is important that all
    agencies have the benefit of careful analyses of what went well and what did not, how problems
    arose and were handled, what problems still seem intractable and why, and what strategies have
    evolved from the experience.

           The attached list may be helpful in suggesting additional nominations. As you will see,
    we are looking for cases in various functional and programmatic clusters. The list indicates in
    boldface cases that agencies have identified and flags the cases that the General Accounting
    Office will be developing; the remaining cases were derived from a variety of sources. Though
    case study programs can be resource-intensive, help is available from the Chief Financial
    Officers Council, the Office of Personnel Management, public interest groups, the private sector,
    and academe. To be useful, these case studies must be developed with the active support of your
    agency. OMB stands ready to assist andto ne^P obtain outside assistance in the case study
    development effort

           What we need by mid-February are your suggestions as to which "cases" should be
    pursued, whether from the attached preliminary list or elsewhere. (A brief one-paragraph
    descnptio.il P*Ml flff name and telephone number of an agency c,Qrjflact is sufficient at this poinO
    Please note that any case that GAO has selected deserves your close attention, so that you and we
    are in the best position to comment quickly on GAO's preliminary findings and final report.

           Thank you for the suggestions from your agency, those in hand and those to come.  We
    look forward to hearing from your agency on this by February 15 if at all possible.
    Attachment

    cc: Members of the Chief Financial Officers Council
       Members of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency

-------
                                    Attachment

     Possible Case Studies of the Use of Strategic Planning or Performance Measurement*

1. Defense (DOD: Air Combat Command)
2. Research and Development (NASA, NSF, DOD: Army Research Laboratory)
3. Natural Resources (USDA: Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service;
  TVA: River Management Program: DOC: NOAA/National Weather Service; DOD: Army
  Corps of Engineers)
4. Pollution Control and Abatement (EPA: Water Quality, Air Quality, Superfund Removal
  Actions)
5. Postal Service
6. Transportation (DOT, Coast Guard, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)
7. Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (DoEd)
8. Health (HHS: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; DOD: Health Affairs)
9. Housing (HUD: Public Housing Performance Fund)
10. Income Security (Social Security Administration; Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation,
   HHS: Office of Child Support Enforcement**)
11. Veterans Benefits and Services (VA: National Cemetery System, performance initiatives
   integration)
12. Law Enforcement (DOJ Programs to be selected; Treasury: Customs Service Trade
   and Tariff Program)
13. General Government (Treasury: Internal Revenue Service**, Bureau of Engraving and
   Printing/ Mint**)

14. Credit Programs
15. Block Grant/Performance Partnership Programs (HHS: Public Health Service Performance
   Partnership Grant Programs)
16. Regulatory Programs (EPA, DOL: Occupational Safety and Health Administration)
17. Central Services (DOD: Defense Logistics Agency, Army Audit Agency; DOS: Bureau of
   Diplomatic Security; procurement)
       * Case studies of agencies using strategic planning or performance measurement may be
done at either agency level or for key agency programs. Boldface indicates cases identified by
agency.
       ** Case studies to be developed by GAO.

-------
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                                       OFFCE OF
                                                                   THE ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. John A. Koskinen
Deputy Director for Management
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503

Dear Mr. Koskinen:

      I am pleased to transmit our case study on the Chesapeake Bay Program's experience in

developing and using performance measurement. As described in the case study, this program

has made notable progress in working with stakeholders in setting long-term environmental

goals with stakeholders and using environmental indicators (outcome measures) to monitor

progress and identify appropriate strategies.  I offer this case study as an addition to your

compendium of "lessons learned" in strategic planning and performance measurement, and look

forward to the insights we will gain from the accounts of other Federal agencies.



                                              Sincerely,
                                             FredHansen
                                             Deputy Administrator


Enclosure
                                                                            PriMtd at Rtcvcltd Paotr

-------
                                                                                            I
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                              WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                                                                       OFFICE OF
                                                                   THE ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. John A. Koskinen
Deputy Director for Management
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503

Dear Mr. Koskinen:

      I am pleased to transmit our case study on the Chesapeake Bay Program's experience in

developing and using performance measurement.  As described in the case study, this program

has made notable progress in working with stakeholders in setting long-term environmental

goals with stakeholders and using environmental indicators (outcome measures) to monitor

progress and identify appropriate strategies.  I offer this case study as an addition to your

compendium of "lessons learned" in strategic planning and performance measurement, and look

forward to the insights we will gain from the accounts of other Federal agencies.



                                             Sincerely,
                                             Fred Hansen
                                             Deputy Administrator


Enclosure
                                                                           Print** at Rtcycltd faptr

-------
«
*
                       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                                              OFFICE Of
                                                                           THEADMWISTRATOH
       Mr. John A. Koskinen
       Deputy Director for Management
       Office of Management and Budget
       Washington, D.C. 20503

       Dear Mr. Koskinen:

              I am pleased to transmit our case study on the Chesapeake Bay Program's experience in

       developing and using performance measurement. As described in the case study, this program

       has made notable progress in working with stakeholders in setting long-term environmental

       goals with stakeholders and using environmental indicators (outcome measures) to monitor

       progress and identify appropriate strategies.  I offer this case study as an addition to your

       compendium of "lessons learned" in strategic planning and performance measurement, and look

       forward to the insights we will gain from the accounts of other Federal agencies.



                                                     Sincerely,
                                                    Fred Hansen
                                                    Deputy Administrator
        Enclosure
                                                                                   Priiutd MI RtcycUd Paptr

-------
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                               WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                                                       OFFICE OF
                                                                    THE ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. John A. Koskinen
Deputy Director for Management
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503

Dear Mr. Koskinen:

       I am pleased to transmit our case study on the Chesapeake Bay Program's experience in

developing and using performance measurement.  As described in the case study, this program

has made notable progress in working with stakeholders in setting long-term environmental

goals with stakeholders and using environmental indicators (outcome measures) to monitor

progress and identify appropriate strategies.  I offer this case study as an addition to your

compendium of "lessons learned" in strategic planning and performance measurement, and look

forward to the insights we will gain from the accounts of other Federal agencies.



                                             Sincerely,
                                             Fred Hansen
                                             Deputy Administrator


Enclosure
                                                                           Prattd on Rtcycltd Paper

-------
Use of Performance Information in the
             Chesapeake Bay Program
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
                        Chesapeake Bay Program
                July 1996

-------
                                                                                                1
 OVERVIEW
       The Chesapeake Bay Program is the unique regional partnership of Federal, state and
local government which has been directing and conducting the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
since the signing of the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement in 1983. The Bay is one of the most
carefully monitored bodies of water in the world, and a considerable amount of information on
environmental conditions has been collected.  Over the past five years, the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and its Chesapeake Bay Program partners have worked to use this
information more systematically to inform the public and to make program management decisions.
EPA believes that much of the progress of this restoration program can be attributed to its
consensus-based approach and the participants' willingness to set bold, long-term environmental
goals and to use environmental and other outcome measures to monitor results and inform the
public. Lessons learned from this program may be of particular interest to other natural resource
agencies.

       This case study has been a collaborative effort of managers and staff of two EPA offices -
the Chesapeake Bay Program Office of Region 3 and the Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation.  Authors include Jon M. Capacasa, Deputy Director, and Kent Mountford, Nha
Sylvester, and Joe Macknis of the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, and Sue Priftis, Margaret
Saxton, and Ronald Shafer of the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.  The case study was
prepared in response to a request by John Koskmen, Deputy Director for Management of the
Office of Management and Budget.  The authors are grateful for the guidance received from the
members of the American Society for Public Administration, Government Accomplishment and
Accountability Task Force.
CONTEXT

             The Chesapeake Bay Program is the premier watershed restoration effort currently
       underway in the United States. It proceeds from a Congressionally-funded $28 million,
       five-year study undertaken in the mid 1970s, when scientists began to observe the loss of
       living resources and the public became concerned about environmental degradation in
       general.  The study identified the main source of the Bays degradation as an oversupply
       of nutrients entering the Bay, and advocated programs that would limit nutrient loadings
       from point sources like wastewater treatment plants and nonpoint sources like fertilizer
       runoff from farmland. The historic Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983, signed by the
       Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia,
       the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the United States
       government and the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, representing the State
       legislatures of the three states, called for all jurisdictions and agencies to focus their
    :   existing pollution control programs qn reducing nutrient loads to the Bay. Subsequent
       agreements in 1987 and  1992 reflect a strong ecosystem management approach stressing
       the interdependent relationships between living resources and their environment, and
       include commitments to a set of specific and far-reaching goals tied to the restoration of

-------
the health of the Bay.

       The Chesapeake Bay Program is a voluntary, consensus-based effort by the
participants, built on top of the national and state level environmental regulatory
programs.  The Bay Program carries out its work through a series of committees, advisory
committees and subcommittees which guide and advise the program in all aspects of the
Bay restoration activities (see attachment A, exhibit 1). The chief governing board of the
program, the Chesapeake Executive Council, is comprised of the leaders of the member
jurisdictions and organizations (Governors of PA, VA, MD, Mayor of DC, EPA
Administrator, and Chairman of the Bay Commission) and meets annually.  A policy level
Principals' Staff Committee, which includes the chief environmental and policy
representatives of the governors, mayor and Bay Commission, and the EPA Regional
Administrator, meet a few times a year. Ongoing management of the program is by the
32-member Implementation Committee, including representatives of the signatories,
Federal agencies, and chairs of subcommittees and advisory committees. EPA represents
all federal agencies, and currently, there are 13 agencies with formal agreements with EPA
which make them Chesapeake Bay Program partners. Formal subcommittees, special
workgroups, and formal advisory committees for citizens, scientific community, and local
governments play important roles in program development and implementation. Because
the solutions to the Bay's problems require the active involvement and, to a great extent,
behavioral changes on the part of industry, governments and the public, widespread
understanding of Bay problems and their causes is very important.

       EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office was established in 1984 to coordinate the
activities,  study, and planning of the signatory jurisdictions and the other cooperating
federal agencies.  The Bay Program Office manages federal funds (now $21 million
annually), most of which are distributed to states for implementation of Chesapeake Bay
restoration activities and to others for continuing scientific assessments. The Bay Program
Office maintains the core data center and facilities for scientific study, computer modeling
program and program implementation, and coordinates and supports the extensive
committee structure reporting to the Executive Council.
       The Chesapeake Bay is one of the most carefully monitored bodies of water in the
world. Because concern for the Bay dates back to the 1970s, and implementation of
restoration efforts has been going on for over a decade, there is a considerable body of
information about environmental conditions in the Bay. Consistent and comparable data
on all traditional water parameters have been taken at over 130 sites in the watershed and
the open Bay since 1984.  The trends data available from this monitoring program is one
of the best in America.

       Initially, these environmental^ data were collected and analyzed to define the
condition of the water quality and living resources, and to better understand the nature of
the Bays problems.  During the research phase of the program, a watershed model was
developed to further understanding of the Bay water quality processes and the sensitivity
of such processes to external nutrient loading, determined to be the main cause of the

-------
       Bay's degradation. From this model, in 1987, Bay Program participants set the core
       program goal of 40 percent nutrient reduction by the year 2000. Subsequent monitoring
      • data have been used to validate this early model and to construct other simulation models
       used to assess the effectiveness of different pollution control strategies. The monitoring
       data were otherwise, used to develop scientific theories and strategies for the restoration of
       the Bay. Because these data serve as the foundation of its efforts, Chesapeake Bay
       Program staff have put special emphasis on establishing quality control and quality
       assurance for all aspects of the monitoring programs in the Bay area.

             Although the environmental data were critical to program development, prior to
       1991 they were not used systematically to inform or convince the public of the Bays
       condition and environmental problems and the restoration program's progress.
       Environmental  monitoring data and trends were presented to the public in the triennial
       State of the Chesapeake Bay reports, but the frequency and the presentation were not
       geared to a very eager and interested general audience. Prior to 1995, these triennial
       reports focused almost exclusively on the water quality of the Bay, and much less
       attention was devoted to describing the health and abundance of the living resources,
       which have been the primary public concern.  By failing to advise the public of the relative
       importance of environmental problems affecting the Bay, the program was losing an
       opportunity to dispel some of the misinformation surrounding the source of the Bay's
       problems.  For  example, in response to information distributed by environmental advocacy
       groups in the region, many citizens believed that toxic emissions from large industrial
       sources was the key problem in the Bay area, when in fact, pollution from agriculture and
       suburban development are the primary problems.

             Moreover, environmental outcome information was not used to make or justify
       management decisions. Progress was reported  in terms of the number and timeliness of
       strategies, management plans, and other documents included in the list of Bay Agreement
       commitments, rather than environmental results achieved.   Although strong long-term
       goals were included in the Bay Agreements, few intermediate measures of environmental
       progress were used. Committee strategies and priorities were adopted without
       consideration of integrated or common program success measures. Budget requests did
       not reflect past or desired program outcomes and consequently presented a less
       compelling rationale for resources.
DEVELOPMENT OF INDICATORS

             In early 1991, EPA leadership decided to make the program more responsible and
       accountable to the public on a day-to-day basis by defining and communicating the
       bottomline environmental results achieved by the restoration program. Based on a series
       of interviews with EPA staff about primary success measures, the Bay Program Office
       began to develop a set of environmental indicators, or outcome measures, to support goal-
       setting and to serve as targets and endpoints for the restoration effort. This set was
       displayed in a first version of the currently-used briefing package called "Measuring Our
       Progress". A cross-disciplinary EPA quality action team was formed to brainstorm

-------
success measures and to discuss available data bases and appropriate interpretation of the
data.  This team proposed a structure for linking environmental outcome measures to
strategic program goals, as articulated in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, and the
three primary restoration objectives: reduction of nutrient enrichment effects, protection
and enhancement of living resources, and reduction of adverse toxic impacts. Further, the
quality action team defined and arrayed the proposed measures of success in terms of a
hierarchy of indicators, ranging from indicators used to measure administrative actions
(such as issuing permits) to those that are indirect or direct measures of ecological or
human health.

       While EPA staff began this effort, states and other stakeholders helped refine the
initial structure through the Bay Program's committee and workgroup structure.  The
proposed outcome measures were assigned to these groups for further consideration and
development of the underlying data and interpretations. Workshops were subsequently
held in 1994 and 1995 to build stakeholder involvement in the design and refinement of
the measures and the communication products.

       Several obstacles were faced in the effort to develop and use outcome measures to
report program progress:

•      Some organizations and individuals were reluctant to share data for fear of its
       inaccurate or unfavorable interpretation. They expressed concern that
       inappropriate conclusions would be drawn or blame for poor results would be
       assigned unfairly.  Given the consensus-based nature of this intergovernmental
       effort, the political implications of such mistakes could be costly.

•      Others were proud of their data collection and analysis and were unwilling to share
       credit.

»      In some of the cases where data were available, the analysis required was costly or
       not yet in place.

•      In other cases, data and/or indicators were not available because of cost or
       technical difficulties for some topics of special public interest, like fish, shellfish,
       and wildlife.

•      Many resisted using outcome measures to depict Bay Program progress because
       these results are not under the direct control of the program.  Impacts on the Bay
       from natural causes (e.g.; severe weather conditions) and other external factors
       affect the success of restoration efforts and are difficult to characterize to the
       public.

       The Bay Program is depicted as a work in progress, and the program's leadership
point to the need for continued research into the causes and solutions for the Bay's
problems. However, they stress that, however imperfect the science and data may be, they
have a responsibility to inform the public of the Bay condition and progress in real-world,

-------
       not bureaucratic, terms. The underlying philosophy is that public support and involvement
       are critical, and best assured through clear, understandable goals and measures of
       progress.
INDICATORS OF OUTCOME / RESULTS

              At this time, the Bay Program uses about 30 environmental indicators to gauge the
       progress of this restoration effort. (See attachment A, exhibit 2). Developed and/or
       endorsed by the Bay Program subcommittees and workgroups, these indicators are used
       consistently to evaluate the success of the strategies chosen against environmental and
       other programmatic goals and to communicate progress to the public.  Information on
       each of these indicators has been prepared for the standard "Environmental Indicators:
       Measuring Our Progress " briefing package, and examples of these are included in
       attachment A, exhibit 3.

              Each indicator briefing slide identifies the category or track - reduction of nutrient
       enrichment effects; protection and enhancement of living resources; and reduction of
       adverse toxic impacts - and  the goal for which the indicator is used to track progress.
       Like the indicators, the goals were developed by Bay Program participant groups with
       stakeholder involvement. The briefing slides also contain a succinct summary of the  '
       information on status conveyed by the indicator trend information presented. In many
       cases, the description of the status incorporates  information on the primary strategy used
       to further the goal.

              The indicators aligned with each of the three tracks are characterized by their
       position in a hierarchy from level 1 through level 6, ranging from indicators that measure
       administrative actions, such as issuing permits, to those that are direct or indirect measures
       of ecological or human health (see attachment A, exhibit 4). Using the terminology of the
       Government Performance and Results Act, level 1 indicators equate to outputs; levels 2
       through 6 represent outcomes.  Specifically, the six levels include:

       •       Level 1: Actions by EPA or the states
       •       Level 2: Actions by sources (e.g., installing pollution control equipment)
                     Emissions and discharge qualities of pollutants
                     Ambient concentrations of pollutants
                     Uptake/body burden
                  6: Health effects or ecological effects
             All information captured by this continuum has value for stakeholders and
      policymakers. Although the indicators toward the higher end of the continuum (levels 4
      through 6) portray a clearer, more direct image of the environmental condition, indicators
      at the lower levels (levels 1 through 3) are needed to establish a link between the actions
      taken and effects observed.

             This approach has produced some interesting findings (see attachment A, exhibit

                                           6

-------
       5)  The three main tracks -- nutrients, living resources, and toxics — converge on the
       same objective as you move up the hierarchy towards level 6 indicators. For example, the
       nutrient track takes you from enforcement actions to nutrient loadings to dissolved oxygen
       levels and ultimately to the health and abundance of Bay grasses and other living
       resources.  The living resources track takes you from habitat and harvest to diseases and
       other stress measures to living resource restorations.  The toxics track reports releases of
       chemical contaminants into  the environment, and then monitors regions of concern to
       minimize adverse impacts on living resources. The common measures of greatest
       importance for all the tracks are the living resource indicators. This indicator approach is
       quite promising in the continuing effort to determine  progress toward the protection and
       restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.

USE AND IMPACT OF INFORMATION ON OUTCOME / RESULTS

              The availability and use of environmental outcome information has had a profound
       effect on the operation of the Chesapeake Bay Program. This new "managing for results"
       approach has brought with it new modes of decisionmaking and new standards for
       accountability and responsibility, particularly to the public.  The development of
       environmental indicators/outcome measures has enabled the Bay Program to communicate
       a clear and consistent public message; has accelerated goal setting; has sharpened the.
       program's ability to garner and target resources; and has unproved the program's ability to
       evaluate its management strategies.

              As  previously noted, an important impetus for the outcome indicator development
       was EPA leadership's interest in defining and communicating the bottomline environmental
       results achieved by the restoration program to the public. To describe bottomline results,
       EPA staff imagined a backyard barbecue with their friends and neighbors, where
       discussions of the Chesapeake Bays condition might take place.  Lay persons at that
       gathering would be less interested in technical descriptions of water quality than in the
       progress made in restoring the shad and striped bass populations.  Bay Program
       participants tried to keep that image in mind as they proposed environmental indicators for
       use in setting goals and objectives and tracking program progress.

              A variety of mechanisms are used to inform and educate the public on Bay
       problems, potential solutions, and progress. The "Environmental Indicators:  Measuring
       Our Results" briefing package has been modified over time and helps to reinforce a clear
       public message. The annual reports of program accomplishment and the triennial State of
       the Bay reports are made available to the public as well as Bay participants.  The Bay
       Program has an INTERNET site (http//www.epa.gov/r3chespk), which includes
       information on key outcome indicators for public and academic use, and the graphics may
       be down-loaded and printed by on-line users. (Over 50Q "hits" have been made on the
       environmental indicators portion oftthe Bay Home Page since January 1996.) Press
       packages and fact sheets, and a highly popular wall poster entitled "Bringing the Bay
       Home"  all reinforce a consistent public message using the outcome measures. "Touch the
       Bay", a group of interactive touch-screen modules, uses animation to explain processes
      and to display important environmental indicator information. Bay Program Office staff

-------
and staff from other participating Bay Program partners give frequent presentations and
talks to managers, scientists, citizen groups, college students, and other interested
audiences on the Bay program using standard scripts developed for these measures.
Feedback from these public education devices, as well as from periodic public opinion
surveys of citizen views and awareness, are used to inform Bay committee work and to
shape public outreach efforts.

       Environmental indicators/outcome measures have supported goal setting for the
Bay program, both in the longer-term Strategic Implementation Plan and for annual
planning and  budgeting. Improvements in data collection and analyses to support
indicators enable participants to set measurable goals and commitments with a clear
baseline established. The Bay Program has over 25 measurable goals in place at this time
and several more under active development (see attachment A, exhibit 6).  A large portion
of these goals were adopted since the indicator program was initiated.

       Experience has shown that public support of the program, and financial investment
in the program, have been associated with the development and communication of
bottomline goals.  Unlike most other EPA programs, the Chesapeake Bay Program is a
nonregulatory program, and strong support by state and local governments and other
institutions is kev to success. Coincident with vigorous efforts to develop goals and
environmental  dicators, Federal funds appropriated for the EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program increased from approximately $13 million in  FY 1991 to $21 million in FY
1996. Other  leveraged Federal agency resources were estimated at an additional $17
million in F Y 1994.  Bay Program Office staff estimate that state governments have
contributed about $100 million per year for the last several years. The state and local
expenditures to implement tributary-specific nutrient reduction  strategies will be about
$400 million  per year through the year 2000. Little information is available on local
government and private contributions, but staff believe  they are substantial. Bay Program
Office staff believe that the increased support given to the program in recent years reflects
the enthusiasm for supporting effective Federal-state-local partnerships to address
problems.
       The availability of accepted environmental indicators has allowed the Bay Program
to better target its resources. Within the Bay Program, screening criteria set by the
Budget Steering Committee for allocation of competitive funds give great weight to
proposals which most directly address (1) the Overarching Chesapeake Bay Program
Themes for FY 1997; (2) the Strategic Implementation Priorities as adopted by the
Implementation Committee and the Principals' Staff Committee; and (3) commitments
contained in the Bay Agreements and other directives.  The Overarching Chesapeake Bay
Program Themes for FY 1997 included the use of funds to support bottom-tine
environmental performance measures. Environmental indicators, therefore, became one of
the principal methods for subcommittees to demonstrate resource needs and program
success. For example, over a three-to-four year period, the Living Resources
Subcommittee of the Bay Program has been very successful in garnering resources,
reflecting their successful efforts to develop goals and related environmental indicators for

-------
their area.  The percentage increase in the budget for this subcommittee was higher than
the other subcommittee budgets, growing from approximately $750 thousand to $2.9
million from FY 1992 to FY 1996.  Projects from all subcommittees with nonmeasurabie
objectives are at a decided disadvantage against outcome-oriented projects in the contest
for scarce financial resources.

       Environmental indicators/outcome measures are used to develop and evaluate
the effectiveness of program strategies.  For example, to achieve the goal of 40 percent
nutrient reduction by the year 2000, Bay Program signatories agreed in the 1992
amendments to develop and begin implementation of tributary-specific strategies.  These
strategies will require activities beyond the traditional controls on point sources such as
wastewater treatment plants, and will likely include improved technologies. Bay Program
participants are using a set of environmental indicators, rather than counts of outputs like
enforcement actions taken, to evaluate the success of these tributary strategies.  For
example, available environmental outcome trend information indicates that the 40%
nutrient reduction goal would not be met at the current program pace because of the
difficulty in controlling sources of nitrogen.  In response to these findings, Pennsylvania
has begun to develop additional point source nutrient controls. Also, greater attention is
being placed on examining the effects of nitrogen components of air pollution on the Bay,
as evidenced by the recent formation and funding of the Air Quality Coordination Group.

       While environmental indicators/outcome measures represent a common currency
among the different governments and organizations involved, these entities may draw
different conclusions as to the appropriate course of action to follow in response to these
indicators.  For example, the supply of blue crabs declined over the past few years. While
the participants in the Bay Program agree that this decline has occurred, they disagree on
the cause for this, its severity, and the appropriate response. To some, placing limits on
harvesting the crabs is necessary; to others in jurisdictions that place great economic and
societal value on this industry,  that response is unacceptable. Because of the Bay
Program's emphasis on consensus, such disagreements can slow progress.

       The Bay Program Office's experience with environmental indicators has been
shared with other Agency geographic-based programs and activities. EPA's National
Estuary Program was patterned alter the Bay experience and recent community-based
environmental management activities have benefited from the program's technology
transfer efforts.

       The use of environmental indicators in planning and assessing program results has
had a remarkable effect on the culture of the Bay Program Office and the broader Bay
Program. Committee operations have been strengthened because an environmental
indicator can be used to gauge progress for more than one issue or concern.  A focus on
results rather than activities performed has encouraged professional creativity in
developing solutions to Bay problems, improving staff morale. Necessary work to
develop shared  definitions of environmental measures results in greater inter-state
consistency in goal setting and progress measurement. This facilitates clear communication
to the public. Finally, as previously noted, improvements in the environmental indicators

-------
       have facilitated goal-setting, thus better defining intended program outcomes and
       improving accountability to the public.
COSTS

              The Chesapeake Bay Program is based on good science and high quality data, and
       data collection and analysis expenses are considerable. About $2.5 million per year of
       federal funds supports the monitoring costs for air, water, living resources, and submerged
       aquatic vegetation. Approximately $1 million in FY 1996 is devoted to operate the
       computer simulation models to examine the potential results of alternative strategies.
       Also, about one FTE and $100,000 is used annually to develop Chesapeake Bay
       restoration indicators and related indicator products which include workshops, internet
       homepage maintenance, multimedia program development, and production of slides,
       transparencies and posters. The cost of data collection and analysis is a small fraction of
       the total investment in Chesapeake Bay restoration by federal, state, local and  private
       organizations.

              Although the Chesapeake Bay Program benefited from the support of national and
       local leaders, political costs may be suffered by leaders and Agency management who
       insist on setting measurable environmental goals to be tracked by environmental indicators
       if these goals are not met. Many federal government  managers are reluctant to include
       annual performance goals supported by outcome measures, because success in attaining
       such goals is affected by factors beyond the control of the program managers and by time
       lags. The amount of time it takes to achieve measurable environmental improvements
       from the time abatement or restoration actions begin can be both uncertain and lengthy.

              The Chesapeake Bay Program has emphasized the importance of the 40 percent
       nutrient reduction goal, and, while many positive steps have been taken to achieve this
       goal, the ever-increasing pace of development in the watershed works against the progress
       made.  Increased public understanding of the complexity of ecosystem interactions and the
       time required before actions yield observable results may lessen political cost.  Bay
       Program leadership will need to consider how to keep public enthusiasm and confidence in
       the program if this important goal, or others, are not met, or not met on time.

LESSONS  LEARNED

       •       Be persistent.  There are many obstacles and challenges to be met along the path to
              developing and gaining endorsement for using indicators/outcome measures to set
              goals and measure progress. However, as noted in the section on the use and
              impact of the outcome inforniation, the payoff can be tremendous in terms of
              public enthusiasm and interest, staff morale, and internal and external political
              support.
                                           10

-------
              Ensure that key parties have consensus on the measures, data interpretation and
              use before taking action.

              Don't wait for the system in which you are working to be perfectly modeled or
              understood by the scientists or experts. Data and analytical problems will always
              exist, and insistence on using best available information will inspire improvement
              over time.
                                                                                    «

              Maintain the link to the strategic goals of the organization. Indicators must have a
              clear end use to be effective. Too many measures developed for their own sake
              detract from the focus of the program.

              The leadership must push for the development and use of these measures.  This
              approach requires persistence and patience and a long-term vision of the program.
NEXT STEPS
             Bay Program committees continue their efforts to create and improve the set of
       indicators related to their program issue. Follow-up is proceeding to a series of workshops
       used to refine the core message and to define the next steps for development and
       refinement of the measures. This refinement and affirmation of the best measures has
       taken the form of a series of briefings to the Implementation Committee, the primary
       management body of the Chesapeake Bay Program, which in turn provides feedback to
       the appropriate subcommittee.

             The program is presently developing  "super indicators" and composite measures to
       provide more concise communication of the best measures since it is difficult to retain a
       central theme when over 30 measures are being reported.  However, Bay Program Office
       staff view the indicators package as a library from which users can select elements to tell
       the story in a variety of contexts.  The message delivered to the neighborhood citizens'
       watershed association will differ in tone and content from the message delivered to state
       natural resource program managers.

             The development of outcome measures will proceed in several promising
       directions to keep the program in the forefront of national ecosystem protection efforts.
       The Chesapeake Bay Program is placing high priority on localizing the measures, i.e.,
       developing more river-specific or sub-watershed measures as opposed to Bay-wide
       average measures. The public has shown a great interest in data which describe the
       condition of local resources.  Another step in that direction is the current program
       commitment to develop local government indicators during FY 1996 which measure
       progress by communities in advancing Bay goals.

             Reflecting the growing interest in sustainability, new emphasis is being placed on
       measures reflecting stewardship and land use. Sustainable use indicators will help the
       program measure trends in non-traditional areas such as social and demographic patterns.
                                          11

-------
                                                          Attachment A
                                                          Exhibit 1
      Citizens
 Advisory Committee
 Local Government
 Advisory Committee
Scientific & Technical!
 Advisory Committee
                               Chesapeake
                            Executive Council
Principals' Staff
  Committee
Implementation
  Committee
                                                         Federal Agencies
                                                            Committee
                                                         Budget Steering
                                                            Committee
                                                           Air Quality
                                                       Coordination Group
                                                           Data Center
                                                           Workgroup
                               Subconmattfts

1
Nutrient

1
Toxics

1
Monitoring




Modeling

1
Living
Raouces

1
Land, Growth
St


1
/^ JUbMBH ••ll«t!ll*M

-------
                                                                                                Attacirment A
                                                                                                Exhibit 2
                               Cheiapcake Bay Program Environmental Indicator! (6/4/96)

Approved:
        Phosphorus Loads and Nitrogen Loads (modeled load trends - Baywide)
        Municipal Wastewater Flow vs. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads (Baywide trends)
        Acres Under Nutrient Management  (Baywide trends)
        Phosphorus and Nitrogen Concentrations in the Bay (mainstem trends - Baywide)
        Dissolved Oxygen (Below pycnocline trends - Baywide)
        Acres of Bay Grasses (Baywide trends- total acres; density, changes by zone)
        Wetlands (Baywide)
        Stream Miles Opened to Migratory Fish (Baywide trends)
        Striped Bass Trends: Spawning Stock Biomass (Baywide); Juvenile Indices (MD and VA)
        Shad Trends: Population Estimate Upper Bay (MD); Juvenile Index (MD); Landings (Baywide)
        Blue Crab Trends: Trawl Surveys (MD and VA). and Landings (Baywide)
        Oyster Trends: Landings (Baywide), and Oyster Spat (MD and James River, VA)
        Waterfowl Trends: Black Duck vs. Mallard;  Diving Ducks (Baywide populations)
        Bald Eagle Population Count (young and  active nests - Baywide trends)
        Industry Reported Releases and Transfers of Chemical Contaminants (Baywide trends)
        Acres Under Integrated Pest Management (Baywide trends)
        Consumption Bans and Restrictions (Baywide)
        Kepone in Finfish Tissue (James River, VA trends)
        Declines in MD Oyster Tissue Contaminants (mercury and chlordane trends- MD nnamgtqm)
        Tnbuty Itin Concentrations (ambient water concentration trends- Hampton Roads, VA and Sarah Creek, VA)
        Trends in Rainfall Metals Concentrations (lead and copper - measured at Lewes, DE)
        Copper Concentrations in Sediments - main***"1 trends, and mainstem and tributary concentrations (Baywide)
        Benzo[a]pyrene Concentrations in Sediments - mainstem trends, and mainstem and tributary concentrations (Baywide)
        Dischargers in Significant Noncompliance (Baywide trends)
        Recreational Boat Pump Out Stations and Registered Boaters (Baywide trends)
        Forests and Water Quality (Baywide)
        Forests (% coverage trends -Baywide)
        Sneaker Index (Broomes Island, MD)
        Population and Municipal Wastewater Flow  (Baywide trends)
        Population and Point Source Phosphorus Loads (Baywide trends)
        Population and Point Source Nitrogen Loads (Baywide trends)
        Bay Attitudes Survey Results (Baywide)

Completed/Awaiting Approval:
        Achievement of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements (Baywide)
        Phosphorus, Nitrogen, and Sediment Concentrations in the Tributaries (fall line trends - Baywide)
        Population Trends (Baywide)
        Wastewater Treatment Plants Using BNR Technology (Baywide)

Under Development:
        Nutrient Management  - cost savings; fertilizer application reduction; urban nutrient management
        Atmospheric nitrogen V»«
-------
Watershed organainoos/issoci^iooirtaid mats (#s and % coverage)
# or % of local governments achieving "Biy Pirtner Community" status
% of Development Occurring within Urban/Directed Growth Areas
% of Development (New and Existing) on Septic System vs. Treatment Facilities
Lot size vs. population; # households vs. population; lot size of new residential parcels
Cost of public infrastructure expenditures for different development types/densities
Economic value of a region's natural resources
  6/4/96
                                             2-2

-------

 00    (O
JaAju jo sajiyy

-------
fN
 I

-------
     O    O    O
     o    to    o
     
-------


-------
II8

-------
(0
CA *
,QA,L: Reduction goal
>r releases and transfc
a? ^
(0
**
^
f chemical contaminar
o
5>
T5
om Chesapeake Bay
asin industries are un<
c ,0


evelopment.
•o


IATUS: Reported
W


idustrial releases of
»•
O
*-
hemical contaminants
o


0
*t
•o
J2
0
o3
ta
**
V.
"3
0)
£

0)
ansferred off site, hav
+*
	 9

a>
T~

o .
«g.b
2 «
2|
15 o
*- **
2 2
O g
*- 5
oS
*s

-------
(uidd) suojiBJiuaouoo auodax

-------
<
4->
 5

-------
cj —
'•3 '-I


i3

-------
<

*J
 C v-t?
 (Ij



t> !a


5S
•*->  >?

-------
i
o
o
r-t
O
1
H
O
O
9
jj
*a*
4J
4J-H
Nutrien
Subcomm


•»
- Eastern Shora, VA
.4 Million Pounds
.03 Million Pounds
0)
C • •
»«rf
Tributary Strategy Reduct:
Nitrogen Reduction Goal
Phosphorus Reduction Goal
o
o
H
0
H
O
9
9
JUJ
•P
*»••"•
Nutrian
Subcomm


%
u
- Rappahannook Rival
2.6 Million Pounds
.32 Million Pounds

c • •
— »
Tributary Strategy Reductj
Nitrogen Reduction Goal
Phosphorus Reduction Goal
o
o
1
i"4
O
H
O
9
5
£
**•*
Nutrian
Subcomm



- York River,
1.9 Million Pounds
.34 Million Pounds

. .

Tributary Stratagy Reduct j
Nitrogen Reduction Goal
Phosphorus Reduction Goal
o
o
1
o
1
o
0
9
4J
jj
jj£
Nutrien
Subcomm:



- James River,
,4.1 Million Pounds
2.14 Million Pounds
r*
1 * *
O
Tributary Stratagy Reducti
Nitrogen Reduction Goal
Phosphorus Reduction Goal
in
0
o
i
o


ta
m
rf
•38
32


9
S
«^i
£
&
1
0
0
0
«
*r
H
r«
1
»H
*
Interim SAV Restoration Go
n
O
1
0
1
_J.
1^
o



m
Living
Resourc«



of 1356.7 miles
S
5
u
Fish Passage - Ten Year Ta
00
0»
^J
f"^
a
o


n
3
Living
Resource



a
9
•H
•H
in
o
•
(M
CO
in

1*
a
9
>
!
b*
1
0
d*
ia
a
w
«»
04
w
•^
fik

o
i
H
0
H
O



w
2*
•H 0
£9
Jtt
«4
o •«.«.
o > o
§ «S| . 3&
^_J f t ^4 jj __ _• Jlfk
•H M JS ^ «H W
4J 3 » On
f 2 r*i ° to
M X U 3 C 3
xygen Goal for Rastc
rywhere;
r no Longer than 12
Least 48 hours, Bve
All tines, througho
throughout Above-Pyc
pawning Rivers and N
O 9 0 £ 1 CO
> fc < *
•o w J a »
9 \ «•** an
The Chesapeake Bay Dissolv
Living Resource Habitat:
i) DO > l.omg/L All tines,
2) l.omg/L < DO < 3.0mg/L
Interval Between Excursion
3) Monthly Mean DO > 5.0MG
Pycnocline Waters
4) DO > 5.0 mg/L - All tim
Waters, in Spawning reache
Areas .

o
o
1
*
n
1
N
,-!



0)
Living
Resource
*)
4
4J
•H
jQ
2
A
1
terfowl population a

Waterfowl Targets - Restor<
to 1970 levels

m
m
i
H
«n
1
N
«-l



0)
Living
Resource
i
$
*8
S
C
•H
0)
O
U
o
4
o
o
o
*
in
9
b
$
a
S

Aquatic Reef Restoration -
1,000 acres in the Potomac

-------
w >i
•O M

«J CO

*1 «
£ fc
fn ^j
I

s
9
2
w
<0


C
o


I

CO

<0
o
o

01
 0)
     o
     o
      I

     o
      I
      C 10
      9 M
     •M 9
      gg
      O-H
        in
      0 r-
        s
      u
       •0 «
       a h

       0 a

       4^ C
         •H
       0 m
       o *j c
       C-H 10
              o
              o
              I
              I
              M
             .9
             0 0
             O 9
!

i
a
o
              0
              H
              O
              9
 in a
 r-


 **
 O
      O
      o
      I
      H

      <*>
      I

      C*
      H
                     0

                     0
      £5
nj

-H*»


a c


e o
                   O-H
                     a
                           •H 9
                           A O
                            (0-H

-------

-------

-------
              United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
Office of Water
(4503F)
EPA 841-R-96-002
June 1996
              Environmental Indicators
              of Water Quality  in the
              United States
             This report describes water quality in the United States using a set of 18
             environmental indicators that measure progress toward national water
             goals and objectives.
The indicators were chosen through an intensive multi-year process involving
public and private partners including EPA's Office of Water in collaboration with the
Center for Marine Conservation; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation and Office of Research and Devel-
opment; the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality; Native
American Tribes; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; The Nature
Conservancy; the States; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; and the U.S. Geological Survey.

-------
                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                         HAY
                                                                                    OFFICE OF
                                                                                     WATER
Dear Reader:
       The Office of Water and our many partners are pleased to present the first national water
environmental indicators report.  This report is the result of an extensive collaborative effort over the
past several years, and I wish to thank all of those involved for their hard work and commitment.
Many indicators contain data from Federal or private agencies other than the Environmental
Protection Agency.  Some are the result of collaborative efforts, for instance when States and Tribes
report information into national databases.  All indicators have been chosen and shaped through
extensive public meetings and reviews.

       The information presented in this report will be used in three ways:  (1) to characterize the
quality of our waters, giving us an environmental  equivalent to economic indicators; (2) to chart our
progress in meeting water quality goals; and (3) to help determine if our programs to solve water
quality problems are working.  The  report presents the indicators on a national scale.  The indicators
also work at smaller geographic scales, for instance State, Tribal and watershed.  Eight States -
Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin - are
conducting specific pilot projects to  test the indicators, and the State results, due in late summer 1996,
will help us further refine both the indicators and the monitoring and data programs that support
them.

       Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States is the first report in a series
that, when taken together, will show trends in water quality over time.  For some of the indicators,
the data presented here is complete enough to represent a baseline or report on trends at this time.
For others, however, improvements to the data are needed before a baseline can be established.  We
and our many private and public partners are committed to improving the data supporting  all of the
indicators.   Each subsequent report, therefore, will document not only any changes that have occurred
in the indicators, but also the progress we have made to improve the data.

       As a first step in improving  the indicators, we solicit your comments on this report. Your
suggestions  will help us to refine the indicators and to ensure their usefulness for different purposes
and at multiple geographic scales. Please send your comments to the address given on the inside back
cover.

       Thank you again to all our partners in this significant step towards environmental
accountability.
                                                        rely,
                                                   Robert Perciasepe
                                                   Assistant Administrator
            Recyctodfftecyclabl* • Printed with Vegetable Baaed Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Posteonsumer)

-------
                     Environmental  Indicators of Water
                               Quality in the United States
JUNE 1996
      National Environmental Goals and Objectives for Water	ii

      Water Quality Objectives and Indicators	Mi

I.     Introduction	1

II.     Water Resources	2

III.    Human Activities and Their Effect on Water Quality	4

IV.    Water Quality Objectives and Indicators	5

           Objective I:  Conserve and Enhance Public Health	5

           Objective II: Conserve and Enhance Aquatic Ecosystems	10

           Objective III: Support Uses Designated by the States and Tribes
                     in Their Water Quality Standards	11

           Objective IV: Conserve and Improve Ambient Conditions	13

           Objective V: Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings
                     and Other Stressors	19

V.     Water Quality Monitoring and Information Management	23

VI.    Conclusion	23

Vlf.    References	23

-------
                  National Environmental Goals for Water

   CLEAN WATERS: America's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters will support healthy communities of fish, plants, and
   other aquatic life, and will support uses such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water supply for people. Wetlands
   will be protected and rehabilitated to provide wildlife habitat, reduce floods, and improve water quality. Ground waters
   will be cleaner for drinking and other beneficial uses.
   SAFE DRINKING WATER: Every American public water system will provide water that is consistently safe to drink.
   Note: Goals taken from Environmental Goals for America  With Milestones for 2005: A Proposal from the Environmen-
   tal Protection Agency. Government Review Draft. EPA 230-D-96-002.  Washington, DC: USEPA. In press.

                  Water Objectives to  Meet These Goals
               Objectives are measured by indicators presented in this report
                                    Support Uses Designated by States & Tribes
                                         in Their Water Quality Standards
                              Conserve and Improve
                               Ambient Conditions
                                     Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings
                                            and Other Stressors
                        Water Management Programs and Human Activities Affect Our Waters
The objectives adopted by EPA's Office of Water and its partners are shown above. These objectives are like building blocks in a
pyramid, where success in reaching the goals at the top is dependent on successful attainment of those lower in the pyramid. For
example, by reducing pollutant loads to waters, the overall quality, or ambient condition, of the water and sediment is improved.
Consequently, the waters can support the uses designated for them by states and tribes in their water quality standards. Ultimately,
the health of both the general public and aquatic ecosystems is protected.
                                      Indicator Data Completeness

Indicators are used to show changes in environmental conditions and are only as good as the quality of the measurements that
support them. The indicators presented in this report contain measurements of varying quality. These measurements might differ
in precision, accuracy, statistical representativeness, and completeness.  This comprehensive national report uses data from many
agencies. While these data sources have undergone data quality assessment by their respective agencies, this first national report
makes no attempt to describe data quality attributes  other than completeness  lor the indicators. This report includes  data of
varying quality for two reasons: (1) the indicator describes an important, if as yet imperfect, way to measure a national objective,
and (2) efforts are under way to improve indicator measurements in future reports. Further details on the data used to support
each indicator are presented in individual fact sheets available from EPA in hard copy or on the Internet at the address at the en
of this report . Each indicator graphic in this report shows the level of data completeness using the following symbols:
O
                              Data consistent/sufficient data collected
                              Data .somewhat consistent/additional data needed
                              Data need to be much more consistent/much additional data needed

-------
                Water Quality  Objectives and Indicators

Objective I: Conserve and Enhance Public Health

   1.    Population served by community drinking water systems violating health-based requirements—Population
         served by drinking water systems with one or more violations of health-based requirements,
   2.    Population served by unfiltered surface water systems at risk from microbiological pollution—Population
         served by, and number of, systems that have not met the requirements to filter their water to remove microbio-
         logical contaminants.
   3.    Population served by drinking water systems exceeding lead action levels—Population served by, and number
         of, systems with lead levels in drinking water exceeding the regulatory threshold.
   4.    Source water protection—Number of community drinking water systems using ground water that have
         programs to protect them from pollution.
   5.    Fish consumption advisories—Percentage of rivers and lakes with fish that states have determined should not
         be eaten, or should be eaten in only limited quantities.
   6.    Shellfish growing water classification—Percentage of estuarine and coastal shellfish growing waters approved
         for harvest for human consumption.

Objective II:  Conserve and Enhance Aquatic Ecosystems

   7.    Biological integrity—Percentage of rivers and estuaries with healthy aquatic communities.
   8.    Species at risk—Percentage of aquatic and wetland species currently at risk of extinction.
   9.    Wetland acreage—Rate of wetland acreage loss.

Objective III: Support Uses Designated by the States and Tribes in Their Water Quality Standards

   10.   Designated uses in state and tribal water quality standards
      a.  Drinking water supply designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support safe drinking
         water supply use, as designated by the states and tribes.
      b.  Fish and shellfish consumption designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support fish and
         shellfish consumption, as designated by the states and tribes.
      c.  Recreation designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies  that can support safe recreation, as desig-
         nated by the states and tribes.
      d.  Aquatic life designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support healthy aquatic life, as
         designated by the states and tribes.

Objective IV: Conserve and improve Ambient Conditions

   11.   Ground water pollutants—Population exposed to nitrate in drinking water. In the future, the indicator will
         report the presence of other chemical pollutants in ground  water.
   12.   Surface water pollutants—Trends of selected pollutants found in surface water.
   13.   Selected coastal surface water pollutants in shellfish—The concentration levels of selected pollutants in
         oysters and mussels.
   14.   Estuarine eutrophication conditions—Trends in estuarine  eutrophication conditions.
   15.   Contaminated sediments—Percentage of sites with sediment contamination that might pose a risk to humans
         and aquatic life.

Objective V: Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings and Other Stressors

   16.   Selected point source loadings to (a) surface water and (b) ground water—Trends for selected pollutants
         discharged from point sources into surface water, and underground injection control wells that are sources of
         point source loadings into ground water.
   17.   Nonpoint source loadings to surface water—Amount of soil eroded from cropland that could run into surface
         waters. Future reports will include additional nonpoint source surface water pollutants as well as sources of
         nonpoint source ground water pollution.
   18.  Marine debris—Trends and sources of debris monitored in the marine environment.

-------
                                                     Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
I. Introduction

        Our waters are one of our most valuable re-
        sources. They support human, plant, and ani-
        mal life and the natural environment; promote
economic opportunity; and provide beauty and enjoy-
ment to us all.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
working with other federal, state, tribal, regional, lo-
cal, and nongovernmental groups, has  proposed na-
tional goals  for many aspects of environmental pro-
tection. These goals include Clean  Waters and Safe
Drinking Water. To check our progress toward the na-
tional goals, EPA developed a series of milestones for
each goal that set a 10-year target to be reached by the
year 2005. In addition, EPA's Office of Water and its
partners have adopted five objectives for meeting the
Clean Waters and Safe Drinking Water national  goals
and have developed  a series of indicators to measure
progress toward  those objectives. The relationship
among goals, milestones, objectives, and indicators is
explained in Figure 1.

This report describes the indicators EPA and its part-
ners have chosen to measure progress toward water
quality objectives. The EPA-proposed national  goals
and milestones are described in detail in a separate re-
port. This report is the first in a series that, taken to-
gether, will show trends over time. For some indica-
tors, the data presented here currently provide a baseline
for trends. For other indicators, improvements in data
are needed to provide  a baseline for trends in future
reports. By documenting water quality status and trends,
EPA will be able to determine whether national water
programs are meeting their objectives and to adjust man-
agement strategies accordingly. This report will also
provide the public with a better understanding of the
condition of our waters, whether they meet the uses we
wish to make of them, and what affects their quality.

Many people at all  levels of government have been
working together to choose and describe the indicators.
In addition to EPA data,  specific data from states, Na-
tive American tribes, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, the  Center for Marine  Conservation,
The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) are included. Many others were also
integral to the development of the indicators through a
series of public meetings and review comments.

The indicators in this first national report will improve
if a strong partnership is maintained among the agen-
cies working together to report water quality trends over
time.
 FIGURE 1:  Relationship of Water Quality Goals,
 Objectives, Milestones, and Indicators
   National Goals: A set of 12 national environmen-
   tal goals with supporting milestones is proposed by
   EPA in the draft report  Environmental Goals for
   America With Milestones for 2005: A Proposal from
   the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
   Two of the goals from this report relate specifically
   to water:
     (1) Safe Drinking Water - Every American public
     water system will provide water that is consistently
     safe to drink.
     (2) Clean Waters - America's rivers, lakes, and
     coastal waters will support healthy communities
     of fish, plants, and other aquatic life, and will sup-
     port uses such as fishing, swimming, and drink-
     ing water supply for people. Wetlands will be pro-
     tected and rehabilitated to provide wildlife habi-
     tat, reduce floods, and improve water quality.
     Ground waters will be cleaner for drinking and
     other beneficial uses.

   Milestones: EPA is proposing milestones as 10-year
   targets in its national goals report. They express how
   far the Nation will have progressed toward the na-
   tional goals  by the year 2005, starting  from the
   baseline year of 1995. Each Clean Waters and Safe
   Drinking Water milestone uses a water quality indi-
   cator to measure progress toward the 2005 target.
   Most of the indicators have a related milestone in
   the national goals report.

   Water Objectives: The Office of Water and its part-
   ners have adopted five water quality objectives that
   further specify how to meet the national goals. The
   objectives are to (1) conserve and enhance public
   health; (2) conserve and enhance ecosystems; (3)
   support uses designated by the states and tribes in
   their water quality standards; (4) conserve and im-
   prove ambient conditions; and (5) prevent or reduce
   pollutant loadings and other stressors.

   Indicators: Indicators measure progress toward
   water quality goals, milestones, and objectives. In-
   dicators provide information on environmental and
   ecosystem quality or give reliable evidence of trends
   in quality.

-------
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
 Environmental Indicators

 Understanding the condition of our nation's water re-
 sources, identifying what causes problems, and deter-
 mining how to solve these problems are essential but
 difficult undertakings. The natural water cycle is itself
 intricate, and the addition of human activities increases
 this complexity. Consequently, answering the  basic
 question "How clean and safe is our water?" is not easy.

 One way to present the condition of our water resources
 and the impacts of related human activities is to de-
 velop understandable measures, or indicators, that sin-
 gly or in combination provide information on water
 quality. Managers and scientists can then use this in-
 formation to  develop effective solutions  and make
 sound decisions to protect our water resources. In ad-
 dition, all Americans can use this information to better
 understand the condition of our waters. It is important
 to  note that environmental indicators can  be used to
 measure a variety of phenomena. Indicators  can present
 information on status or trends in the state of the envi-
 ronment, can  measure pressures or stressors that de-
 grade environmental quality, and can evaluate society's
| responses  aimed at improving environmental condi-
 tions. The first two types of indicators (state of the en-
 vironment and pressure) deal  with  information  most
 closely associated with environmental results. The third
 type measures program and policy responses to envi-
 ronmental  problems and is primarily administrative.
                                                       II. Water Resources

                                                                 Water resources in the United States take
                                                                 many forms—running freely as rivers and
                                                                 streams; washing against coastlines and into
                                                       estuaries; pooling as lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands;
                                                       and moving under the land as ground water. We use
                                                       these waters for many different purposes, including
                                                       drinking, swimming, fishing, agriculture,  and indus-
                                                       try. Water resources are affected by many activities,
                                                       both natural, such as rain, and human, such  as water
                                                       withdrawal and urbanization. Following is a  brief de-
                                                       scription of our water resources and events that affect
                                                       them.

                                                       Rivers and Streams

                                                       There are 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams in the
                                                       country. About one-third of these flow all the time, and
                                                       two-thirds  flow only periodically and are dry  during a
                                                       portion of the year. Figure 2 shows selected major U.S.
                                                       river systems. Rivers and  streams supply water for
                                                       drinking, agriculture, industrial  processes,  and irriga-
                                                       tion and support aquatic habitats, fishing, and recre-
                                                       ation. Rivers and streams are impacted by pollution dis-
                                                       charged directly into the water, as well as by pollution
                                                       generated by activities occurring on land, which rain-
                                                       water or snowmelt carries into these waterways in the
                                                       form of runoff.
While all three types of indicators
are valuable for measuring progress
toward goals, this report concen-
trates on the actual condition of our
water resources. Thus, the indica-
tors presented are predominately
state of the environment and pres-
sure indicators. Societal responses
to environmental problems are
summarized in this report and in-
cluded in the accompanying indi-
cator fact sheets.

This report describes  our nation's
water resources, human activities
and natural events and their effect
on water quality, and the indicators
iiat will be used to measure progress
:oward goals and objectives.
                                   FIGURE 2: Selected Major Rivers of the United States
                                                                                             iELAWARE RIVEN

                                                                                             •POTOMAC RIVER
                                                                                          Source: U.S. EPA

-------
                                                    Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
Lakes and Reservoirs

There are 41 million acres of lakes and reservoirs in
the country. Lakes and reservoirs support the same uses
as rivers and streams and are affected by the same types
of pollution. These impacts, however, can be more se-
vere because lakes and reservoirs do not have the natu-
ral flushing process characteristic of flowing streams
and rivers.
 FIGURE 3: Estuaries Designated by EPA and States
           Under the National Estuary Program
                 PUGET SOUND, WA
        MASSACHUSETTS BAYS, MA
            BUZZARDS BAY
   t NEW HAMPSHIRE ESTUARIES
       NARRAGANSETTBAY, Rl
       LLONG"SLAND SOUND <_
   NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR-
      DELAWARE ESTUARY.'OE
            \   \
   •MARYLAND COASTAL BAYS',
     1    \^  X
ALBEMARLE-PAMLICO SOUNDS, NO
                              ru:
                   BARATAHIA-TEHREBONNE ESTUARY, LA
                                           SARASOTA BAY
                      Estuaries
Estuaries are coastal waters where the tides mix fresh
river water with ocean salt water. For example, the
Chesapeake Bay is a targe estuary that receives fresh-
water flow from several rivers in Virginia and Mary-
land and connects with the Atlantic Ocean. There are
many other smaller estuaries all along the coastline of
the United States—in total, over 34,000 square miles
                   of estuaries. Estuaries are noted
                   for their unique aquatic habitats,
                   as well   as  for  the  fishing,
                   shellfishing,  and other recre-
                   ational and economic opportuni-
                   ties they provide. Estuaries are in
                   increasing danger of pollution
                   considering that almost half the
                   U.S. population now lives in
                   coastal areas, many on estuaries.
                   Figure 3 shows the location of the
                   estuaries  identified by  EPA and
                   states under the National Estuary
                   Program  (NEP). An NEP desig-
                   nation recognizes the national sig-
                   nificance  of these  estuaries and
                   initiates a consensus- based, com-
                   prehensive management process
                   to protect these resources.
                                                            CASCO BAY, ME
                                                            • PECONIC BAY

                                                            BARNEQAT BAY
                                                             DELAWARE
                                                             INLAND BAYS
                                                            INDIAN RIVER
                                                            - LAGOON
                                                       CHARLOTTE HARBOR, FL
                                    SAN JUAN BAY, PR
                                                         Source: U.S. EPA
 FIGURE 4: Principal Ground Water Aquifers in the United States
            Columbia Ptalrau
                irayatem
                                                             Norh«m Atlantic
                                                             COMUI fain
                                                             aqu tar system
                                              Source: U.S. Geological Survey
                                         Ground Water

                                         Because ground water flows be-
                                         neath the earth's surface, it is hard
                                         to map the aquifers in which it re-
                                         sides or to know the overall qual-
                                         ity of ground water in the United
                                         States. Figure 4 shows the esti-
                                         mated location of the principal
                                         ground  water aquifers  of the
                                         United States. Ground water flows
                                         are usually slower than surface
                                         waters and are replenished by in-
                                         teraction with streams, rivers, and
                                         wetlands and by precipitation that
                                         seeps through the soil. Ground wa-
                                         ter also can replenish other water-
                                         bodies by maintaining base flow
                                         to  streams, rivers, and wetlands.
                                         Ground water provides almost

-------
 Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
 one-fourth of all water used in the country, serving agri-
 cultural, industrial, and drinking water needs. Waste dis-
 posal, contaminated runoff, and polluted surface waters
 can degrade ground water quality.

 Wetlands

 Wetlands include swamps, marshes, tundra, bogs, and
 other areas that are  saturated  with water for varying
 periods of time. Under normal circumstances, these
 areas support plants specifically adapted to saturated
 conditions. Seeping water from wetlands can recharge
 ground water supplies. Unaltered wetlands in a flood-
 plain can reduce flooding. The natural water filtration
 and sediment control capabilities of wetlands help main-
 tain surface and ground water quality. More than 200
 million acres of wetlands existed in the lower 48 states
 during colonial times. Less than half remain today, how-
 ever, largely due to conversion to agricultural, urban,
 or suburban land. Wetland water quality can be im-
 pacted by many of the same sources that affect other
 surface water resources.
 III.  Human Activities and
 Their Effect on Water
 Quality
                    Urbanization, dams, forestry practices, and agricultural
                    development all impact the quality of our waters. Rain-
                    fall and snowmelt runoff from urban areas—those ar-
                    eas dominated by paved roads, parking lots, rooftops,
                    and other similar impervious surfaces where pollution
                    collects—can alter stream characteristics and habitats,
                    increase pollutant loads and water temperature, and re-
                    duce the diversity of aquatic life. As the percentage of
                    imperviousness in an area increases, the quality of ad-
                    jacent or receiving waterbodies decreases. Highly de-
                    veloped commercial and business districts are estimated
                    to be 85 percent impervious, while even our least de-
                    veloped urban  areas—suburban residential districts
                    with  1 -acre lots—are considered to be about 20 per-
                    cent impervious. Distinct water quality problems are
                    observed at relatively low levels of imperviousness (10
                    to 20 percent).

                    Similarly, agriculture and forestry practices can lead to
                    water quality problems. Clear-cutting forests and
                    removing streambank vegetation result in increased ero-
                    sion rates,  as well as more severe and frequent flood-
                    ing, as the natural runoff storage capacity  in vegeta-
                    tion, wetlands, and soil is reduced. Figure 6, from the
                    U.S. Department of Agriculture's National  Resources
                    Inventory,  depicts the amount of surface area in the
                    United States that is developed land (urban), agricul-
                    tural land, forest land, or a mix of these uses, and fed-
                    eral land.  Each land use type results  in different im-
        Human activities have a
        profound effect on our
        water resources. The
 population in the United States
 has grown from approximately
 30 million in 1860 to 260 mil-
 lion in 1990. At the same time,
 :he U.S. economy has expanded.
 figure 5 shows both population
 ;ind economic growth over the
 last four decades. Although
 economic growth can  occur
 hand-in-hand with environmen-
 tal protection and restoration, it
 c an alter both our land and wa-
 t;r. As a result, it is important
 t lat we work to understand these
(effects in order to capitalize on
 beneficial changes and prevent
 or minimize harmful ones.
FIGURE 5: U.S. Population and Economic Growth 1960 -1990
                 -0-Gross Domestic Product
                    1987 Dollars (trillions}
                 D  Population
      .1  200 H
       o
      •f
       as
       D
       CL
       O
      CL
150 -

100 -j
     i
 50

  0
                  1960      1970      1980      1990

                 	Source: U.S. Census and U.S. Department of Commerce

-------
                                                       Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
pacts that must be addressed by appropriate federal,
state, tribal, local, and individual efforts to improve
and conserve the quality of our waters.
IV. Water Quality
Objectives  and Indicators

   In the following section, indicators of water quality
   are discussed according to how they measure their
   respective water quality objectives: public health,
ecosystem health, designated uses, ambient conditions,
and pollutant loadings. Although the indicators are pre-
sented on a national level, they also can be used at a
state or watershed level. These indicators could pro-
vide  a consistent core set of dala to be used at all geo-
graphic levels. Managers at the state and watershed
levels, however, will probably want to add specific in-
dicators of their own.
Objective I: Conserve and Enhance
Public Health

We use many of our waters to supply drinking water
and fish and shellfish for human consumption, as well
as for recreation. There are times, however, when poor
water quality limits these uses.
  FIGURE 6:  Dominant Cover/Use Types, 1992   |
                       Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture
Reducing the risk of drinking contaminated water has
been a priority for public health agencies and EPA for
many years. Public water systems manage surface and
ground water supplies across the country to make them
safe to drink. Most Americans can safely drink their
lap water, although the number of water systems con-
tinuing to violate health standards and posing a risk to
public health remains too high. Figure 7 shows the num-
ber of community  water systems in each state that are
regulated by EPA and the states under the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act. Although most of these systems use
ground water as their principal water  supply source.
approximately 63  percent of the population served is
provided water from systems using surface water.

Fish and shellfish have become more widely used as a
source of low-fat, high-quality protein foods. Consump-
tion of contaminated fish and shellfish, however, can
pose a risk to human health. As fish prey on the species
below them in the food chain, concentrations of chemi-
cal contaminants can increase, reaching levels  many
times greater than those found in the water and increas-
ing the risk to humans and other animals higher in the
food chain. Also, microbial contamination of shellfish
remains a problem.

We sometimes take for granted that our favorite beaches
and swimming holes are safe for swimming, water-ski-
ing, and boating. However, waters that  become pol-
luted can pose a health  risk to people  who choose to
                   play in them. At times, states or
                   towns are forced to close beaches
                   due to high levels of bacterial
                   contamination. These closures are
                   undertaken as precautionary mea-
                   sures to prevent the outbreak or
                   spread of disease resulting from
                   swimming in polluted waters.

                   State health departments track the
                   number of disease outbreaks from
                   swimming in all kinds of waters.
                   EPA is encouraging states  to re-
                   port information  on beach clo-
                   sures and disease outbreaks to ob-
                   tain a national perspective on
                   these issues

                   In  the  future, EPA would like to
                   add nationwide indicators on the
                   quality of our recreational waters.

-------
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
Such information is available from individual states and
tribes, but not on a consistent nationwide level. In the
meantime, state and local health departments should be
contacted for information on conditions in  particular
areas.
 INDICATOR 1: Population served by
 community drinking water systems violating
 health-based requirements

 EPA and the states regulate approximately 200,000 pub-
 lic drinking water systems that serve over 240 million
 people.  (Public water systems are defined as systems
 that provide piped water for human consumption to at
 least 15 service connections or serve an average of at
 least 25 people for at least 60 days each year. Approxi-
 mately 60,000 of these water systems are known as com-
 ;Tiunity drinking water systems—systems that provide
 water to the same population year-round. The remain-
 ing 120,000 are non-community water systems that pro-
 vide drinking water for non-residential use (e.g., work-
 places, schools, restaurants)).

 The concentration of contaminants in drinking water sys-
 tems is strictly controlled by health-based requirements
 es tablished to minimize or eliminate risk to human health.
 T.iese health-based requirements address several areas
 including surface water treatment, total coliform, lead
 and  copper treatment, and chemical/radiological con-
 tamination. When violations of these requirements oc-
 cur,  water systems must remove
 the. contaminants and notify the
 public or face severe penalties un-
 der EPA and state regulatory pro-
 grams.
                            INDICATOR 1: Population Served by
                       Community Drinking Water Systems Violating
                                Health-Based Requirements
                                               81%
                                   Percent of Population Scrv«4 by Systems with.

                               Nil reported violations                    81%
                               Surface water treatment violations               t%
                               Total colifonn violations                    *%
                               Lead and copper treatment violations             I %
                               Chemical/radiological contamination violation!        I %
                        Note: As many as tine* fourth of the water systems (ltd not complete all required
                        monitoring. The compliance status of some of these could not be assessed front
                        reported data. 243 million people were served by community drinking water systems
                        in 1994
                       Source: State data in EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System, 1994
                      Proposed Milestone: By 2005. the population served by community water
                      systems in violation of health requirements will be reduced from 19 to 5 percent.
                       Note: Related Mtlestone-The U.S. Department of Health and Human
                       Services (HHS) in its Healthy People 2000 report has established a
                       similar target for the year 2000 that complements the EPA milestone
                       related to Indicator 1. The HHS target is: [By 2000,] Increase to at
                       least 85 percent the porponion of people who receive a supply of drink-
                       ing water that meets the safe drinking water standards established by
                       EPA.
This indicator displays the popu-
lation served by community drink-
ing water systems in  1994 that
violated one or more health-based
requirements. More than 80 per-
cent of the population is served by
community drinking water sys-
tems that reported no violations
of these requirements during the
past year. Indicators 2 and 3 show
more detailed information on two
of tht health-based requirements,
frltraiion  treatment and  lead in
drink ng water.
FIGURE 7: Number
of Community Drinking Water Systems by State I
Source: Safe Drinking Water
Information System. 1995
                    55,633 Total Community Water Systems
                        0 - 600 Community Water Systems
                       601 -1200 Community Water Systems
                       1201 -1800 Community Water Systems
                       > 1800 Community Water Systems

-------
                                                  Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
     INDICATOR 2: Population Served by
   Unfiltered Surface Water Systems at Risk
        from Microbiological Pollution
        15 -
              1993       1994
                                1995
             1,000       750       400
             Systems    Systems    Systems
Source: State data in EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System, 1994
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, every person served by a public water system
that draws from an unprotected river, lake, or reservoir will receive drinking
water that is adequately filtered.
     INDICATOR 3: Population Served by
     Community Drinking Water Systems
        Exceeding Lead Action Levels
                                        i
                                       Data
                                    Completeness
           15-30    31-80    81-130    >130
            Lead Action Level Exceedance (ppb)


Source: State data in EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. 1995
INDICATOR 2: Population served by
unfiltered surface water systems at risk from
microbiological pollution

Drinking water systems supplied by surface waters can
sometimes withdraw water that contains harmful lev-
els of disease-causing microbiological contaminants,
such as Giardia lamblia, Legionella, and viruses. Un-
der the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), EPA
and the states require all inadequately protected drink-
ing water systems using surface water sources to disin-
fect and install filtration treatment to remove these mi-
crobiological contaminants from the drinking water.
Compliance with the rule will dramatically reduce the
probability of human exposure to harmful levels of mi-
crobiological contaminants from surface water sources.

This indicator displays the population provided water
by unfiltered community water systems that did not
comply with the SWTR in 1993. In 1993, over 12 mil-
lion people were provided drinking water from more
than 1,000 unfiltered community water systems not in
compliance with the SWTR. Through aggressive ac-
tion by EPA, the states, and the water systems, the risk
of human exposure to microbiological contaminants is
being reduced. By the end of fiscal year 1995, the num-
ber of water systems not complying with the SWTR
was  reduced from  1,000 to 400, with most of the
progress being made in small and medium water sys-
tems. However, the population at risk has not dropped
as dramatically—from 12 million to 9.9 million—
primarily because of the time needed for completing in-
frastructure improvements.


INDICATOR 3: Population served by
community drinking water systems
exceeding lead action levels

EPA estimates that 20 percent of human  exposure to
lead  is attributable to lead in drinking water. Lead en-
ters drinking water  through pipes  in  the distribution
system, service lines, and household plumbing, includ-
ing faucets and other fixtures. Lead in drinking water
is controllable through actions taken by water systems
and their customers.

EPA, under its Lead  and Copper Rule (LCR), requires
that water systems follow a series of steps to reduce
the likelihood of lead entering the drinking water from
distribution system  materials. Water systems are  re-

-------
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
quired to monitor for lead in their distribution systems,
and to take action when lead in more than 10 percent of
the samples taken at the tap exceeds the regulatory ac-
tion level of 15 parts per billion (ppb). Depending on
the size and type of the system, remedial actions range
from establishing a public education program to imple-
menting corrosion control treatment or replacing lead
pipes. EPA requires large systems to install lead con-
trols regardless of sampling results.

This indicator measures the population provided water
by community water systems that have exceeded lead
action levels and are required to take corrective action.
It is not a precise predictor of the risk of exposure to
the general population provided water by the targeted
water systems. The monitoring results reflect the situa-
tion in only the worst portions of the distribution sys-
tem and represent only the relative probability of risk
for consumers who  rely on those targeted  water sys-
tems.

Based on  the results of lead monitoring through fiscal
year 1995,69.1 million people were provided drinking
water by water systems that exceeded the action level
of 15 ppb at least once. Of that number, 42.8 million
people were provided water by systems where sampling
results showed lead levels between 15 and 30 ppb, and
26.3 million people received water from systems where
sampling results showed lead levels over 30 ppb, which
EPA views as a significant exceedance. About 2.1  mil-
lion people received water from water systems where
sampling  results showed lead levels greater than 130
ppb. Higher exceedances increase the probability that
people consuming water are at risk.
 INDICATOR 4: Source water protection

To protect our sources of drinking water even before
water is withdrawn by a drinking water supplier, EPA,
states, and tribes have instituted the Source Water Pro-
tection Program. EPA also continues to promote ground
v/aterprotection efforts through legislation, grants, and
partnerships for state programs. Currently, EPA's fo-
cus in the Source Water Protection Program is on pro-
tecting ground water used for drinking water. The re-
sulting Wellhead Protection Program covers four prin-
cipal activities:  (1) delineating a wellhead protection
area (the protected area around a drinking water sup-
ply well), (2) identifying potential sources of contami-
nation, (3) developing a contingency plan in case of a
threat to the drinking water source, and (4) developing
a source management plan to control potential sources
of contamination. In the future, the Source Water Pro-
tection Program will be extended to surface waters.

This indicator shows that approximately 18,700 of al-
most 60,000 surface and ground water community drink-
ing water systems (31 percent) have initiated the Source
Water Protection Program and 3,800 systems (6 per-
cent) are covered by all four parts of the ground water
protection program. EPA has established a milestone
for 60 percent of the population, which corresponds to
50 percent (30,000) of all community drinking water
systems, to have source water protection  programs in
place by 2005.
INDICATOR 5: Fish consumption advisories

States issue fish consumption advisories to alert an-
glers of risks associated with eating fish from rivers
and lakes that are contaminated by chemical pollutants.
Some tribes also use state advisories on their own wa-
ters. A fish consumption advisory can involve one or
more of the following warnings: (1) do not eat any fish
                  INDICATOR 4:
            Source Water Protection
        60,000
                                                                50.000 -
        40,000
        30,000 -
        20,000
        10.000 -
                                                                         IDENTIFYING   :  TAKING ACTION
 Note: Source water protection
programs for 30,000 community
 drinking water systems is the
     2005 milestone
                18.700
                                          3,840
              Delineations   Source    Contingency   Source
                       Inventories   Planning  Management

 Source: State Biennial Wellhead Reports to EPA, 1993
 Proposed Milestone: By 2005. 60 percent of the population served by
 community water systems will receive their water from systems with source
 water protection programs in place.

-------
                                                    Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                 INDICATOR 5:
         Fish Consumption Advisories
       25%
                  Lakes
                                   Rivers
 Source: State data reported to EPA's Office of Science and
       Technology, 1994
                 INDICATOR 6:
    Shellfish Growing Water Classification
       63%
                17,152,000 Acres of
            Classified Shellfish Growing
                Waters Nationwide
         25%
                                  9%
              O Approved
              • Conditionally Approved
              EJ Restricted
              • Prohibited
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1990
caught in a certain area; (2) eat only a specified limited
amount of fish, particularly if you are in a high-risk
group (e.g., pregnant women or young children); or
(3) eat fish only after special preparation.

States and tribes report that 14 percent of total lake
acres and 4 percent of total river miles have one or more
fish consumption advisories. EPA is working with state
and tribal agencies to link fish consumption advisory
information with assessments of the fish and shellfish
consumption designated use set by state water quality
standards.


INDICATOR 6: Shellfish growing water
classification

Shellfish growing waters are classified by individual
states using the guidelines set forth in the National Shell-
fish Sanitation Program (NSSP) manuals of operation.
These manuals are written and periodically updated by
the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission (ISSC),
which  includes representatives from the states, the
shellfish ing  industry, and the federal government.

Every 5 years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, in cooperation with the ISSC and EPA,
produces the National Shellfish Register of Classified
Estuarine Waters. The Register reports the classifica-
tions of all coastal and estuarine shellfish growing wa-
ters. These waters are classified as one of the follow-
ing:  (1) approved (harvest is allowed at all times), (2)
conditionally approved (harvest is allowed at certain
times depending on environmental conditions), (3) re-
stricted (harvest is allowed if shellfish undergo a cleans-
ing or purification process), (4) conditionally restricted
(harvest is allowed at certain times depending on envi-
ronmental conditions and whether the shellfish undergo
a cleansing  or purification process, or (5) prohibited
(harvest is not allowed at any time). The Register also
reports on the actual and potential sources of pollution
that cause a shellfish growing water to be classified as
anything other than approved.

In 1990, there were 17 million acres of classified shell-
fish growing waters in U.S. coastal areas, with 63 per-
cent approved for shellfish harvest—a 6 percent de-
cline from 1985. Of the other 37 percent, 9  percent
were conditionally approved for harvest, 3 percent were
classified as restricted, and 25 percent were classified
as prohibited.

-------
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                                                10
EPA and NOAA are considering how NOAA's shell-
fish growing waters data can be correlated with state
assessments of attainment of the fish and shellfish con-
sumption designated use set by state water quality stan-
dards (see Indicator lOb).
 Objective II: Conserve and Enhance
 Aquatic Ecosystems

 Clean water is also critical to the health and survival of
 most plant and animal species. Water quality encom-
 passes not only the chemical composition of the water,
 but also its physical and biological properties. Impaired
 aquatic habitats can cause a severe decline or even ex-
 tinction of an aquatic  species and aquatic-dependent
 wildlife. The quality of the biological communities can
 be used as an indicator of the cumulative effect of all
 chemical and physical stressors on the waterbody.

 Sometimes the conditions in a waterbody might appear
 suitable for aquatic life, but the absence of healthy and
 diverse aquatic life might indicate water quality prob-
 lems that have gone undetected. Assessing the ability
 of the waterbody to support aquatic life is the first step
 in ensuring healthy biological communities, referred
 to as "biological integrity." The next step is determin-
 ing the kind and abundance of plants and animals found
 in the waterbody, referred to as "biological diversity."
 Aquatic plant and animal habitats that are degraded or
 modified can also be indicators of poor water quality.
INDICATOR 7: Biological integrity

Assessing a waterbody for healthy biological communi-
ties is a complex process, and the science to do so is
newer than that used in chemical monitoring. Biological
 ntegrity can be measured using fish, macroinvertebrates,
or plants, including algae. The Intergovernmental Task
Force on Monitoring Water Quality recommends that at
least two of these three assemblages be used together to
make an accurate assessment. The extent of biological
integrity is determined by comparing the monitored site
against a "reference site" that exhibits the desired char-
acteristics.  Assessing waterbodies for biological integ-
r ty is important because it takes into account the cumu-
I.itive effects of a wide variety of stressors.

This indicator shows data from (1)31 states that cur-
rently have comprehensive biological monitoring pro-
grams in streams and wadeable rivers and (2) EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP), which uses biological monitoring to evaluate
estuaries. States were able to assess only 9 percent of
their rivers for biological integrity; of those, 50 percent
were found to have healthy aquatic communities. EMAP
assessed 50 percent  of the Nation's estuaries using a
statistically representative sampling design  and found
that 74 percent of estuaries have healthy aquatic com-
munities.

Methods for biological monitoring in  lakes are under
development; consequently, there are not enough data
yet to confidently report the number of lakes that sup-
port healthy aquatic life. EPA and its partners are work-
ing together to strengthen biological monitoring pro-
grams, assess more waters  in this fashion, and gather
better data for supporting this indicator.
INDICATOR 8: Species at risk

In assessing the biological diversity and integrity of a
waterbody, it is  important to determine whether the
aquatic species that should naturally exist in the waters
are actually there and at the expected population size.
                  INDICATOR?:
               Biological Integrity
        100%
          0%
                                    Estuaries
                                  55% Assessed
 Source: EPA EMAP, 1994, and state biological monitoring data, 1992-1994
 Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 80 percent of the Nation's surface waters will
 support healthy aquatic communities.

-------
11
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                 INDICATOR 8:
     Aquatic and Wetland Species at Risk
    100% i
     75%
     50%
     25% -
     0%
                65%
                   37%|
                        35%
                               18%
                                         fi5*
               -
          J"   i?
              O
0-   v   E
    DC   ts
 Source: The Nature Conservancy and State Natural Heritage Data
       Centers. 1996
                 INDICATOR 9:
               Wetland Acreage
       600 -
       400
    !§. 200
                                      70-90
           * mid 1950s -   * mid 1970s -  **mid 1980s -
             mid 1970s     mid 1980s    early 1990s

Source: * U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990 (Data includes federal lands)
     ** U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992 (Data excludes federal lands)
Proposed Milestone: By 2005. there will be an annual net increase of at least
100,000 acres of wetlands, thereby supporting valuable aquatic life, improving
water quality, and preventing health- and properly-damaging floods and drought.
  Oftentimes, declines in natural aquatic species can be
  attributed to factors such as poor water quality and habitat
  loss.

  Both The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the U.S. Fish
  and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in cooperation  with
  states and tribes, keep data that show which native plant
  and animal species are at risk (TNC) or are legally listed
  as endangered (USFWS). This indicator uses data from
  TNC and the state Natural Heritage Network and shows
  the proportion of species dependent on freshwater
  aquatic or  wetland habitats that  are at risk. Currently,
  the groups  of animals at greatest risk overall are those
  dependent on aquatic systems. More than 60 percent of
  freshwater  mussels and crayfish are at risk, the highest
  imperilment ratio documented for any group of plants
  and animals in the United States.
  INDICATOR 9: Wetland acreage

  Wetlands are especially important habitats for many dif-
  ferent kinds of aquatic species. An estimated 80 percent
  of the Nation's coastal fisheries and one-third of its en-
  dangered species depend on wetlands for spawning, nurs-
  ery areas, and food sources. Wetlands are home to mil-
  lions of waterfowl and other birds, plants, mammals, and
  reptiles. Protecting the quantity and quality of wetlands
  is important to the continued abundance of healthy and
  diverse aquatic species.

  This indicator shows historical wetland loss, which has
  been significant. The average annual rate of wetland loss,
  however, has slowed to less than 90,000 acres per year.
  Ultimately, there will be a net increase in wetland acre-
  age.


  Objective III:  Support Uses Designated
  by the States and Tribes in Their Water
  Quality Standards

  The Clean Water Act requires states and, if authorized,
  Native American tribes to adopt water quality standards
  that include uses they designate for their waterbodies or
  waterbody segments. These designated uses reflect the
  way we want to use our waterbodies and include such
  things as supplying clean drinking water, providing fish
  and shellfish safe for human consumption, allowing safe
  swimming and other forms of recreation, and supporting
  healthy aquatic life. State/tribal water quality standards

-------
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                                                  12
establish the goals of and provide the requirements for
the Nation's water quality-based improvement programs.

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that
states survey, assess, and report on the degree to which
their surface waters support the designated uses. Some
Native American tribes also submit this information.
The results of the assessments are reported to EPA ev-
ery 2 years. Data from the reports are then aggregated
to form the National Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress (the national 305(b) Report), which portrays
the status of the Nation's waters assessed during that
period.

Most states cannot assess all  their waters in a 2-year
period. As a result, EPA is working with the states to
change the 305(b) Report to a 5-year report that de-
scribes national, state, and tribal waters comprehen-
sively. For the 2-year period reported in the 1994 305(b)
report, states and tribes assessed 42 percent of lakes
and reservoirs, 78 percent of estuaries, and 17 percent
of all rivers and streams, usually targeting their moni-
toring efforts to areas of particular interest. The assess-
ment figure for rivers and streams rises to 48 percent if
the intermittent waters that are dry during portions of
the year are excluded.
INDICATOR 10a: Drinking water supply
designated use

States and tribes evaluate the quality of their waters as
sources for drinking water supplies. This does not mean
that the water is safe to drink directly from the source,
but rather that with conventional  treatment the water
can be safely distributed for public consumption. In the
EPA guidance to the states for the fiscal year 1996 305(b)
Report, EPA defines conventional treatment as disin-
fection and filtration treatment only.

This indicator shows that of the rivers and lakes assessed
and reported on for the 1994 305(b) Report, 87 percent
of the lake acres and 83 percent of the river miles that
supply drinking water systems support this use.


INDICATOR 10b: Fish and shellfish
consumption designated use

Just as the states and tribes report to EPA on the quality
of their waters for supplying drinking water systems,
                INDICATOR 10a:
    Drinking Water Supply Designated Use
        100% i
        75%
   S
   i
   II
        50% -
25%
                    Rivers              Lakes

Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress.
1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantly
flowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent ot
estuarine square miles were assessed.
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 90 percent of the Nation's rivers, streams, lakes,
and reservoirs designated as drinking water supplies will provide water that is
safe to use after conventional treatment.
                                                                 INDICATOR 10b: Fish and Shellfish
                                                                   Consumption Designated Use
        100%
            Rivers (fish) Lakes (fish)  Estuaries   Estuaries
                              (fish)    (shellfish)

 Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress,
 1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent ot constantly
 flowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent of
 estuarine square miles were assessed.
Proposed Milestone: By 2005,90 to 98 percent of the Nation's fish and shellfish
harvest areas will provide food safe for people and wildlife to eat.

-------
13
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                 INDICATOR 10c:
           Recreation Designated Use
         100%
    £
                 Rivets
                            Lakes
                                      Estuaries
          I   • Swimming     Q Other Recreation  |

 Source: National Water Quality Inventory. 1994 Report to Congress,
 1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantly
 (lowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent of
 estuarine square miles were assessed
Proposed Milestone: By 3005,95 percent of the Nation's surface waters will be
safe for recreation.
                 INDICATOR 10d:
          Aquatic Life  Designated Use
       100%
                Rivers        Lakes       Estuaries

Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress,
1995; 17 percent of art river and stream miles (48 percent of constantly
flowing mites), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent of
estuarine square miles were assessed
Proposed Milestone: By 2005,80 percent of the Nation's surface waters will
support healthy aquatic communities.
   they also report on the quality for fish and shellfish
   consumption. This indicator shows that 74 percent or
   more of all assessed river miles, lake acres, and estua-
   rine square miles  are safe for fish  and shellfish con-
   sumption. EPA is working with the state agencies that
   issue fish consumption advisories (Indicator 5) to link
   advisory information with fish and shellfish consump-
   tion designated use data.
   INDICATOR 10c: Recreation designated use

   States and tribes also report to EPA how many of their
   waters support recreational uses, especially swimming
   and boating. Currently, 77 percent or more of all river
   miles, lake acres,  and estuarine square miles that the
   states and tribes have assessed are safe for all forms of
   recreation.
   INDICATOR 10d: Aquatic life designated use

   The states and tribes also provide EPA with informa-
   tion on whether their waters can support their aquatic
   life designated use. Approximately 70 percent of the
   Nation's assessed river miles, lake acres, and estua-
   rine square miles can support the designated aquatic
   life use.
                                                           Objective IV: Conserve and Improve
                                                           Ambient Conditions

                                                           Measures of ambient water quality evaluate the overall
                                                           impacts of various sources and causes of pollution and
                                                           other stressors. Measures of ambient conditions in
                                                           ground water, surface water, and wetlands—both in the
                                                           water column and in sediments—cover a range of physi-
      Note: Related Milestones - The U.S. Department of Health and Hu-
      man Services (HHS) in its Healthy People 2000 report has estab-
      lished targets for the year 2000 that complement the EPA mile-
      stones related to Indicators I Ob and lOc. The HHS targets are: [By
      2000,] reduce potential risks to human health from surface water,
      as measured by an increase in the proportion of assessed  rivers,
      lakes, and estuaries that support beneficial uses. For recreation use,
      from 1992 to 2000 the percentages would improve as follows: Riv-
      ers (from 71 percent to 85 percent), Lakes (from 77 percent to 88
      percent), and Estuaries (from S3 percent to 91 percent).  For con-
      sumable  fishing use the improvement would be: Rivers (from 89
      percent to 94 percent). Lakes (from 64 percent to 82 percent), and
      Estuaries (from 94 percent to 97 percent).

-------
         Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                                                                                                             14
         cat, chemical, and biological characteristics of the
         waterbody. These measures provide critical informa-
         tion about potential risk to human and ecosystem health
         (Objectives I and II) and often are evaluated to deter-
         mine the degree to which there is impairment of a
         waterbpdy's designated use (Objective III). By provid-
         ing the link to causes and sources of pollution and pol-
         lutant loadings (Objective V), ambient water  quality
         indicators complete the picture of how the water ob-
         jectives support and build on one
         another (see page ii).
                                                           Water Pollutants, and 15, Contaminated Sediments),
                                                           with trends to be established at a later date.

                                                           Based on discussions at the last national water indica-
                                                           tors workshop in June 1995, potential parameters were
                                                           selected to express national ambient water quality.
                                                           Many of the parameters are presented in these indica-
                                                           tors. Participants in these discussions expressed the im-
                                                           portance of tracking both ambient water quality and
•
The United States does not have
a linked national ambient water
quality monitoring network that
can produce a statistically valid
picture of all our waters. In lieu
of a complete and representative
national data set on ambient con-
ditions, several sources of infor-
mation taken together can pro-
vide a national picture of water
resource conditions.

States and some tribes report to
EPA the leading pollutants and
other stressors they find  in the
ambient waters they assess, and
the leading sources that produce
these stressors.  EPA publishes
this information in the 305(b) re-
port. Figure 8 shows the percent
and quality  of waterbodies as-
sessed, and  Figures 9a and 9b
show the leading stressors  and
sources of impairment  in as-
sessed rivers, streams, lakes, res-
ervoirs, and estuaries reported by
states in 1994.

This report uses several sets of
these data as indicators.  Using
these data, we can  summarize
and evaluate trends for selected
parameters (Indicators 12, Sur-
face Water Pollutants, and 13 and
14, Pollutants in  Coastal Waters
and Estuaries). In some  cases,
only a  1-year baseline is pre-
sented  (Indicators  11, Ground
                                              FIGURE 8: Percent and Quality of Waterbodies Assessed |
                                                                                                       Quality of Assessed
                                                                                                           River Miles
                                                                 Waters Assessed
                                                                                 _.
D                                                                  Waters Not Assessed  •'-,   <"''   rjx
                                                                         ,  . ..-->.  ,  .   ::  ..'- -••'"; ^J
                                               \ Estuarine   „._„,,.,,.__,,,,,
                                               \   Miles
                                                Lake Acres
                                              Total River Miles i
   83%
                                                 Constantly
                                                  Flowing
                                                 River Miles
            >•
22% i 3088 total *q. miles
    ) 40.8million total acres
   3^5 million total mile*
    I 1.3 million total miles
                                 Quality of Assessed
                                     Lake Acres
                                 Quality of Assessed
                                   Estuary Sq. Miles
                                                             Source: U.S. EPA, 1995
                                              FIGURE 9a: Leading Stressors Causing Water Quality Impairment |
                                                            Nutrient*

                                                            Bacteria

                                                            Siltation
                                                     Oxygen- Depleting
                                                         Substances
                                                             Metals

                                                     Habitat Alteration*

                                                     Suspended Solids

                                                         Oil & Grease

                                                           Pesticide*
                                                  Priority Organic Toxic
                                                          Chemicals
                                                                                                   47%
                                                                  Q%           20%           40%           (0%

                                                              Percent ol Impaired River Miles, Lake Acres, and Estuarine Square Mile*
                                               Source: U.S. EPA, 1995
Note: This graph shows the percentage ot river miles, lake acres, and
estuarine square miles that are affected by a particular stressor. The
affected waters include only those which have been assessed by state*
and tribes and identified as impaired (see Rgure 8).

-------
 15
                 Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                 INDICATOR 11:
        Ground Water Pollutants: Nitrate
                   Rural
                 Domestic
                   Wells
Community
  Water
 System
  Wells
 Source: National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells, 1990.
 Proposed Milestone: By 2005, die number of Americans served by community
 and rural water wells containing high concentrations of nitrate, which can cause
 illness, will be reduced.
pollutant loadings (the amount of a pollutant delivered
to a waterbody) from both point and nonpoint sources
(see Objective V). Future efforts will continue to en-
hance and expand ambient monitoring coverage to in-
clude key parameters and define methods for summa-
rizing data for national reporting.
FIGURE 9b: Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment j

Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewer*
Hydrologlc/Habltat Modification
Industrial Point Source*
Land Disposal
Petroleum Activities
Construction
Resource Extraction
Streamsid* Vegetation Loss
Forestry
Unspecified Nonpoint Source


^HHBHii^j^-1 1»%

	 1,,;3*
• Est
BaaBB>Baaiii% DLak
BBSIBBBB110% BRIV(


a.«as.nnr
%
jarles
es
irs

0% 20% 40% 60%
Percent of Impaired River Miles, Leke Acres, and Eatuarlne Square Mllea
Note: This graph shows the percentage of river miles, lake acres, and
estuarine square miles that are affected by a particular source. The
affected waters include only those which have been assessed by states
Source: U.S. EPA, 1 995 and tribes and identified as impaired (see Figure 8).
INDICATOR 11: Ground water pollutants:
Nitrate

Many contaminants in ground water are naturally oc-
curring,  Some, however,  are from human activity.
Because ground water monitoring is expensive, infor-
mation on ground water quality is usually obtained from
the monitoring of known or  suspected contaminated
sites or from specific studies  designed to monitor for
various contaminants in limited areas. Available data,
therefore, do not always provide a complete and accu-
rate representation of ambient ground water conditions
or the extent and severity of ground water contamina-
tion problems.

In the meantime, one of the best available sources of
ground water data is studies of drinking water supplies.
Indicator 11 uses information from rural wells and com-
munity water systems to determine the number of people
exposed to nitrate in ground  water. According to the
National Survey of Pesticides  in Drinking Water Wells,
a total of 4.5 million people  are estimated to be ex-
posed to elevated levels of nitrate in drinking water
wells (approximately one-third from rural domestic
wells and two-thirds  from  community water system
wells). The  survey also found nitrate to be the most
widespread agricultural contaminant in drinking water
wells.

Nitrate is a human health concern because it can cause
methemoglobinemia or "blue-baby syndrome." Nitrate
                     is  also an environmental concern
                     as a potential source of nutrient
                     enrichment of coastal waters. Ni-
                     trate  contamination of ground
                     water can result from the inap-
                     propriate application of fertiliz-
                     ers to cropland, where excess
                     nitrate  filters  down into the
                     ground  during rainfall; from the
                     misuse  of septic systems; and
                     from  the improper disposal of
                     wastewater.
                                                                           Improved understanding of the
                                                                           natural and human-induced fac-
                                                                           tors affecting ground water qual-
                                                                           ity will come about only through
                                                                           research at the federal, state, and
                                                                           private  levels.  Research  is
                                                                           needed to better understand what

-------
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                                                 16
activities affect changes in ground water conditions, to
guide monitoring and management priorities, and to
evaluate the effectiveness of land and water manage-
ment practices and programs. The results of such re-
search will be more cost-effective monitoring and a sig-
nificant expansion and improvement in the informa-
tion that can be used for decision making.

EPA and other federal, state, and local  agencies con-
tinue to promote ambient ground water  monitoring to
characterize the existing condition of the Nation's aqui-
fers. Many recent monitoring studies, especially from
the U.S Geological Survey, have focused on nitrate as
an indicator for the presence of other contaminants. In
addition, many studies have targeted other contaminants
as indicators of specific types of land use or industrial
activities. EPA plans to review all of these studies and
use them as a follow-up to the information currently
covered by this indicator. Thus, in the future, this indi-
cator will provide a more accurate picture of overall
ground water quality by including other contaminants,
such as pesticides or industrial contaminants, and uses
other than drinking water supply.
INDICATOR 12: Surface water pollutants

EPA and its partners have chosen to track a few of the
many constituents that have significant effects on our
surface waters.  This indicator currently presents the
change in concentration levels of six constituents, in-
cluding dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nitrate, total
phosphorus, fecal coliform, and suspended sediments.
Data from the U.S. Geological Survey on ambient sur-
face water quality are the  best current representation
for this indicator. These data show trends in the con-
centration levels of the six constituents from 1980 to
1989. Increases  in the concentration level of dissolved
oxygen, which is necessary for fish and aquatic plant
life, indicate an improvement in ambient water quality.
In contrast, increases in the concentration level of all
of the other constituents reflect a decrease in ambient
water quality. In the future, trends of other constituents
might be added  to improve this indicator.
INDICATOR 13: Selected coastal surface
water pollutants in shellfish

Pollution in coastal areas is of particular concern given
the population concentration in coastal regions and the
                 INDICATOR 12:
            Surface Water Pollutants
                  Trends in River and
                 Stream Water Quality
                     1980 -1989
                                           Data
                                       Completeness
 Suspended Sediment

     Fecal coliform

   Total phosphorus

          Nitrate

   Dissolved solids

  Dissolved Oxygen
                          50%
                                      100%
                 % of Stations Showing Changes
                    in Concentration Levels
     Downward trend
                   I   I  No trend    ||Hj|  Upward trend
Note: The presence of an upward trend indicates an increase in the concentration
of a particular constituent while a downward trend indicates a decrease in the
concentration. Analyses were made on data from USGS National Stream Quality
Accounting Network stations. Trend data for phosphorus are from 1982-1989.
                                                          Source: U.S. Geological Survey. 1990
   INDICATOR 13: Selected Coastal Surface
         Water Pollutants in Shellfish
      70% i
                                         3.6%
      -70%
          Copper Mercury  Lead   DDT   PCB   PAH
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1995

-------
 17
                        Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
importance of coastal waters as nurseries for aquatic
life. NOAA collects data on the concentration and ef-
fect of persistent pollutants in the coastal waters of the
United States. This indicator shows the average con-
centration levels of six pollutants in shellfish (oysters
and mussels) collected from about 140 locations around
the Nation's coastline. Shellfish serve as good indica-
tors because they filter water as they feed and tend to
accumulate pollutants.

The pollutants shown are six of the toxic chemicals
of greatest concern in terms of their effects on fish
and other organisms in U.S. estuaries. Three metals
and three groups of organic chemicals are included.
The metals copper, mercury, and lead are commonly
used in our society for many purposes. The use of
two of the organic chemicals, the DDT pesticides and
the industrially important polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), was very common until about 20 years ago.
Although these chemicals are now banned, they can
still be found in the environment. The carcinogenic
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are com-
mon constituents of oil and are also produced by the
burning of coal and wood.
                 INDICATOR 14:
      Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions
     NOAA DATA
                     CMoeophyfli Nitre?*.  Anuta
     Hudson River

     Delaware Bay

     Chesapeake Bay

     Neuse River

     St. Johns River

     Biscayne Bay
      C
n   D
n   c:
                    Trends observed from 19741o 1995
                    •  *—•        L
          Note: EPA and NOAA data should nn( be comptttd.
                                         notnnd
 Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1996
INDICATOR 14: Estuarine eutrophication
conditions

This indicator shows changes in specific constituents
related to water quality that together can be used to
assess the extent of eutrophication within an estuary,
and thus assess its health and condition. Eutrophica-
tion is a process by which a body of water begins to
suffocate from receiving more nutrients, such as nitro-
gen and phosphorus, than it can handle. The excess
nutrients fuel the heavy growth of microscopic aquatic
plants. As these plants die and decompose, the supply
of dissolved oxygen in the water is depleted. Oxygen is
then no longer available to other aquatic organisms,
especially those which  live on the bottom. Symptoms
of eutrophication include low levels of dissolved oxy-
gen, extensive algal blooms, fish kills and reduced popu-
lations offish and shellfish, high turbidity in the water,
and diebacks of seagrasses and corals. Estuarine and
coastal waters are monitored to determine  if they are
receiving too many nutrients and becoming eutrophic.
Parameters that are monitored include chlorophyll a,
nitrogen, other nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and the
spatial coverage of seagrassess (or submerged aquatic
vegetation).

This indicator shows trends in eutrophication-related
conditions from the 1960s to  1995 in selected estuar-
ies throughout the country as measured by two differ-
ent data sets. The nationwide framework for the indi-
cator of estuarine eutrophication is NOAA's National
Estuarine Inventory. The 129 estuaries contained in
the inventory represent a consistent and  complete
framework for characterizing the Nation's estuarine
resource base.  NOAA is collecting information on
16 eutrophication-related water quality parameters for
each estuary in the inventory through a knowledge-
based consensus process with over 400 estuarine sci-
entists.  In  1990, NOAA estimated that nearly half
the Nation's estuaries were susceptible to eutrophica-
tion. In  1992, NOAA initiated its National Estuarine
Eutrophication Survey to evaluate which estuaries had
problems in the following regions: North Atlantic (16
estuaries), Mid-Atlantic (22 estuaries), South Atlan-
tic (21 estuaries), Gulf of Mexico (36 estuaries), and
the West Coast (34 estuaries).

This indicator also uses data from EPA's National Es-
tuary Program (NEP). Currently, there are 28 estuaries
around the country in the NEP. In many of these estuar-
ies, state and local managers have identified eutrophi-

-------
        INDICATOR  14 - Estuarine Eutrophication  Conditions:

                                     Graphics Reprint
      Due to printing difficulties, the output quality of the graphics used for Indicator 14,
      Estuarine eutrophication conditions, was impaired. Below is a reprint of these graphics
      that provides a better differentiation of the data presented for this indicator.
                INDICATOR 14:
     Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions
    NOAA DATA
    Hudson River

    Delaware Bay

    Chesapeake Bay

    Neuse River

    St. Johns River

    Biscayne Bay
                                      Sub
                                       Aquatic
                    Chlorophylls Nitrogen  Anoxia vegetation
D
                  D
                    Trends observed from 1974 to 1995
                                         no trend
          Note: EPA and NOAA data should not be compared.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996
                                                 INDICATOR 14:
                                      Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions
                                      EPA DATA
                                      O
                                      Data
                                  Completeness
                                                                                             Submerged
                                                                                              Aquatic
                                                                           Chlorophyll a Nitrogen   Anoida Vegetation
Massachusetts Bays

Long Island Sound

Delaware Inland Bays

Albemarle-Pamlico
Sounds

Tampa Bay

Barataria-Terrebonne
                                                                   D
                                                                   D
                                                                   D
                                                                                   1960s to 1995
                                                                   better
                                                                            no trend
                                                                                    4 not known
                                                                          non
                                 mm       Kid      I	1       Y£A        U-^* applicable
                                 Note: EPA and NOAA data are not comparable. For EPA's NEP data, collection periods
                                 varied from 15 to 30 years, seasonal or short-term trends are not reflected, and individual
                                 NEPs are not comparable.
                                 Source: Data from EPA's National Estuary Program, 1996

-------

-------
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                                                                                                             18
 cation and excess nutrients as critical problems. NEPs
 are collecting historical  and baseline monitoring in-
 formation to assess the effectiveness of corrective ac-
 tions being undertaken. Taken together, the NOAA and
 EPA efforts will provide the most comprehensive and
 complete information base possible for the foresee-
 able future.
 INDICATOR 15: Contaminated sediments

 Certain types of chemicals in water tend to bind to
 particles and collect in sediment. Chemicals often per-
 sist longer in sediment than in water because condi-
 tions might  not favor natural degradation. When
 present at elevated concentrations in sediment, pollut-
 ants can be released back to water. Pollutants can also
 accumulate in bottom-dwelling organisms and in fish
 and shellfish and move up the food chain. In both cases,
 excessive  levels of chemicals in sediment might  be-
 come hazardous to aquatic life and humans.

 This indicator shows the percent of measurements
 of contaminated sediments that indicate potential risk
 to ecological and human health by chemical or chemi-
 cal  group. Of the 37 percent of measurements that
 detected contaminant levels,  14 percent exhibited a
 potential risk to human  or ecological health due to
 substances such as mercury,  pesticides, PCBs, and
 PAHs.  These levels of concern are based on field sur-
 veys, laboratory toxicity tests, and studies of the  be-
 havior  of  chemicals in the environment and  in living
 fish tissue. EPA collects  and  analyzes sediment and
 fish tissue data from state, EPA region, and  other
 monitoring programs as  part of the National  Sedi-
 ment Inventory (NSI). The goals of the NSI are to
 survey data regarding sediment quality  nationwide,
 identify locations that are potentially contaminated,
 and describe the sources  of contaminants.
 The Importance of Habitat

 Habitat is an additional indicator that measures ambi-
 ent conditions. Without healthy habitat, plants and ani-
 mals cannot survive. Habitat is the area where living
 and nonliving factors interact to provide at least mini-
 mal life support for a given species. Habitat important
to water quality begins instream (factors such as wa-
ter flow rate), includes the riparian zone (habitat bor-
dering water), and extends into dry-land habitats where
                 INDICATOR 14:
      Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions
      EPA DATA
                                         3ubnwrg*
-------
 19
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
rainwater and snowmelt carry pollutants over land into
water.

Although healthy habitat is a key link in understanding
our water resources, we are currently unable to report
on habitat quality nationally. It is important, however,
to use habitat as an indicator regionally. EPA hopes to
be able to include a national habitat quality indicator in
future reports. To fill this information gap, EPA and its
partners are placing increased emphasis on supporting
habitat quality  assessments and developing  a habitat
quality indicator.

One of the first documents issued by EPA encourag-
ing states to assess habitat quality is Rapid Bioassess-
ment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. The
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols evaluate the quality
of the riparian corridor habitat by comparing the moni-
tored stream to a "reference condition" that expresses
the desired condition of the water. Habitat  data, to-
gether with traditional chemical and  toxicity data,
enable researchers to evaluate biological monitoring
data and understand the environmental stressors to the
aquatic ecosystem.

Some habitat quality stressor information is reported
in the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Con-
gress. According to the 1994 305(b) Report, states and
tribes ranked  hydromodification and habitat alteration
   as a leading source of water quality impairment in as-
   sessed waters (see Figure 9b).


   Objective V: Reduce or Prevent
   Pollutant Loadings and Other
   Stressors

   Water is affected by stressors from both natural and
   human activities. Habitat alteration, for instance, can
   cause major water quality degradation. However, de-
   termining where the stressors come from is not al-
   ways  easy. Stressor indicators are the link between
   management programs, which are usually designed
   to prevent  or reduce stressors, and the  condition of
   the environment. The following indicators present in-
   formation on the sources of pollutant loads for se-
   lected pollutants. A pollutant load  is the mass of a
   pollutant (e.g.,  tons of sediment)  delivered to the
   waterbody.

   Sources of pollution to surface and ground waters are
   characterized as point and nonpoint. Point source pol-
   lution usually enters waters through a specific point,
   such as a pipe. Ground water can be contaminated by
   point source pollution through underground injection
   of waste. Nonpoint source pollution typically is car-
   ried in  rainwater and snowmelt runoff over and
   through land  to surface water, or  in water that seeps
                       through soils to underground
                       aquifers.
 FIGURE 10: Estimated Share of Nitrogen Delivered to Streams by
            Point and Nonpoint Sources
                                                            Connecticut
  Pilouie River, WA PIMM River, KE  Rid River, MN A ND White River, IN Su.quehirm. River, PA  River, CT
  Willamette River, OR
  Snike River, ID
                                                          PotorriK River, VA
  San Joaquln
South Plane River, CO Trinity River, TX   Wtiite River. AH   Apalachicola
                                      River, FL
 Source: U.S. Geological Survey
                                                             Nonpoint
                                                              Source
                                                           1 Point Source
                       Major accomplishments of the
                       past several decades include con-
                       trolling industrial discharges,
                       providing adequate wastewater
                       treatment to a growing popula-
                       tion,  and protecting drinking
                       water supplies from underground
                       injection of waste.  EPA uses
                       regulations and permit limits to
                       control these point source dis-
                       charges. The sections that follow
                       present indicators to measure our
                       progress in  controlling  both
                       point  and nonpoint source pol-
                       lution, which continue to persist.
                       To demonstrate the relative con-
                       tribution of point and nonpoint
                       sources, Figure 10  illustrates

-------
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                                                                                                      20
how the mix of point and nonpoint sources of nitrogen
entering our streams varies across the Nation.
INDICATOR 16a: Selected point source
loadings to surface water

For surface waters, the major point sources of pollu-
tion are sewage treatment plants, industrial facilities,
and "wet weather" sources like combined sewer over-
flows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and
storm water sewers. Sewage treatment plants treat and
discharge wastewater from homes, public buildings,
commercial establishments, some storm water sewers,
and some industries. Many industrial facilities treat and
discharge their own wastewater, either directly to nearby
waters or to sewage treatment plants. Combined sew-
ers combine storm water and sewage in one system and,
during periods of intense rainfall, can overflow directly
to nearby waters without treatment. Figure 11 illustrates
the annual amount of pollution discharged by these
sources.

Many pollutants have been identified as a priority or of
particular concern. EPA and other agencies with point
source loading information have identified a group of
toxic and conventional pollutants to track as indicators
of progress toward reducing point source  pollution in
surface waters. Information about these pollutants is
contained in EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS).
EPA is working to improve the
quality of data entered into PCS
in order to extract more  useful
information  for each state on
whether the amount of these con-
taminants being discharged is in-
creasing, decreasing, or remain-
ing stable. EPA is working with
other  federal agencies like
NOAA and USGS  to improve
the tracking of point source load-
ings nationwide. Improvements
will include the ability to project
expected loadings from sources
not covered in national databases
like PCS.

For illustrative purposes, the
graph above presents data ex-
tnicted from PCS on two pol-
    INDICATOR 16a: Selected Point Source
           Loadings to Surface Water
     100% 1
   §  60% 1
   55
      40%
      20% '
             • Significantly increasing loads (<1CO%)
             • Increasing loads
             G Stable loads
             D Decreasing loads
                                         44%
            18%
               Biochemical
                Oxygen
                Demand
 Source: Permit Compliance System, 1995
                                   Lead
 Proposed Milestone: By 2005, annual pollutant discharges from key point
 sources that threaten public health and aquatic ecosystems will be reduced by
 3 billion pounds, or 28 percent.
lutants to be tracked under this indicator—biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) and lead.  BOD is a mea-
sure of pollution expressed in terms of the amount
of oxygen  needed  by micro-organisms  to break
down waste material.    A high level  of  BOD in-
FIGURE 11:
Annual Amount of Pollution Discharged 1
by Selected Point Sources 1
Sewage Treatment Plants ' Toxic Industrial *
I

0
M
|
=
£
f
a
a.
'o
c
1
"E

4000 -
3000 -
2000 •

1000 -
3318
^B
•
•
•
0 -4 	 ^^-^— —
1992
?w
n IMI
5 o
8 a. 100
o ^
S S 50-
U
— c D •
	 ' o J. "
a.


146
••
^m


^B rr] Pollution settling
IT! into sediments


n
199$


Combined Sewer Overflows ' Conventional Industrial '
?

-------
21
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
dicates that there will be lower levels of oxygen avail-
able for fish and other aquatic life. A high BOD also
indicates possible  bacterial contamination from sew-
age released into the waterbody. In 1995,66 percent of
the states reported  BOD as either decreasing or stable,
while 34 percent reported increasing or significantly
increasing BOD levels. In addition, 48 percent of the
states reported either decreasing or stable lead levels,
while 52 percent reported increasing or significantly
increasing lead levels.
INDICATOR  16b:  Sources of point source
loadings through class V wells to ground water

Major sources of pollution to ground water are septic
systems, cesspools, or dry wells used to dispose of in-
dustrial and commercial wastewater. Businesses in strip
malls and industrial parks and areas that are not served
by municipal sewer systems are likely to dispose of
industrial and commercial wastewater in shallow wells
or in septic systems that are designed to treat only sani-
tary wastes. EPA studies show that approximately 10
percent of the 10 billion gallons of this wastewater con-
tains chemicals, such as ethylene glycoL These chemi-
   INDICATOR 16b: Sources of Point Source
        Loadings Through Class V Wells
                to Ground Water
                                     I    Data
                                     [Completeness
1 I  1.500

11
                Note As well closures
                increase, loadings or
                discharges to ground
                  water decrease.
  Source: EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1995
 Proposed Milestone: By 2005, wellhead protection areas and vulnerable ground
 water resources will no longer receive industrial wastewater discharges from
 septic systems.
   cals can pass through septic systems unchanged and
   eventually enter ground water aquifers while still toxic.
   As much as 1 billion gallons of untreated chemicals,
   therefore,  have the potential to degrade the water re-
   sources of 60,000 community water systems and half
   the U.S. population.

   One million new septic systems are constructed every
   year. The number of these systems that will be used for
   disposal of industrial and commercial wastewater is not
   known. Stopping the misuse of these systems is best
   left in the hands of the public health agencies or other
   local government agencies that regulate them.

   Through the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Pro-
   gram, EPA works with other federal agencies, states,
   tribes, and local governments to address this major point
   source of pollution. Aside from technical and financial
   assistance to regulators, the UIC program will provide
   compliance assistance to commercial and industrial op-
   erations as part of source water protection programs
   that will be developed for 30,000 community water sup-
   plies by the year 2005. EPA will collect annual reports
   from states that describe the number of septic systems
   no longer used for industrial waste disposal  (Class V
   well closures). In the future, EPA expects to report re-
   ductions in specific point source pollutants to ground
   water as this indicator is further developed.


   INDICATOR 17:  Nonpoint source sediment
   loadings from cropland

   Nonpoint source pollution is a diffuse source that is dif-
   ficult to measure and is highly variable due to different
   rain patterns and other climatic conditions. In  many ar-
   eas, however, nonpoint source pollution is the greatest
   source of water quality degradation. Presently, states and
   tribes identify nonpoint source pollution from cropland
   and livestock, urban runoff, and storm sewers as the great-
   est water quality threat to the Nation's surface waters.
   Other nonpoint sources of pollution to surface water in-
   clude ranoff from roads, construction sites, mining, and
   logging; drainage from waste disposal sites and land-
   fills; and airborne pollutants that settle in the water.

   In the absence of direct national measures of  nonpoint
   source pollution, national figures can only be estimated.
   The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates
   soil erosion with field measurements and statistical
   models, such as the universal soil loss equation. USDA

-------
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                                                                                                         22
tracks  and reports progress in reducing erosion rates
from the Nation's agricultural lands through the Na-
tional Resources Inventory.

This indicator shows the amount of erosion from agri-
cultural cropland. Cropland erosion is often, but not
always, associated with the delivery of sediment, nu-
trients, and pesticides to receiving waters. Other na-
tional measures for nonpoint source loadings are under
consideration and may be developed as more national
data become available.
INDICATOR 18: Marine debris

Marine debris includes trash left behind by visitors to
the beach, discarded from boats, carried by inland wa-
terways to the coast, or conveyed by overflowing sewer
or storm systems. As an indicator, marine debris can
be useful in ascertaining (I) early warning signs of pos-
sible human health risk associated with pollution,
(2) biological health risk such as entanglement or in-
gestion by wildlife, (3) limits on coastal recreation and
fishing, (4) the effectiveness of programs to control or
prevent marine debris, (5) the aesthetic  value of a
coastal area and the economy it supports, (6) ambient
conditions,  and (7) human health risks through en-
tanglement injury or exposure to medical waste.

EPA chairs  an interagency workgroup on  marine de-
bris that includes representatives from the National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Park
Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other organizations.
The workgroup has developed a statistically valid meth-
odology for monitoring the trends and sources of ma-
rine debris. This monitoring effort will begin in 1996,
and data from that year will be used as the baseline for
this indicator. Past data, although not collected using a
statistically designed protocol, are presented in this re-
port to give  an indication of the problem.
  INDICATOR 17: Nonpoint Source Sediment
            Loadings from Cropland
       2.000-,
          0
               1977      1982      1987
Source: USOA, National Resource Inventory. 1992
                                          1992
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, the annual rate of soil erosion from agricultural
croplands will be reduced 20 percent from 1992 levels lo a total of 948 million
tons per year.
                INDICATOR 18:
                 Marine Debris
  1
                                                                   1990     1991     1992     1993     1994
                                                            Note: Data in (his graph are variable by number of beaches cleaned,
                                                            number of voluulcers participating, and weather conditions on the day of
                                                            cleanup.
                                                         Source: Center for Marine Conservation, 199S.

-------
 23
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
V.  Water Quality
Monitoring and
Information Management

          Water quality monitoring supplies the data and
          information that are the backbone of each
          of the indicators described in this  report.
Each indicator is supported by a monitoring network
and data systems that provide and store the data. In
some cases, we need better, more efficient monitoring,
easier ways to access and understand data, and better
programs to analyze and present water quality infor-
mation.

Many public and private organizations, states, tribes, and
federal agencies are working to improve monitoring pro-
grams across the country to provide better information
to measure these indicators. The Intergovernmental Task
Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) has already
adopted  a nationwide water quality monitoring strategy
that,  when fully implemented, will provide better data
for many of the indicators presented in this report.
VI. Conclusion

      The indicators presented here are keys to answer-
      ing the question "How clean is our water?" Al-
      though we know water resources in this country
have improved considerably since the formation of EPA
in 1970, the passage of the Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Water Act, and as a result of the hard work of
many public  and private partners, we still have prob-
lems to address. All levels of government and public and
private entities need to work together closely to improve
our understanding of the environment and our ability to
protect and enhance it. A critical part of that process is
improving the collection and assessment of data. The
steps we are  taking to improve the indicators are de-
scribed in individual fact sheets for each indicator, avail-
able from EPA at the address on the inside back cover.

As the indicators are improved, we should be able to
more precisely track changes, both positive and nega-
tive, in water quality. The status and trends indicator data
will be invaluable for targeting resources and for man-
aging and improving key water quality programs that
protect and enhance public health and the environment.
   VII. References

   Objective I: Conserve and Enhance
   Public Health

   Indicator 1
   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
    Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1994. Data ex-
    tracted from the Safe Drinking Water Information
    System on the population served by community drink-
    ing water systems in violation of health-based require-
    ments.

   Indicator 2
   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
    Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1994 Data ex-
    tracted from the Safe Drinking Water Information
    System  on  drinking water systems and population
    served by these systems not meeting filtration require-
    ments.

   Indicator 3
   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
     Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1994. Data ex-
     tracted  from the Safe Drinking Water Information
     System on drinking water systems and population
     served by these systems exceeding lead action levels.

   Indicator 4
   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
    Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1993. Data from
    State Biennial Wellhead Reports on the number of
    states with source water protection programs.

   Indicator 5
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sci-
    ence and Technology. 1994. National Listing of Fish
    Consumption Advisories. Geo-referenced data of
    state-issued fish consumption advisories.

   Indicator 6
   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
     1990 Data extracted from the 1990 National Shell-
    fish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters on the
     number of estuaries providing shellfish approved,
     conditionally approved, and not approved for human
     consumption.

-------
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
                                                                                                 24
Objective II: Conserve and Enhance
Aquatic Ecosystems

Indicator 7
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
  Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. 1996. Summary of
  State Biological Assessment Programs for Streams
  and Wadeable Rivers. Draft. 1992 and 1994 data on
  the percent of assessed streams and wadeable rivers
  with good biological integrity determined through
  biological monitoring.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Re-
   search and Development. 1995. Data extracted from
   EMAP Estuaries: A Report on the Condition of the
   Estuaries of the United States in 1990-1993 - A Pro-
   gram in Progress on the percent of assessed estuar-
   ies with good biological integrity determined through
   biological monitoring.

Indicator 8
The Nature Conservancy.  1994. Data extracted  from
  the Heritage Program Database on the percent of se-
  lected aquatic species at risk of extinction, critically
  imperiled, and apparently secure.

Indicator 9
Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States
  1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
  and Wildlife Service. Data on the amount of wetland
  acreage loss from 1780 to mid-1980s.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser-
  vice. 1992. Summary Report National Resources In-
  ventory. Data on the amount of wetland loss from
  mid-1980s to mid-1990s.

Objective III: Support Uses Designated
by the States and Tribes in Their Water
Quality Standards

Indicator 10a- 10d
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wa-
  ter. 1995. National  Water Quality Inventory: 1994
  Report to Congress, 1994 data on the percent of
  assessed rivers, streams,  lakes, reservoirs, and es-
  tuaries that can support (1) drinking water supply,
  (2) fish and shellfish consumption, (3) swimming
                                                      and recreation, and  (4) aquatic life. EPA-841-R-
                                                      94-001.
                                                     Objective IV: Conserve and Improve
                                                     Ambient Conditions
                                                    Indicator 11
                                                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
                                                      Drinking Water and Office of Pesticide Programs.
                                                      1990. National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking
                                                      Water. Data on the potential number of people drink-
                                                      ing water with high levels of nitrate and pesticides.


                                                    Indicator 12
                                                    U.S. Geological Survey. 1993. National Water Sum-
                                                      mary 1990-1991, Hydrologic Events and Stream
                                                      Water Quality. U.S. Geological Survey Water Sup-
                                                      ply Paper 2400. Data on trends of selected pollut-
                                                      ants found in surface water.


                                                    Indicator 13
                                                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
                                                      1995. Data on selected coastal surface water quality
                                                      pollutants in shellfish.


                                                    Indicator 14
                                                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
                                                      1995. Data presented in NOAA's National estuarine
                                                      inventory: Data atlas, Volume 1: Physical and hy-
                                                      drologic characteristics.

                                                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                                                      Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assess-
                                                      ment. 1995. Data from NOAA's National Estuarine
                                                      Eutrophication Survey Project.

                                                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  1996. NEP
                                                      data extracted as of 1996 from continuing monitor-
                                                      ing programs and synthesis of historical data  in in-
                                                      dividual  estuaries.


                                                    Indicator 15
                                                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sci-
                                                      ence and Technology. 1993 Data from National Sedi-
                                                      ment Inventory  on the percentage of sites with sedi-
                                                      ment contamination that might pose a risk to humans
                                                      and aquatic life.

-------
25
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
Objective V: Prevent or Reduce
Pollutant Loadings and Other
Stressors
Indicator 16a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of En-
  forcement and Compliance Assurance. 1995 Data
  from the Permit Compliance System on lead and BOD
  loadings from permitted facilities.

Indicator 16b
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of
  Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1995. Data from
  underground injection control state reporting forms
  on the number of shallow (Ciass V)  injection wells
  closed annually.

Indicator 17
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser-
  vice. 1992. National Resources Inventory Summary
  Report. Data on the annual rate of sediment eroded
  from agricultural cropland.

Indicator 18
Center for Marine Conservation. 1995. 1994 U.S. Na-
  tional Coastal Cleanup Results. Data on the amount
  of marine debris annually collected from  cleanup
  events from 1990 to  1994.
Figures

1   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Goal
    statements taken from Environmental Goals for
    America With Milestones for 2005: A. Proposal from
    the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    Government Review Draft. EPA 230-D96-002.

2.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
    Water.  1996. Selected major rivers of the United
    States.
  3.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
      Water. 1995. Estuaries designated by EPA and states
      under the National Estuary Program.

  4.  U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. Principal ground wa-
      ter aquifers of the United States.

  5.  U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Com-
      merce. 1996. Data on U.S. population and economic
      growth from 1960 to  1990.

  6.  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
      Conservation Service. 1996. Dominant Cover/Use
      Types. Map ID:RWH.1429. Data extracted from the
      1992 National Resources Inventory.

  7.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of
      Water. 1995. Data extracted from the Safe Drinking
      Water Information System on the population served
      by primary water supply sources.

  8.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of
      Water. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994
      Report to Congress.  1994 data on the percent  and
      quality of waterbodies assessed.

  9a. U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of
      Water. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994
      Report to Congress. \ 994 data on the leading stres-
      sors causing water quality impairment.

  9b. U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of
      Water. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994
      Report to Congress. 1994 data on the leading sources
      of water quality impairment.

  10. U.S. Geological Survey. 1995. Data on the estimated
      share of nitrogen delivered to streams by point and
      nonpoint sources.

  11. U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of
      Water. 1996. Analyses based on EPA support docu-
      ments for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreat-
      ment Standards and Toxic Release Inventory data.

-------
*
                  Comments and requests for indicator fact sheets
                  should be sent to the address below:
                         Water Environmental Indicators
                         EPA Office of Water
                         Mail Code 4503F
                         401 M Street, SW
                         Washington, DC 20460
                         Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic

-------
5-.ro
o c
•" w

-------
   EPA's PROPOSED NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND MILESTONES
                                    SEPTEMBER 4,1996
                              PLEASE  DO  NOT DISTRIBUTE
 The marked edits are changes to the goals and milestones in the May 1996 draff. Also noted are
 other changes that are currently being discussed with OMB and others.
 CLEAN AIR

 Long-Range Goal:  Every American city and community will be free of air pollutants at levels that cause
 significant risk of cancer or respiratory and oilier health problems. The air will be clearer in many areas, and life in
 damaged forests and polluted waters will rebound as acid rain, ozone, and hazardous air pollulants arc reduced.

 Ml.    By 2005, the number of cities where air quality does not meet national standards will be reduced more than
        96 percent from 1995 levels, thereby making the air safer to breathe for an additional 85 million Americans
        in 164 metropolitan areas.

 M2.    By 2005, emissions of unhealthy smog-causing volatile organic compounds will fall 65 percent per mile
        per car, compared to 1990 levels.

|M3.    By 2005, increases in miles driven by U.S. vehicles will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of air
        or water quality standards, nor will increases in driving interfere with fulfillment of Hie U.S. commitment
        to induce greenhouse gas emissions hy 2000.

 M4.    By 2005, all 174 categories of major industrial facilities will meet toxic air emission standards.

|M5.    By 2005, sulfur dioxide emissions,-^ a primary cause of acid rain, will be reduced by nearly 10 million
        tons from 1980 levels.

 M6.    By 2005, annual average visibility in the eastern United States will improve 10 to 30 percent from 1995
        levels.
 CLEAN WATERS

JLong-Range Goal:  All of America's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters will support healthy communities of fish,
 plants, and oilier aquatic life, and will support uses such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water supply for
 people. Wetlands will be protected and rehabilitated to provide wildlife habitat, reduce Hoods, and improve water
 quality. Ground waters will be cleaner for drinking and other beneficial uses.

 Ml.    By 2005, there will be an annual net increase of at least 100,000 acres of wetlands, diereby supporting
        valuable aquatic life, improving water quality, and preventing moderating the effect o/healuv and propcrty-
        damaging floods and drought.

        DISCUSSIONS ARE UNDERWAY TO RESOLVE FEDERAL AGENCY DIFFERENCES
        CONCERNING THIS MILESTONE.

 M2.    By 2005, 80 percent of the nation's surface waters will support healthy aquatic communities.

-------
 M3.    By 2005,90 to 98 percent of the iialion's fish and shellfish harvest areas will provide food safe for people
         and wildlife to eat.

 M4.    By 2005,95 percent of the nation's surface waters will be safe for recreation.

 M5.    By 2005, die number of Americans served by community and rural water wells containing high
         concentrations of nitrate, which can cause illness, will be reduced.

 M6.    By 2005, the annual rale of soil erosion from croplands will be reduced 20 percent from 1992 levels to a
         total of 948 million tons per year.

|M7.    By 2005, total annual pollutant discharges from key point sources that threaten public health and aquatic
         ecosystems will be reduced by 3 billion pounds, or 28 percent.

 The DOT (Coast Guard) and DOC (NOAA) suggest adding anew goal (or additional milestones to Clean  Waters
 and/or Preventing Accidental Releases) for coastal and marine ecosystems. Milestones would include oil pollution
 releases to oceans using Coast Guard data. EPA is deferring a decision until after the government review.
 HEALTHY TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

 Long-Range Goal:  America will safeguard its ecosystems to promote the health and diversity of natural and
 human communities and to sustain America's environmental, social, and economic potential.

 Ml.     By 2005. the loss of ecosystem types considered critically endangered, endangered,.or threatened will be
         eliminated.

 M2.     By 2005, the populations of endangered, threatened, rare, and declining species of native terrestrial animals
         and plants will be stabilized or increased.

|M3.     By 2005, ecosystem conditions and functions will be restored to ultimately provide adequate amounts of
         habitat with the neccs&try size, mixture, and quality to sustain native animals and plants in alt regions.
 SAFE DRINKING WATER

 Long-Range Goal: Every American public water system will provide water that is consistently safe to drink.

 Ml.     By 2005, the population served by community water systems in violation of health-based requirements will
         be reduced from 19 to 5 percent.

 M2.     By 2005, every person served by a public water system that draws from an inadequately protected river,
         lake, or reservoir will receive drinking water that is adequately filtered.

|M3.     By 2005, 90 percent of the nation's rivers, sucoina. loltca. and reservoirs river and stream miles and lake and
         reservoir acres thai are designated as drinking water supplies will provide water that is safe to use after
         treatment.

 M4.     By 2005,60 percent of the population served by community water systems will receive their water from
         systems with source  water protection programs in place.

-------
 SAKE FOOD

 Long-Kange  Goal: The foods Americans consume will continue to be safe for all people to cat.

 M1.     Through 2005. the frequency of illegal pesticide residues in food will remain at or below the current low
         level."

 M2.     By 2005, there will be a significant reduction in the use of the food production pesticides that have the
         highest potential to cause cancer.

         USDA recommends revising the milestone to read "... a significant reduction in the highest cancer risks
         posed by the use of pesticides in food production."  EPA is deferring a decision until after the government
         review.

 M3.     By 2005, pesticide residues in food will be further reduced to ensure that, even in the thcorou'i'itl wun.i
         oaitO. no eh!Id or adult \\< OHptmod io an unnoouputhli' riulc from lugally applied poiiliuii.luri.5O that residue
         levels meet a standard of "reasonable cenainty of no harm".


 SAFE HO.MKS, SCHOOLS, AND WORKPLACES

 Long-Range  Goal: All Americans will live, learn, and work in safe and healthy environments.

 Ml.     By 2005, the number of young children with high levels of lead in their blood will he reduced by more man
         50 percent compared to the late 1980s.

 DHHS recommends that EPA add the following milestone (consistent with Healthy People 2000): By 2005, no
 children I through 5 years of age in the  U.S. population will have blood lead levels greater than or equal to 25 ug/dl.
 EPA  is deferring a decision unlit after the government review.

 M2.     By 2005, 27 million homes will have been voluntarily tested for radon, corrective action will have been
         taken in I  million homes, and 1.5 million new homes will have been built with radon-resistant features,
         resulting in a 25 percent reduction from 1985 levels in the number of Americans exposed to elevated radon
         in their homes.

 M3.     By 2005, children's exposure to environmental  tobacco smoke will decrease through voluntary actions in
         the home.  The proportion of households in which children 6 and younger are regularly exposed to smoking
         will be reduced to 15 percent from over 39 percent in 1986.

 M4.     By 2005, the number of workers suffering adverse health effects  caused by acute poisoning from pesticides
         will be reduced significantly from 1992 levels.

 M5.     By 2005, die use of safe agricultural biopesucides will double from 1995 levels.

 M6.     By 2005, the number of existing industrial high-producu'on-volume chemicals shown to be used safely in
         the workplace will nearly triple.

JM7.     By 2005, worker protection will be oiuiurud promoted for as many as 10,000 additional  new chemicals.
         (OPITS)

-------
 TOXIC-FREE COMMUNITIES

 Long-Range Goal:  By relying on pollution prcvcniion, reuse, and recycling in the way we produce and consume
 materials, all Americans will live in communities tree of loxic impacts.

 Ml.    By 2005, industrial facilities will reduce by 25 percent (from 1992 levels) the quantities of the toxic
         chemicals in waste streams that arc released, disposed of, treated, or combusted for energy recovery. 1 lalf
         of this reduction will he achieved through pollution prevention practices.

 M2.    By 2005, more than 99 percent of new chemicals approved since 1995 will have been used safely and will
         not require additional controls.

 M3.    By 2005, the number of existing high-production-volume chemicals shown to be used safely will nearly
         triple.

 M4.    By 2005, municipal solid waste will be recovered for recycling or composting at a rate of 35 percent.
         Municipal solid waste generation will be reduced to the 1990 level of 4.3 pounds per person per day, with
         the amount of waste combusted or landfillcd decreasing to 2.8 pounds per person per day.

 M5.    By 2005, the presence of the most persistent, bioaccumulalive, and toxic constituents in hazardous waste
         will be reduced by 50 percent from 1991 levels.


 PREVENTING ACCIDENTAL RELEASES

 Long-Range Goal:  Accidental releases of substances that endanger our communities and the natural environment
 will be reduced to as near zero as possible. Those which do occur will cause only negligible harm to people,
 animals, and plants.

 Ml.     By 2005, there will be 25 percent  fewer accidental releases of oil, chemicals, and radioactive substances
         than in 1993.

 M2.     By 2005, there will be a 50 percent increase over 1993 levels in the number of industrial facilities in high-
         risk areas that have either eliminated hazardous substance inventories or reduced them to minimum levels.

iThe DOT (Coast Guard) suggests adding additional milestone(s) to Clean Waters) for oil pollution releases to oceans
\using Coast Guard data.  EPA is deferring a decision until after tlte government review.


 SAFE WASTE MANAGEMENT

[Long-Range Goal:  Wastes  produced by every person-cmtt-, business, and unit of government in America will be
 stored,  treated, and disposed of in ways that prevent harm to people and other living tilings. (OSW/ L.Bagus)

 Ml.     By 2005, chlorinated dioxin/furan emissions from waste-burning facilities will be reduced 98 percent from
         1994 levels.

 M2.     By 2005, emissions of mercury and other harmful pollutants from waste-burning facilities will be reduced
         by at least 80 percent from 1994 levels.


-------
 M3.     By 2005, the annual number of confirmed releases from underground storage uuiks will be 80 percent
         lower than in 1994.
 M4.     By 2(105, wellhead protection areas and vulnerable ground waters will no longer receive industrial
         wasicwater discharges from septic systems.

 M5.     By 2005, tlio ninouiituf rud'niiti'iivo waMo manage J under diu purviuw of the- Alum it' Cnurgy Act that dooii
         tun jnoL't HPA di;ifHi!iiti iittmdiifdii will he rodut't'd hy 15 puruont 10 percent of the amount of spent nuclear
        fuel, high-level waste, and transuranic radioactive waste currently stored across the nation will be disposed
         of in accordance with EPA. disposal standards.
 RESTORATION OK CONTAMINATED SITES

 Long-Range Goal:  Places in America currently contaminated by hazardous or radioactive materials will not
 endanger public health and the natural environment and will be restored to uses desired by surrounding communities.

 Ml.     By 2005, long-term health threats will be eliminated and cleanup will be completed at 70 percent of the
         4-,374 7,2/2 non-Federal facility contaminated sites on the 1995 Superfund National Priorities List.

         Milestone target may be revised upward in response to President Clinton's 8/28 announcement about
         accelerating Superfund cleanups.

 IM2.     By 2005, immediate health threats will be eliminated and long-term cleanup will be under way at 80-85
         percent of die estimated 5.OCX) 3.200 Superfund sites (NPL and non-NPU that are expected to require
         cleanup.

 M3.     By 2005, at least 10 percent of contaminated federal  lands currently on the National Priorities List will be
         cleaned up.

 M4.     By 2005, stabili/ation to prevent the spread of contamination will be under way or completed at 100
         percent of operating industrial waste facilities where people have been exposed to contamination. Seventy-
         live percent of all facilities estimated to require cleanup will be stabilized.

 IMS.     By 2005, cleanups will be completed at 200,000 leaking underground storage tank  sites—double the 499S-
         7994 figure.

 M6.     By 2005, radioactivity will be cleaned up or contained at 6 percent of sites contaminated by radioactivity.

 M7.     By 2005, point sources of contamination will be controlled in 10 percent of the watersheds where sediment
        contamination has been determined to be widespread.

         OMB recommends the milestone say "10 watersheds" rattier than "10 percent of the watersheds." EPA is
        deferring a decision until after the government review.

I A milestone for brownflelds cleanup may be added in response to President Clinton's 8/28 announcement about
expanding brownflelds redevelopment.

-------
REDUCING GLOBAL ASH KKCIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

Long-Range Goal: The United Slates and other niitions will eliminate significant risks to human health and
ecosystems arising from climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and other environmental problems of concern
at tiie regional and global level.
 Ml.
 M2.
 M3.
 M4.
 M5.
 M6.
 M7.
|M8.
 M9.
 M 10.
 Mil.
        By 2000. tolnl U.S. gnjunhouiM gtui omiLMiiuna (unrbun dioxide, incUuuui, nitrogen oxide. and huloguiuuod
        fluoroottrhoiiii) will bo roduue-d to the 1000 luvul. By 2005 and beyond, reduce U.S. greenhouse gas
        emissions to levels consistent with an agreed global effort negotiated under the Framework Convention on
        Climate Change, building on initial efforts under tlte Climate Change Action Plan.

        By 2005, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun the
        process of recovery.

        By 2005, atmospheric concentrations of the ozone-depleting substances CFC-1 1 and CFC-12 will peak at
        no more than 332.4 and 572.3 parts per trillion, respectively.

        By 2005, except I ICFCs and very limited "essential uses," there will be no U.S. production of ozone-
        depleting substances.

        By 2005, cooperative efforts between the U.S. and oilier countries will restrict the net loss of coral
        ecosystems will bo to no more than 20 percent of the world's current reef area.

        By 2005, the United States and other countries will reduce the risks to human health and die environment
        that are associated with aldrin. chlordane, dicldrin, DDT, endrin, heptachlor, toxaphcnc,
        hcxachlorohcn/cnc, mircx, PCBs, and chlorinated dioxins and furans.

        By 2005, glob;il air emissions of mercury will be reduced, in  part through a 50 percent reduction from
        1990 levels in the United Stales.

        DISCUSSIONS ARK UNDERWAY TO RESOLVE FEDERAL AGENCY DIFFERENCES
        'CONCERNING THIS MILESTONE.
        By 2005, wiih U.S. UiMimmuH! leadership and cooperation, many nations will have phased out the use of
        lead in gasoline, and worldwide use of lead in gasoline will be below 1993 levels.

        By 2005, all seven nonattainmcnt areas along the United States/ Mexico border area will have met ambient
        air quality health standards for paniculate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone during the
        preceding 4 years.

        By 2005, the United States and Canada will reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that cause
        acid rain. U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions will be reduced by nearly 10 million tons and nitrogen oxide
        emissions by more than 2 million tons  from 1980 levels. (OIA)

        By 2005, existing sources of high-level radioactivity in Northwest Russia with the potential for near-term
        release into the arctic environment will be reduced by 25 percent.

-------
             NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS PROJECT

                       Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation

Background

Purposes of the goals project are to (1) strengthen understanding of the national environmental
agenda, (2) build support for environmental protection by describing "real world" improvements
if we do our jobs well, and (3) manage better: tie plans, budgets, performance agreements, and
program evaluations to "environmental outcomes."  EPA staff have spent the past three years
listening to people's environmental concerns and expectations, drafting goals and measures of
progress with target levels and accompanying information, getting feedback,  and continually
making refinements. The new report, Environmental Goals for America With Milestones for
2005, is being released in Fall 1996 for review by agencies in all  levels of government.

Overview

Environmental Goals for America is a proposal from EPA to our government partners for iong-
range environmental goals and  10-year milestone targets that will be used to plan, evaluate, and
communicate national environmental improvement.

The United States has never had a comprehensive set of environmental goals, much less
measurable targets. Goals will help EPA become more results-oriented.  By being firm on goals
but flexible in how Americans achieve them, EPA will encourage communities and businesses to
innovate -- to find cheaper and smarter ways to get cleaner results.  Our proposed goals and
milestones define national environmental results in the areas of responsibility that EPA shares
with federal agencies and states, tribes, and municipalities.

EPA intends for national goals to be used as a centerpiece in Agency management. Specifically,
they will  be used to update the Agency's strategic plan to chart a course toward 10-year
environmental improvement targets. EPA's annual plans and budget requests will be written to
support these environmental goals and milestones as well as other goals. The milestones will be
used to establish Performance Partnerships with states and tribes and our other partners, and to
evaluate the results of our work together.  EPA hopes that national goals will help shape state
and tribal plans.  EPA will prepare periodic reports to Congress and the public on progress
toward the milestones, including evaluations of the Agency's performance.

Status

The report is being circulated for comment to states and tribes as well as other federal agencies
and EPA staff. It covers clean air, clean waters, healthy terrestrial ecosystems, safe drinking
water, safe food, safe homes-schools-workplaces, toxic-free communities, preventing accidental
releases, safe waste management, restoration of contaminated sites, reducing global and regional

-------
environmental risks, and empowering people with information and education and expanding their
right to know: Each goal has a set of environmental progress measures ("milestones") for 2005.
Also included in each goal chapter is a description of the extent of the problem (Challenge), a
Responsibilities section (including state and tribal responsibilities), and EPA's current approach
to reaching the milestones (Strategy). The milestone targets generally assume no new EPA
programs and continuation of EPA funding at the 1995 level.

Reviewers are being asked:

             Are these the right goals?
             Are the milestones appropriate measures of progress?
             Are the targets realistic yet ambitious enough?
             Is better national information available to track progress?
             Do you have other suggestions?

Next Steps

State and federal government review is expected to be September through November.  After
receiving government comments, EPA will then revise the goats report and send it out for public
review in 1997.

For further information contact:  Peter Truitt, National Environmental Goals Project Manager,
EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (2161), 401 M St, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Telephone: (202) 260-8214.  Fax: (202)260-4903.

-------
 EMPOWERING 1'icoi'u-: WITH INFORMATION AND EDUCATION AND EXPANDING THEIR RIGHT TO KNOW

 Long-Range Goal: Americans will be informed and educated participants in improving environmental quality.
JThcy will OHLToii.o their right to luuiw abuut polluumUi in Ihuir oommunitioo. will have the opportunity to make
 informed environmental decisions, and participate in setting local and national priorities.

 Ml.     By 2005, the public's right to know what materials are released in their communities will be expanded by a
         variety of measures, including "one-stop" reporting of and access to integrated information about die
         environmental performance of all major industrial facilities and other pollution sources.

 M2.     By 2005, there will be substantial growth in die number and quality of environmental education programs
         in schools, colleges, and communities. These programs will help people become more active and effective
         participants in environmental decision making by increasing" their knowledge, skills, and abilities and
         helping them make informed decisions dial affect die environment.

 M3.     By 2005, nations will be better able to share information on the transport of pollutants and die movement
         of hazardous and toxic materials across borders.

 M4.     By 2005, more information on environmental programs will be publicly available, including dirough
         electronic means. EPA will make (JO percent of its databases widi raw environmental data and 100 percent
         of its major reports, policy statements, and Federal Register notices available electronically.

 M5.     By 2005, EPA will conduct statistical and oilier interpretive analyses on national, stale, regional, and local
         environmental! conditions and trends and will provide easy public access lo diis information.

\Milesione(s) may be revised or added in response to President Clinton's 8/28 announcement alxna expanding
\Ainericans' right-to-know about toxics in their community.

-------

-------

-------

-------
   EPA's PROPOSED NATIONAL  ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND MILESTONES
                                     SEPTEMBER  4, 1996

                              PLEASE DO NOT  DISTRIBUTE

 The marked edits are changes to the goals and milestones in the May 1996 draft. Also noted are
 other changes that are currently being discussed with OMB and others.
 CLEAN AIR

 Long-Range Goal:  Every American city and community will be free of air pollutants at levels that cause
 significant risk of cancer or respiratory and oilier health problems. The air will be clearer in many areas, and life in
 damaged forests and polluted waters will rebound as acid rain, ozone, and hazardous air pollutants are reduced.

 Ml.    By 2005, the number of cities where air quality does not meet national standards will be reduced more than
        96 percent from 1995 levels, thereby making Uie air safer to breathe for an additional 85 million Americans
        in 164 metropolitan areas.

 M2.    By 2005, emissions of unhealthy smog-causing volatile organic compounds will fall 65 percent per mile
        per car, compared to 1990 levels.

|M3.    By 2005, increases in miles driven by U.S. vehicles will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of air
        or water quality standards, nor will increases in driving interfere wilh fulfillment of the U.S. commitment
        to reduce greenhouse gas emissions hy 30Qft.

 M4.    By 2005, all 174 categories of major industrial facilities will meet toxic air emission standards.

JM5.    By 2005, sulfur dioxide cinissions,-+he-a primary cause of acid rain, will be reduced by nearly 10 million
        tons from 1980 levels.

 M6.    By 2005, annual average visibility in the eastern United States will improve 10 to 30 percent from 1995
        levels.
 CLEAN WATERS

JLong-Range Goal: All of America's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters will support healthy communities of fish,
 plants, and other aquatic lite, and will support uses such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water supply for
 people. Wetlands will be protected and rehabilitated to provide wildlife habitat, reduce Hoods, and improve water
 quality. Ground waters will be cleaner for drinking and other beneficial uses.

 Ml.    By 2005, there will be an annual net increase of at least 100,000 acres of wetlands, thereby supporting
        valuable aquatic life, improving water quality, and preventing moderating the effect«/health- and property-
        damaging floods and drought.

        DISCUSSIONS ARE UNDERWAY TO  RESOLVE FEDERAL AGENCY DIFFERENCES
        CONCERNING THIS MILESTONE.

 M2.    By 2005, 80 percent of the nation's surface waters will support healthy aquatic communities.

-------
 M3.     By 2(X)5,90 to 98 percent of ihe nation's fish and shellfish harvest areas will provide food safe for people
          and wildlife 10 eat.

 M4.     By 2005,95 percent of the nation's surface waters will be safe for recreation.

 M5.     By 2005, Uie number of Americans served by community and rural water wells containing high
          concentrations of nitrate, which can cause illness, will be reduced.

 M6.     By 2005, the annual rate of soil erosion from croplands will be reduced 20 percent from 1992 levels to a
          total of 948 million tons per year.

|M7.     By 2005, total annual pollutant discharges from key point sources that threaten public health and aquatic
          ecosystems will be reduced by 3 billion pounds, or 28 percent.

 The DOT (Coast Guard) and DOC (NOAA) suggest adding a new goal (or additional milestones to Clean Waters
 and/or Preventing Accidental Releases) for coastal and marine ecosystems. Milestones would include oil pollution
 releases to oceans using Coast Guard data. EPA. is deferring a decision until after the government review.
 HEALTHY TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

 Long-Kange Goal: America will safeguard its ecosystems 10 promote the health and diversity of natural and
 human communities and to sustain America's environmental, social, and economic potential.

 Ml.    By 2005, the loss of ecosystem types considered critically endangered, endangered, or threatened will be
         eliminated.

 M2.    By 2005, the populations of endangered, threatened, rare, and declining species of native terrestrial animals
    '    and plants will be stabilized or increased.

|M3.    By 2005, ecosystem conditions and functions will be restored to ultimately provide adequate amounts of
         habitat with the necessary size, mixture, and quality to sustain native animals and plants in all regions.
 SAFE DRINKING WATER

 Long-Kange Goal: Every American public water system will provide water that is consistently safe to drink.

 Ml.    By 2005, the population served by community water systems in violation of health-based requirements will
         be reduced from 19 to 5 percent.

 M2.    By 2005, every person served by a public water system that draws from an inadequately protected river,
         lake, or reservoir will receive drinking water that is adequately filtered.

JM3.    By 2005,90 percent of the nation's rivoro, otroomu. lakes, and rcscrvoiro river and stream miles and lake and
         reservoir acres that are designated as drinking water supplies will provide water that is safe to use after
         trcaunent

 M4.    By 2005,60 percent of the population served by community water systems will receive their, water from
         systems with source water protection  programs in place.

-------
 SAFE FOOD

 Lung-Range  Goal: The foods Americans consume will continue to be safe for all pcvoplc to eat.

 M1.     Through 2005, (he frequency of illegal pesticide residues in food will remain at or below the current low
         level.

 M2.     By 2005, Uiere will be a significant reduction in the use of the food production pesticides that have the
         highest potential to cause cancer.

         USDA recommends revising the milestone to read "... a significant reduction in the highest cancer risks
         posed by the use of pesticides in food production."  EPA is deferring a decision until after the government
         review.

 M3.     Dy 2005, pesticide residues in food will be further reduced to ensure UmU even in Uiu tlumrotioal won>t
         cui.o, no t'hild or uduli i;. enpoiiod 10 an unaoi'upinblo rink from lognlly uppliod pUiUiuidiin.jo that residue
         levels meet a standard of "reasonable certainty of no harm".
 SAKE HOMES, SCHOOLS, AND WORKPLACES

 Long-Range Goal: All Americans will live, learn, and work in safe and healthy environments.

 Ml.     By 2005, the number of young children with high levels of lead in their blood will be reduced by more than
         50 percent compared to the late 1980s.

 DHHS recommends that EPA add the following milestone (consistent with Healthy People 2000}:  By 2(X)5, no
 children I through 5 years of age in the U.S. population will have blood lead levels greater than or equal to 25 ugAII.
 EPA  is deferring a decision until after the government review.

 M2.     By 2005, 27 million homes will have been voluntarily tested for radon, corrective action will have been
         taken in 1 million homes, and 1.5 million new homes will have been built with radon-resistant features,
         resulting in a 25 percent reduction from 1985 levels in the number of Americans exposed to elevated radon
         in their homes.

 M3.     By 2005, children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke will decrease through voluntary actions in
         die home.  The proportion of households in which children 6 and younger are regularly exposed to smoking
         will be reduced to 15 percent from over 39 percent in 1986.

 M4.     By 2005, the number of workers suffering adverse health effects caused by acute poisoning  from pesticides
         will be reduced significantly from 1992 levels.

 M5.     By 2005, the use of safe agricultural biopesticides will double from 1995 levels.

 M6.     By 2005, the number of existing industrial high-production-volume chemicals shown to be used safely in
         the workplace will nearly triple.

JM7.     By 2005, worker protection will be cnmirod promoted for as many as 10.000 additional new chemicals.
         (OPPTS)

-------
 TOXIC-FREE COMMUNITIES

 Long-Range Goal:  By relying on pollution prcvciUion, reuse, ami recycling in the way we produce and consume
 materials, all Americans will live in communities tree of toxic impacts.

 Ml.    By 2005, industrial facilities will reduce by 25 percent (from 1992 levels) the quantities of the toxic
         chemicals in waste streams thai are released, disposed of, treated, or combusted for energy recovery. Half
         of this reduction will be achieved through pollution prevention practices.

 M2.    By 2005, more than 99 percent of new chemicals approved since 1995 will have been used safely and will
         not require additional controls.

 M3.    By 2005, the number of existing high-production-volume chemicals shown to be used safely will nearly
         triple.

 M4.    By 2005, municipal solid waste will be recovered for recycling or composting at a rate of 35 percent.
         Municipal solid waste generation will be reduced to the 1990 level of 4.3 pounds per person per day, with
         the amount of waste combusted or landfillcd decreasing to 2.8 pounds per person  per day.

 M5,    By 2005, the presence of the most persistent, bioaccumulative, and loxic constituents in hazardous waste
         will be reduced by 50 percent from 1991 levels.


 PREVENTING ACCIDENTAL RELEASES

 Long-Range Goal: Accidental releases of substances that endanger our communities and the natural environment
 will be reduced to as near zero as possible. Those which do occur will cause only negligible harm to people,
 animals, and plants.

 Ml.    By 2005, there will be 25 percent fewer accidental releases of oil, chemicals, and radioactive substances
         than in 1993.

 M2.    By 2005, there will be a 50 percent increase over 1993 levels in the number of industrial facilities in high-
         risk areas that have either eliminated hazardous substance inventories or reduced them to minimum levels.

 (The DOT (Coast Guard) suggests adding additional milestone(s) to Clean Waters) for oil pollution releases to oceans
 using Coast Guard data.  EPA is deferring a decision until after the government review.


 SAFE WASTE MANAGEMENT

JLong-Range Goal: Wastes  produced by every person «**•, business, and unit of government in America will be
 stored,  treated, and disposed of in ways that prevent harm to people and other living things. (OSW/ L.Bagus)

 Ml.    By 2005, chlorinated dioxin/furan emissions from waste-burning facilities will be reduced 98 percent from
         1994 levels.

 M2.    By 2005, emissions of mercury and oilier harmful pollutants from waste-burning facilities will be reduced
         by at least 80 percent from 1994 levels.

-------
M3.
M4,
         By 2005. the annual number of confirmed releases from underground storage tanks will he 80 percent
         lower than in
         By 2005, wellhead protection areas and vulnerable ground waters will no longer receive industrial
         waste water discharges from septic systems.
 M5.    By 2005, tlui lunount ol'rndioui'tivu wiuite mmuigud under the purview nf die Atomic finorgy Act Unit dttO!*
         not-moot rPA diiipuiitd iitandardii will ho ruducud by 15 puruoitt 10 percent of the amount of spent nuclear
         fuel, high-level waste, and iransuranic radioactive waste currently stored across lite nation will be disposed
         of in accordance with EPA disposal standards.
 RESTORATION or CONTAMINATED SITES

 Long-Range Goal: Places in America currently contaminated by hazardous or radioactive materials will not
 endanger public health and the natural environment and will be restored to uses desired by surrounding communities.
Ml.
M2.
M3.
M4.
M5.
         By 2005, long-term health threats will be eliminated and cleanup will be completed at 70 percent of the
               1,212 non-Federal facility contaminated sites on the 1995 Supert'und National IViorities List.
         Milextone target may be revised upward in response to President Clinton 's 8/28 announcement about
         accelerating Superfund cleanups.
         By 2005, immediate health threats will be eliminated and long-term cleanup will be under way
         percent of the estimated S?Q66- 3,2(X) Superfund sites (NPL and non-NPL) that are expected to require
         cleanup.

         By 2005, at least 10 percent of coiuaminnied federal lands currently on Hie National Priorities List will be
         cleaned up.

         By 2005, stabilization to prevent the spread of contamination will be under way or completed at 100
         percent of operating industrial waste facilities where people have been exposed to contamination. Seventy-
         five percent of all facilities estimated to require cleanup will be stabilized.

         By 2005, cleanups will be completed at 200,000 leaking underground storage tank sites — double
         1994 figure.
 M6.     By 2005, radioactivity will be cleaned up or contained at 6 percent of sites contaminated by radioactivity.

 M7.     By 2005. point sources of contamination will be controlled in 10 percent of the watersheds where sediment
         contamination has been determined to be widespread.

         IOMR recommends Hie milestone say "10 watersheds" rather than "10 percent of the watersheds." EPA is
         deferring a decision until after the. government review.

\A milestone for brownfields cleanup may be added in response to President Clinton's 8/28 announcement about
\expanding brownfields redevelopment.

-------
 REDUCING GLOBAL AND REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
 Long-Range Goal: The United Stales and oilier tuitions will eliminate significant risks to human health and
 ecosystems arising from climate change, stratospheric ozone depiction, and oilier environmental problems of concern
 at the regional ;uid global level.

 Ml.    By 2000. tolal U.S. gruunhoumi gtui ominaiuim (I'tubon dioxide1. muUuino. nitrogen onido. nnd luilogoiuuod
         tluorouiu'hoii!.) will ho roduuuii to tliu 1PQO level. By 2005 and beyond, reduce U.S. greenhouse gas
         emissions to levels consistent with an agreed global effort negotiated under the Framework Convention on
         Climate Change, building on initial efforts under the Climate Change Action Plan.

 M2.    By 2005, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun the
         process of recovery.

 M3.    By 2005, atmospheric concentrations of the ozone-depleting substances CFC-11 and CFC-12 will peak at
         no more than 332.4 and 572.3 parts per trillion, respectively.

 M4.    By 2005, except HCI-'Cs and very limited "essential uses," there will be no U.S. production of ozone-
         depicting substances.

 M5.    By 2005, cooperative efforts between the U.S. and other countries will restrict the net loss of coral
         ecosystems will bo to no more than 20 percent of the world's current reef area.

 M6.    By 2005, the United States and other countries will reduce the risks to human health and the environment
         that are associated with aldrin. chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, endrin, heputchlor. toxaphcnc,
         hcxachlorobcnzcnc, mirex, PCBs, and chlorinated dioxinsand furans.

 M7.    By 2005, global air emissions of mercury will be reduced, in part through a 50 percent reduction from
         1990 levels in Hie United Stales.

         DISCUSSIONS ARK UNDERWAY TO RESOLVE; FEDERAL AGENCY DIFFERENCES
         'CONCERNING THIS MILESTONE.

JM8.    By 2005, with U.S. usaiainnco leadership and cooperation, many nations will have phased out the use of
         lead in gasoline, and worldwide use of lead in gasoline will be below 1993 levels.

 M9.    By 2005, all seven nonattainmcnt areas along (lie United Suites/ Mexico border area wili have met ambient
         air quality health standards for paniculate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone during the
         preceding 4 years.

 M10.   By 2005, the Untied Slates and Qtnada will reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that cause
         acid nun. U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions will be reduced by nearly 10 million tons and nitrogen oxide
|        emissions by more than 2 million tons from  1980 levels. (OIA)

 Mil.   By 2005, existing sources of high-level radioactivity in Northwest Russia with the potential for near-term
         release into the arctic environment will be reduced by 25 percent.

-------
              NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS PROJECT

                        Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Background
Purposes of the goals project are to (1) strengthen understanding of the national environmental
agenda, (2) build support for environmental protection by describing "real world" improvements
if we do our jobs well, and (3) manage better: tie plans, budgets, performance agreements, and
program evaluations to "environmental outcomes."  EPA staff have spent the past three years
listening to people's environmental concerns and expectations, drafting goals and measures of
progress with target levels and accompanying information, getting feedback, and continually
making refinements.  The new report, Environmental Goals for America With Milestones for
2005, is being released in Fall 1996 for review by agencies in all levels of government.

Overview

Environmental Goals for America is a proposal from EPA to our government partners for long-
range environmental goals and 10-year milestone targets that will be used to plan, evaluate, and
communicate national environmental improvement.

The United States has never had a comprehensive set of environmental goals, much less
measurable targets. Goals will help EPA become more results-oriented. By being firm on goals
but flexible in how Americans achieve them, EPA will encourage communities and businesses to
innovate — to find cheaper and smarter ways to get cleaner results. Our proposed goals and
milestones define national environmental results in the areas of responsibility that EPA shares
with federal agencies  and states, tribes, and municipalities.

EPA intends for national goals to be used as a centerpiece in Agency management.  Specifically,
they will be used to update the Agency's strategic plan to chart a course toward 10-year
environmental improvement targets. EPA's annual plans and budget requests will be written to
support these environmental goals and milestones as well as other goals. The milestones will be
used to establish Performance Partnerships with states and tribes and our other partners, and to
evaluate the results of our work together. EPA hopes that national goals will help shape state
and tribal plans.  EPA will prepare periodic reports to Congress and the public on progress
toward the milestones, including evaluations of the Agency's performance.

Status

The report is being circulated for comment  to states and tribes as well as other federal agencies
and EPA staff. It covers clean air, clean waters, healthy terrestrial ecosystems, safe drinking
water, safe food, safe homes-schools-workplaces, toxic-free communities, preventing accidental
releases, safe waste management, restoration of contaminated sites, reducing global and regional

-------
environmental risks, and empowering people with information and education and expanding their
right to know. Each goal has a set of environmental progress measures ("milestones") for 2005.
Also included in each goal chapter is a description of the extent of the problem (Challenge), a
Responsibilities section (including state and tribal responsibilities), and EPA's current approach
to reaching the milestones (Strategy), The milestone targets generally assume no new EPA
programs and continuation of EPA funding at the 1995 level.

Reviewers are being asked:

              Are these the right goals?
              Are the milestones appropriate measures of progress?
              Are the targets realistic yet ambitious enough?
              Is better national information available to track progress?
              Do you have other suggestions?

Next Steps

State and federal government review is expected to be September through November. After
receiving government comments,  EPA will then revise the goals  report and send it out for public
review in 1997.

For further information contact:  Peter Truitt, National Environmental Goals Project Manager,
EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (2161), 401 M St, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Telephone: (202) 260-8214. Fax: (202)260-4903.

-------
 EMPOWERING Picoi'u-: WITH INFORMATION AND EDUCATION AND EXPANDING THKIR RKIHT TO KNOW

 Long-Range Goal: Americans will be informed and educated participants in improving environmental quality.
JThey will exc-routo their right lo know uboui pollutants in thuir coinmunitioQ, will have the opportunity to make
 informed environmental decisions, and participate in selling local and national priorities.

 Ml.    By 2005, the public's right to know whal materials are released in their communities will be expanded by a
         variety of measures, including "one-stop" reporting of and access to integrated information about the
         environmental performance of all major industrial facilities and other pollution sources.

 M2.    By 2005. there will be substantial growth in die number and quality of environmental education programs
         in schools, colleges, and communities. These programs will help people become more active and effective
         participants in environmental decision making by increasing"their knowledge, skills, and abilities and
         helping them iruike informed decisions that affect the environment.

 M3.    By 2005, nations will be better able to share information on the transport of pollutants and the movement
         of hazardous and toxic materials across borders.

 M4.    By'2005, more information on environmental programs will be publicly available, including through
         electronic means.  EPA will make 90 percent of its databases with raw environmental data and 100 percent
         of its major reports, policy statements, and Federal Register notices available electronically.

 M5.    By 2005, EPA will conduct statistical and oilier interpretive analyses on national, siaie, regional, and local
         environmental conditions and trends and will provide easy public access to this information.

\Milestone(s) may be revised or added in response to President Clinton's 8/28 announcement alwut expanding
Americans' right-to-know about toxics in their community.

-------
L

-------

-------

-------
   EPA's  PROPOSED NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND MILESTONES
                                    SEPTEMBER  4, 1996

                              PLEASE DO NOT  DISTRIBUTE

 The marked edits are changes to the goals and milestones in the May 1996 draft.  Also noted are
 other changes that are currently being discussed with OMB and others.
 CLEAN AIR

 Long-Range Goal:  Every American city and community will be free of air pollutants at levels that cause
 significant risk of cancer or respiratory and other health problems. The air will be clearer in many areas, and life in
 damaged forests and polluted waters will rebound as acid rain, ozone, and hazardous air pollutants arc reduced.

 Ml.    By 2005, the number of cities where air quality does noi meet national standards will be reduced more than
        % percent from 1995 levels, thereby making the air safer to breathe for an additional 85 million Americans
        in 164 metropolitan areas.

 M2.    By 2005, emissions of unhealthy smog-causing volatile organic compounds will fall 65 percent per mile
        per car, compared to 1990 levels.

|M3.    By 2005, increases in miles driven by U.S. vehicles will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of air
        or waicrqualily standards, nor will increases in driving interfere with fulfillment of the U.S. commitment
        to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2000.

 M4.    By 2005, all 174 categories of major industrial facilities will meet toxic air emission standards.

|M5.    By 2005, sulfur dioxide cmissions,-t4te-a primary cause of acid rain, will be reduced by nearly 10 million
        tons from 1980 levels.

 M6.    By 2005, annual average visibility in the eastern United States will improve  10 to 30 percent from 1995
        levels.
 CLEAN WATERS

(Long-Range Goal: All of America's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters will support healthy communities of fish,
 plants, and other aquatic life, and will support uses such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water supply for
 people. Wetlands will be protected and rehabilitated to provide wildlife habitat, reduce Hoods, and improve water
 quality. Ground waters will be cleaner for drinking and other beneficial uses.

 Ml.    By 2005, there will be an annual net increase of at least 100,000 acres of wetlands, thereby supporting
        valuable aquatic life, improving water quality, and preventing moderating the effect ft/health- and propcrly-
        damaging floods and drought.

        DISCUSSIONS ARE UNDERWAY TO  RESOLVE FEDERAL AGENCY DIFFERENCES
        CONCERNING THIS MILESTONE.

 M2.    By 2005, 80 percent of the nation's surface waters will  support healthy aquatic communities.

-------
 M3.    By 2005, 90 to 98 percent of the nation's fish and shellfish harvest areas will provide food safe for people
         and wildlife to eat.

 M4.    By 2005, 95 percent of the nation's surface waters will be safe for recreation.

 M5.    By 2005, the number of Americans served by community and rural water wells containing high
         concentrations of nitrate, which can cause illness, will be reduced.

 M6.    By 2005, the annual rate of soil erosion from croplands will be reduced 20 percent from 1992 levels to a
         total of 948 million tons per year.

JM7.    By 2005, iota! annual pollutant discharges from key point sources that threaten public health and aquatic
         ecosystems will be reduced by 3 billion pounds, or 28 percent.

\The DOT (Coast Guard) and DOC (NOAA) suggest adding a new goal (or additional milestones to Clean Waters
land/or Preventing Accidental Releases) for coastal and marine ecosystems. Milestones would include oil pollution
\releases to oceans using Coast Guard data. EPA is deferring a decision until after the government review.
 HEALTHY TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

 Long-Range Goal: America will safeguard its ecosystems to promote the health and diversity of natural and
 human communities and to sustain America's environmental, social, and economic potential.

 Mi.     By 2005, the loss of ecosystem types considered critically endangered, endangered, or threatened will be
         eliminated.

 M2.     By 2005, the populations of endangered, threatened, rare, and declining species of native terrestrial animals
         and plants will be stabilized or increased.

JM3.     By 2005, ecosystem conditions and functions will be restored to ultimately provide adequate amounts of
         habitat with the necessary size, mixture, and quality to sustain native animals and plants in all regions.
 SAFE DRINKING WATKK

 Long-Range Goal: Every American public water system will provide water that is consistently safe to drink.

 Ml.     By 2005, the population served by community water systems in violation of health-based requirements will
         be reduced from 19 to 5 percent.

 M2.     By 2005, every person served by a public water system that draws from an inadequately protected river,
         lake, or reservoir will receive drinking water that is adequately filtered.

|M3.     By 2005, 90 percent of the nation's riveru, struninB. lakes, and rcourvoira river and stream miles and lake and
         reservoir acres that are designated as drinking water supplies will provide water that is safe to use after
         treatment.

 M4.     By 2005,60 percent  of the population served by community water systems will receive their water from
         systems with source  water protection programs in place.

-------
 SAFE FOOD

 Long-Range Goal:  The foods Americans consume will continue to be safe for all people to cat.

 M1.     Through 2005, the frequency of illegal pesticide residues in food will remain at or below the current low
         level."

 M2.     By 2005, tliere wilt be a significant reduction in Ihe use of the food production pesticides ihat have the
         highest potential to cause cancer.

         USDA recommends revising the milestone to read "... a significant reduction in the highest cancer risks
         posed by the use of pesticides in food production."  EPA is deferring a decision until after the government
         review.

|M3.     By 2005, pesticide residues in food will be further reduced to ensure dial, own in the theoretical worm
         OU!<0; no olnlil or uilult Li oxpoiiod lo nn oniuioontiiblc riiilt from lugully opplii'd postioidoiuo that residue
         levels meet a standard of "reasonable certainly of no harm ".
 SAFE HOMES, SCHOOLS, AND WORKPLACES

 Long-Range Goal: All Americans will live, Icani, and work in safe and healthy environments.

 Ml.     By 2005, the number of young children with high levels of lead in their blood will be reduced by more Hum
         50 percent compared to the laic 1980s.

 DHHS recommends that EPA add the following milestone (consistent with Healthy People 2000): By 2005, no
 children I through 5 years of age in the U.S. population will have blood lead levels greater than or equal to 25 ug/dl.
 EPA is deferring a decision until after the government review.

 M2.     By 2005, 27 million homes will have been voluntarily tested for radon, corrective action will have been
         taken in  1 million homes, and 1.5 million new homes will have been built with radon-resistant features,
         resulting in a 25 percent reduction from 1985 levels in the number of Americans exposed to elevated radon
         in their homes.

 M3.     Oy 2005, children's  exposure to environmental tobacco smoke will decrease through voluntary actions in
         Hie home.  The proportion of households in which children 6 and younger are regularly exposed to smoking
         will he reduced to 15 percent from over 39 percent in 1986.

 M4.     By 2005, the number of workers suffering adverse health effects caused by acute poisoning from pesticides
         will be reduced significantly from 1992 levels.

 M5.     By 2005, the use of safe agricultural biopesticides will double from 1995 levels.

 M6.     By 2005, die number of existing industrial high-production-volume chemicals shown to be used safely in
         the workplace will nearly triple.

JM7.     Dy 2005, worker protection will be cmiurud promoted for as many as 10,000 additional new chemicals.
         (OPITS)

-------
 TOXIC-FREE COMMUNITIES

 Long-Range Goal:  By relying on pollution prevention, reuse, and recycling in the way we produce and consume
 materials, all Americans will live in communities free of toxic impacts.

 Ml.    By 2005, industrial facilities will reduce by 25 percent (from 1992 levels) the quantities of the toxic
         chemicals in waste streams mat arc released, disposed of, treated, or combusted for energy recovery. Half
         of this reduction will be achieved through pollution prevention practices.

 M2.    By 2005, more than 99 percent of new chemicals approved since 1995 will have been used safely and will
         not require additional controls.

 M3.    By 2005, the number of existing high-production-volume chemicals shown to be used safely will nearly
         triple.

 M4.    By 2005, municipal solid waste will be recovered for recycling or composting at a rate of 35 percent.
         Municipal solid waste generation will be reduced to the 1990 level of 4.3 pounds per person per day, with
         die amount of waste combusted or landfilled decreasing to 2.8 pounds per person per day.

 M5.    By 2005, the presence of the most persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic constituents in hazardous waste
         will be reduced by 50 percent from 1991 levels.
 PREVENTING ACCIDENTAL RELEASES

 Long-Range Goal:  Accidental releases of substances that endanger our communities and the natural environment
 will be reduced to as near zero as possible. Those which do occur will cause only negligible harm to people,
 animals, and plants.

 Ml.     By 2005, there will be 25 percent fewer accidental releases of oil, chemicals, and radioactive substances
         than in 1993.

 M2.     By 2005, there will be a 50 percent increase over 1993 levels in the number of industrial facilities in high-
         risk areas that have cither eliminated hazardous substance inventories or reduced them to minimum levels.

I The DOT (Coast Guard) suggests adding additional inilestone(s) to Clean Waters) for oil pollution releases to oceans
 using Coast Guard data.  EPA is deferring a decision until after the government review.


 SAFE WASTE MANAGEMENT

JLong-Uang« Goal:  Wastes produced by every person-Ami, business, and unit of government in America will be
 stored, treated, and disposed of in ways that prevent harm to people and other living things. (OSW/ L.Bagus)

 Ml.     By 2005, chlorinated dioxin/furan emissions from waste-burning facilities will be reduced 98 percent from
         1994 levels.

 M2.     By 2005, emissions of mercury and other harmful pollutants from waste-burning facilities will be reduced
         by at least 80 percent from 1994 levels.

-------
 M3.    By 2005, die annual number of confirmed releases from underground storage tanks will be 80 percent
         lower Uian in 1994.

 M4.    By 2()05, wellhead protection areas and vulnerable ground waters will no longer receive industrial
         wastewatcr discharges from septic systems.

 M5.    By 2005, die mnounl of rudmuc-livc witjito iruinugud under the purview nf die Atomic lane-rgy Act that doc»
         not inout CPA dii.ptii.id titmidurdii will ho reduced by 15 pi'roi'nt 10 percent of the amount of spent nuclear
         fuel, high-level waste, and transuranic radioactive waste currently stored across the nation will be disposed
         of in accordance with EPA disposal standards.
 RESTORATION OF CONTAMINATED SITES

 Long-Range Goal: Places in America currently contaminated by hazardous or radioactive materials will not
 endanger public health and the natural environment and will be restored to uses desired by surrounding communities.

 Ml.    By 2005, iong-ienn health threats will be eliminated and cleanup will be completed at 70 percent of die
         1.371 /.2/2 non-Federal facility eonuuninated sites on the 1995 Supcrfund National Priorities List.

         Milestone target may be revised upward in response to President Clinton's 8/28 announcement about
         accelerating Superfund cleanups.

 M2.    By 2005, immediate health ducats will be eliminated and long-term cleanup will be under way al $&&5
         percent of the estimated 5.000 3.2(X) Superfund sites (NPL and non-NPL) that arc expected 10 require
         cleanup.

 M3.    By 2005, at least 10 percent of eonuuninated federal  lands currently on die National Priorities List will be
         cleaned up.

 M4.    By 2005, stabilization lo prevent the spread of contamination will be  under way or completed at 100
         percent of operating industrial waste facililies where people have been exposed to contamination.  Seventy-
         five percent of all facilities estimated to require cleanup will be stabilized.

 M5,    By 2005, cleanups will be completed at 200,000 leaking underground storage tank sites—double the 4995-
         1994 figure.

 M6.    By 2005, radioactivity will be cleaned up or contained at 6 percent of sites contaminated by radioactivity.

 M7.    By 2005, point sources of contamination  will be controlled in 10 percent of die watersheds where sediment
         contamination has been determined to be widespread.

         IOMR recommends the milestone say "10 watersheds" rather than "10 percent of the watersheds."  EPA is
         deferring a decision until after the government review.

\A milestone for brownfieUis cleanup may be added in response to President Clinton's 8/28 announcement about
lexpanding brownfields redevelopment.
                                                              U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
                                                                      Mail code 3201
                                                              1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                                                                  Washington DC 20460

-------
REDUCING GLOBAL AND REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Long-Range Goal: The Uniicd Stales and oilier nations will eliminate significant risks to human health and
ecosystems arising from climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and oilier environmental problems of concern
at the regional and global level.
 Ml.
 M2.
 M3.
 M4.
 M5.
 M6.
 M7,
JM8.
 M9.
 M 10.
 Mil.
        By 3000, total U.S. gruenliou'io gun emiuiiions (cmbon dioxide, molhunu, nitrogen onidu, and luilogunmuil
                  itei) will bo reduood i» thu 1000 level. By 2005 and beyond, reduce U.S. greenhouse gas
        emissions to levels consistent with an agreed global effort negotiated under the Framework Convention on
        Climate Change, building on initial efforts under the Climate Change Action Plan.

        By 2005, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun the
        process of recovery.

        By 2005, atmospheric concentrations of the ozone-depleting substances CFC-1 1 and CFC-12 will peak at
        no more than 332.4 and 572.3 parts per trillion, respectively.

        By 2005, except I ICFCs and very limited "essential uses," there will be no U.S. production of ozone-
        depleting substances.

        By 2005, cooperative efforts between the U.S. and other countries will restrict the net loss of coral
        ecosystems will ho to no more than 20 percent of ihe world's current reef area.

        By 2005, the United Stales and other countries will reduce the risks to human health and the environment
        that are associated with aldrin, chlordanc, dicldrin, DDT, endrin, heptachlor, toxaphcnc,
        hcxachlorobcnzcne, mircx, PCBs, and chlorinated dioxins and furans.

        By 2005, global air emissions of mercury will be reduced, in part through a 50 percent reduction from
        1990 levels in the United Suites.

        DISCUSSIONS ARE  UNDERWAY TO RESOLVE FEDERAL AGENCY DIFFERENCES
       'CONCERNING THIS MILESTONE.

        By 2005, with U.S. arniiiiumuo leadership and cooperation, many nations will have phased out the use of
        lead in gasoline, and worldwide use of lead in gasoline will be below 1993 levels.

        By 2005, all seven nonaltainment areas along the United States/ Mexico border area will have met ambient
        air quality health standards for paniculate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone during the
        preceding 4 years.

        By 2005, the United States and Canada will reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that cause
        acid rain. U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions will be reduced by nearly 10 million tons and nitrogen oxide
        emissions by tnore than 2 million tons from 1980 levels.  (OIA)

        By 2005, existing sources of high-level radioactivity in Northwest Russia with the potential for near-term
        release into the arctic environment will be reduced by 25 percent.

-------
             NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS PROJECT

                       Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation

Background

Purposes of the goals project are to (1) strengthen understanding of the national environmental
agenda, (2) build support for environmental protection by describing "real world" improvements
if we do our jobs well, and (3) manage better: tie plans, budgets, performance agreements, and
program evaluations to "environmental outcomes."  EPA staff have spent the past three years
listening to people's environmental concerns and expectations, drafting goals and measures of
progress with target levels and accompanying information, getting feedback, and continually
making refinements.  The new report, Environmental Goals for America With Milestones for
2005, is being released in Fall 1996 for review by agencies in all levels of government.

Overview

Environmental Goals for America is a proposal from EPA to our government partners for long-
range environmental goals and 10-year milestone targets that will be used to plan, evaluate, and
communicate national environmental improvement.

The United States has never had a comprehensive  set of environmental goals, much less
measurable targets. Goals will help EPA become more results-oriented. By being firm on goals
but flexible in how Americans achieve them, EPA  will encourage communities and businesses to
innovate — to find cheaper and smarter ways to get cleaner results. Our proposed goals and
milestones define national environmental results in the areas of responsibility that EPA shares
with federal agencies and states, tribes, and municipalities.

EPA intends for national goals to be used as a centerpiece in Agency management. Specifically,
they will  be used to update the Agency's strategic plan to chart a course toward 10-year
environmental improvement targets. EPA's annual plans  and budget requests will be written to
support these environmental goals and milestones  as well as other goals. The milestones will be
used to establish Performance Partnerships with states and tribes and our other partners, and to
evaluate the results of our work together.  EPA hopes that national goals will help shape state
and tribal plans.  EPA will prepare periodic reports to Congress and the public on progress
toward the milestones, including evaluations of the Agency's performance.

Status

The report is being circulated for comment to states and tribes as well as other federal agencies
and EPA staff. It covers clean air, clean waters, healthy terrestrial ecosystems, safe drinking
water, safe food, safe homes-schools-workplaces, toxic-free communities, preventing accidental
releases, safe waste management, restoration of contaminated sites, reducing global and regional

-------
environmental risks, and empowering people with information and education and expanding their
right to know. Each goal has a set of environmental progress measures ("milestones") for 2005.
Also included in each goal chapter is a description.of the extent of the problem (Challenge), a
Responsibilities section (including state and tribal responsibilities), and EPA's current approach
to reaching the milestones (Strategy). The milestone targets generally assume no new EPA
programs and continuation of EPA funding at the 1995 level.

Reviewers are being asked:

              Are these the right goals?
              Are the milestones appropriate measures of progress?
              Are the targets realistic yet ambitious enough?
              Is better national information available to track progress?
              Do you have other suggestions?

Next Steps

State and federal government review is expected to be September through November. After
receiving government comments, EPA will then revise the goals  report and send it out for public
review in 1997.

For further information contact:  Peter Truitt, National Environmental Goals Project Manager,
EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (2161), 401 M St, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Telephone: (202) 260-8214. Fax: (202)260-4903.

-------
 EMPOWERING PKOPLK WITH INFORMATION AND EDUCATION AND EXPANDING THEIR RIGHT TO KNOW

 Long-Range Coal:  Americans will be informed and educated participants in improving environmental quality.
|Thcy will t'Hi'ix'iiio their right to know about polluuuiLi in thoir communities, will have the opportunity to make
 informed environmental decisions, and participate in setting local and national priorities.

 Ml.     By 2005, the public's right to know what materials are released in their communities will be expanded by a
         variety of measures, including "one-stop" reporting of and access to integrated information about the
         environmental performance of all major industrial facilities and other pollution sources.

 M2.     By 2005, there will be substantial growth in the number and quality of environmental education programs
         in schools, colleges, and communities.  These programs will help people become more active and effective
         participants in environmental decision making by increasing'their knowledge, skills, and abilities and
         helping them make informed decisions  that affect the environment.

 M3.     By 2005, nations will be better able to  share information on the transport of pollutants and the movement
         of hazardous and toxic materials across borders.

 M4.     By 2005, more information on environmental programs will be publicly available, including through
         electronic means.  I:PA will make 90 percent of its databases with raw environmental data and 100 percent
         of its major reports, policy statements, and Federal Register notices available electronically.

 M5.     By 2005, EPA will conduct statistical and other interpretive analyses on national, state, regional, and local
         environmental conditions and trends and will provide easy public access to tins information.

 IMilestonefs) may be revised or added in response to President Clinton's 8/28 announcement alxmt expanding
 Americans' righno-know about toxics in their community.

-------

-------
 Prospective Indicators for State Use
     in Performance Agreements
                 Prepared By
The State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project
      Florida Center for Public Management
            Florida State University

            In consultation with the
        Environmental Council of the States
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

               August 15,1995
             (revised August 22,1995)

-------
   Prospective Indicators for State Use
       in Performance Agreements
                  Prepared By
  The State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project
        Florida Center for Public Management
              Florida State University

      Gilbert T. Bergquist, Ph JX, Project Director
         James R. Bernard, Project Manager
Andrea M. Pable, Environmental Management Consultant

                 August 15,1995
              (revised August 22,1995)

-------
                                                                  U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
                                                                         Mail code 3201
                                                                  1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                                                                     Washington DC 20460
                              Table of Contents
Preface	A-1

Overview	,8-1

Indicator Lists
       Type A Indicator, List 1:
              Indicators that are based in national data sets, have
              known metadata, meet essential indicator criteria,
              an are comparable across all 50 states	C-1

       Type A Indicator, List 2:
              Indicators that are based in national data sets, have
               known metadata at the state level and are appropriate
              at the state level. The data are not comparable across
               the states	C-4

       Type A Indicator, List 3:
              Indicators that are based in data sets available to less
              than 50 states, have know metadata, meet essential
              indicator selection criteria and that are comparable across
              the states	C-6

       Type A Indicator, List 4:
              Indicators that have uncertain or unknown metadata	C-8

       Type A Indicator, List 5:
              Indicators that reflect administrative, activity, or program
              measurements that can be used as surrogates where
              true environmental measures for a particular issue or
              concern do not exist	C-9

       Type B Indicator

              Indicators that are presently feastte, but cannot be
              provided due to inordinate cost analytical complexity,
              or time constraint	C-10

       Type C Indicator
              Prospective indcators for which there is no reasonable
              prospect of development without some extraordinary
              expenditure of resources.	C-12

Appendices

       Appendix A: Description* erf Type A. List 1  Indicators	D-1

       Appendix B: Executive Summary	-	D-43

       Appendix C: Indicators Sorted by National Environmental Goals.	D-44

       Appendix D: Indicators Sorted by Categorical Grants	D-46

       Appendix E: Crosswalk of Office of Water Environmental Indicators
                   and Prospective Indicators for Performance Agreements	D-48


                     State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project
                         August 15,1996, revised August 22,1996

-------
Section A
 Preface

-------
                               Preface
On  May 17,  1995, a memorandum of agreement was signed at the All States
Meeting by the Environmental Council of  the  States (EGOS) and the  U.S.
Environmental  Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)  that  formalized  the National
Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS).

The new system involves replacing current oversight policies and procedures
with negotiated agreements between U.S. EPA Regions and states that set forth
environmental goals and measures of success in terms of environmental results.

The State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project of the Florida Center for
Public  Management,  in  conjunction  with  U.S.  EPA  and the  Indicators
Subcommittee of ECOS, has assembled this annotated listing to  assist in the
implementation  of  Performance  Partnership Agreements.   The  document
focuses almost exclusively  on environmental indicators, rather  than activity-
based measures of program performance.

The August 15, 1995 document reflects a developmental series of documents
produced  by the State Environmental  Goals and Indicators Project including
Prospective Indicators for State Use in Performance Partnership  Agreements,
(June 15,  1995, revised June 28, 1995), Prospective Indicators for State Use in
Performance Partnership Agreements:   Continuation  and Expansion, (July  7,
1995),  and Prospective Indicators for  State Use in Performance Partnership
Agreements, (July 17,1995).

The August 15, 1995 document also reflects comments solicited by ECOS and
U.S. EPA that ware received  from the States  and  U.S.  EPA  headquarters
program offices, Regions, and knowledgeable individuals.
                  State Environmental Goals and Indicates Project
                    August 15,1995, revised August 22.199S
                                  A-1

-------
Section B
Overview

-------
    Prospective Indicators for State Use in Performance
                               Agreements
                                 Overview
j
The  State Environmental Goals and Indicator* Project (SEGIP) is a cooperative
agreement between the Florida Center for Public  Management (FCPM) of the Florida
State University and  the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency  (U.S. EPA) and
represents an initiative to ensure the effective participation of  state environmental
management agencies in the development of environmental goals and indicators. The
purpose of this project is to:

       assist  state  environmental  agencies  in  improving their  environmental
       management  capabilities by providing  procedural,  technical  and financial
       assistance in  the development of environmental goals and indicators  and in
       integrating such goals  and  indicators into their environmental management
       systems.

Within  the context of this  mission SEGIP has volunteered to  provide U.S. EPA with a
group  of prospective  indicators  that  are  appropriate for  use  in  structuring state
agreements   as conceptually  proposed for  Performance  Agreements.    These
agreements provide the foundation for a fundamental reorientation  in the way U.S. EPA
and the states conduct their business by focusing U.S. EPA's funding processes on the
achievement  of  explicit  environmental results rather than  on the more  traditional
administrative, process and  program  measures  that currently drive funding.   The
cornerstone of making this new partnership work is the capacity to  provide measures of
strategic  environmental results that reflect concerns intrinsic to  the U.S. EPA-State
relationship.  The selection of such indicators is a matter of  considerable importance
since they will be used to measure whether states are making environmental progress in
their use of U.S. EPA resources.
                        I       Background       j
On June 15.1995 FCPM delivered to U.S. EPA Prospective Indicators for State Use in
Performance Partnership Agreements ~ a listing and  documentation for  17 initial
indicators  (1st provided in Appendix  B).  The indicators provided in  that document
represented an initial list of measures that SEGIP believes  could  have utility in
structuring Performance Agreements.  The list provided was conservative: many other
indicators could have been listed as candidates.  The indicators that were  provided,
however, were those which SEGIP believed to be the best currently available and with
little  or no  qualification could be  used to support  Performance Agreements.   In
identifying these indicators the following Qualification Standards were applied:

      1.  The indicator was national in scope and could be consistently displayed
         at the state level.
               Prospective Indcaton for State Use in Performance Agreements
                     State Environmental Qoak end Indicators Project
                        August 15, 1995, revised August 22. 1998
                                      S-1

-------
      2.  The Indicator met SEGIP Essential Indicator Selection Criteria.
      3.  The indicator currently existed and was available to the states.
      4.  The  indicator  reflected  a direct environmental value and not  an
          administrative  or  program result.    Administrative  measures that
          summarized  counts  of  definable  environmental degradation  (e.g.,
          exceedances, spills) were acceptable.
      5.  The indicator supported  an environmental result relevant to the U.S.
          EPA-State relationship as  envisioned in the  proposed Performance
          Agreements.

The Qualification Standards for these indicators were restrictive.   This was done to
ensure  that this initial group was  of  the highest quality possible.   To develop  further
indicators to meet the full needs of Performance Agreements requires the identification
of indicators of uncertain quality or less direct application.  In June, no attempt was
made to identify such indicators.  The development of these less certain, lower quality,
and/or surrogate indicators was identified as the next step in the process.

It is obvious that many additional  indicators will be needed to meet the measurement
requirements of  Performance Agreements or national goals or any  other future  use of
environmental indicators.   SEGIP  was aware of numerous other candidate  indicators
that may  have utility and other indicators that meet the requirements set out in  the
above paragraph.  SEGIP knew of several strong candidates that were not included
because short time constraints prevented an evaluation of the indicators' characteristics
sufficient to provide the confidence necessary to include them in this initial group.

Further, there  are numbers of good indicators  that come from national databases that
are not  comparable across states, but that are quite useful for individual states. Still
further,  there is a rich potential for indicators in a number of smaller, more  limited
databases held by U.S. EPA and other federal agencies.  Restricted to smaller groups
of states and collected on uncertain schedules, these data sets have the potential to
provide  quality indicators for some states and, with further development, perhaps for ail
states. These indicators were not presented in June due to their
•   inapplicability to all states,
•   present unavailability to states for their use, and/or
•   lack of renewable metadata to properly characterize their quality and potential use.
Prospective) Indicators for State Use in Performance Agreements
                              August 15,1995
Given the breadth of the topics requiring measurement in  Performance Agreements,
such restrictive criteria could not yield a sufficient number of high quality indicators to
meet all needs. At the request of U.S. EPA, SEGIP has, in this document,  taken the
next step and provide additional indicators that can be considered as potential measures
in Performance Agreements, indicators that  may or do violate one or more of the
Qualification Standards or have unknown metadata (information about the  data).  In
providing such indicators, however, SEGIP has structured them into lists based  upon

               Protp«ctiv» Indicator* for StmtfUM in Ptrfomtnc* Agntmtnia
                     St*t9 Emimnmtrtfl QoaM *nd Indteaton Profit*
                        August 15, 1995, rtvMAugutt 22,199S

-------
their  known  characteristics to allow potential users at least some basic ability  to
differentiate the relative capacity of individual indicators to meet intended needs.

Indicators presented in this document will be classified at three different levels.   At the
first level indicators wilt be broadly grouped based upon their present availability for use.

FCPM classifies each  of its indicators according  to  its  immediate availability for  use,
sorting each  indicator into one of three groups based on its current utility. Classifying
indicators in this way allows the identification of indicators based on when they will be of
direct use in an indicator system and  sets directions  for future growth in available
indicators.

Type A:  Indicators for which adequate data are available now and can be used to
support the  indicator without significant additional  cost considerations.  To be
classified as a Type A,  an indicator

•   meets all essential selection criteria and most preferred criteria,
•   is presently available for use in its present condition, and
•   can be acquired easily at little or no cost

Type B:  Indicators which are presently feasible,  but cannot be provided due to
inordinate cost, analytical complexity or time constraints. Type B indicators are
those that could  be made available if some barrier can be overcome. The data needed
to produce the indicator exist but because of cost concerns, analytical difficulties, time
constraints,  manpower issues  or  some other impediment  the  indicator cannot be
provided.

Type C:  Prospective Indicators for which there Is no reasonable  prospect of
development without some extraordinary expenditure of resources.   Type  C
indicators are purely prospective.  The data do not exist and there is no dear intent to
collect. Type C indicators exist as designs only.

At this first level  all indteatora w*H be grouped into one of these three broad categories.
virtually all indicators included in this analysis are Type A indicators.  Some B's and C's
have been inducted to  accommodate U.S. EPA efforts to establish new data  collection
processes.

At the second level aJ  indicators classified as A's are placed  into separate lists based
upon what is known about

•   the comparability or lack of comparability of the data across states,
•   the level of availability of data for some or ail of the states,
•   the metadata for each proposed indicator, and
•   whether the indicator measures an environmental value or an administrative, activity
    or program value.
                Prospective Indtetton forStattUseinPerfomtnc* Agntmettta
                      State environment* Got* vtd Indctton Pntiet
                         August 15, 1965. nvifed August 22. 199S

-------
 Five separate lists of Type A indicators responding to these concerns are provided:

 •   List 1: Indicators that are based in national data sets, that have known metadata,
    that meet essential indicator selection criteria, and that are comparable across all 50
    states.

 •   List 2: Indicators that are based in national data sets, that have known metadata at
    the state level and that are appropriate for use in individual states.  The data are not
    comparable across all states.

 •   List 3: Indicators that are based in sub-national data sets available to less than 50
    states, that have known metadata that meet essential indicator selection criteria and
    that are comparable across the states for which data are held.

 •   List 4: Indicators that have uncertain or unknown metadata.

 •   List S: Indicators that reflect administrative, activity or  program  measurements that
    can  be used as surrogates where true environmental measures for a particular issue
    or concern do not exist.

 Fact sheets for the Type A, List 1 indicators are presented as Appendix A.
                                             <*? ":I-
 Finally,  at the  third  level,  within  each list indicator* are  grouped according into
 subjective, broad categories:                     • •'"'

 •   air,
 •   ecosystems,
 •   waste, and
 •   water.
                                  _'"
 Over the last three years, the US^EWk Office of Water has been developing a set of
 environmental indicators  in (ifflJHlliin with a variety of  stakeholders.   At a recent
 National Water  Environroaflirf'Indfcators  Workshop June 22-23, 1995,  candidate
 indicators were discussed By parttdpanfeand 16 indicators are moving forward for use
 in  Performance Agreements and other management agreements. To demonstrate and
 encourage consistency, the Office of Water environmental indicators are crosswalked
 with the SEQiP prospective indicators as presented in Appendix E.

                Background:  Environmental Indicators
Environmental indicators describe, analyze, and present scientifically-based information
on environmental conditions, trends, and their significance.  Environmental indicators
and aggregated environmental indices top an information pyramid shown in the figure
on the following page whose base is  primary data derived from monitoring and data
analysts.  Indicators and indices must be analytically sound and have a methodology
behind their measurements.

                Prottp»etlvt Indicator* tor Stef* Utf to Pfrtommnct Aynvnunt*
                        August 15, 1998, mftMtf August 22, 199S

-------
An index is an aggregation of indicators which  summarizes often large quantities of
related information by using a systematic procedure to weight, scale and aggregated
multiple variables into a single summary output.  Although environmental indices have
been discussed and conceptualized since the mid-1960s, their widespread acceptance
has been limited to oniy a few environmental areas, most notably biological water quality
measurement.
     Souica: Hammond, at at., Emkanmmt* Intation: A Symmifc Approach to Umaxing m* Riportng on
 Environment* Policy Pirtorminc* in «• oonMatf ofSmt^mUf Dttmtopmtnt, WoiW RMOWOM IrMttuM, 1995, p. 1.

The relationships  among indicators, data and information are illustrated in the figure
below, noting that effective indicators need to have a communicative format that is
designed for an explicit group while retaining the essential data necessary to represent
complex environmental processes.
               of Dam
                                                   the Public


                                                     Indicators for
                                                     Policy Maken
                                                           Indicators for
                                Total Quantity of Information
SOUR*: SraatUon. Tha PrwScttv* M*
SMrcA aflnttcOan ot Sutttinthtt Oawal
                                ng ol SuatBlnatottly Indfcctora," m Kul. Oiwo, and Vattmggan, Maiman, in
                                runt, Kknw Acadante Publahan, Dotdracht. Tha Nattwtanda, 1991. p.
                                         59.
                Prosp«ctfv» Inaction tor Stete UM in Pfevformwc* Agntmtnts
                         August 15. 1998, /wtoa* August 22, 1998
                                        »5

-------
                             Evaluation Criteria
Ideally, each indicator finally included in a Performance Agreement should meet a series
of standards  designed to ensure high and consistent quality.  Listed below are the
selection criteria employed by SEGIP in all of its indicator work.  The Selection Criteria
were drawn from a fairly rich and widely-accepted literature on selection criteria (see
references at the end  of  this section).   SEGIP  prepared  a  matrix of the criteria
referenced and selected criteria most appropriate to  its work  with the states, dividing
them into two basic types:

       1.  essential - criteria an indicator must meet, and
       2.  preferable - criteria an indicator should meet

Essential Criteria include:

•  Measurable:  The indicator measures a feature  of  the environment that can be
   quantified simply using  standard methodologies with  a known degree of accuracy
   and precision.

*  Data  Quality:   The data supporting the indicators are adequately supported by
   sound collection methodologies,  data management systems and quality assurance
   procedures to ensure that the indicator is accurately represented.  The data should
   be dearly defined, verifiable, scientifically acceptable and easy to reproduce.

*  Importance: The indicator must measure some aspect of environmental quality that
   reflects an  issue of major  national  importance to states and  to the federal
   government in demonstrating the current and future conditions of the environment

•  Relevance:  The indicator should be relevant to  a desired significant policy goal,
   issue,  legal  mandate,  or agency mission  (e.g.,  contaminated  fish fillets  for
   consumption advisories; species of recreational or commercial value) that provides
   information  of  obvious value  that  can  be  easily related to  the  public  and
   detisKximakers.
                    Changes in the indicator are highly correlated to trends in the
   other parameters or systems they are selected to represent
•  Appropriate scale:   The indicator responds to changes on an  appropriate
   geographic (e.g., national or regional) and/or temporal (e.g., yearly) scale.

•  Trends:  The data for the indicator should  have been collected over a sufficient
   period of time to allow  some analysis of trends or should  provide a baseline for
   future trends. The indicator should show reliability over time, bringing to light a
   representative trend, preferably annual.

•  Decision support:  The indicator should provide information to a level appropriate
                Pnwp«ctfv» /ndfctiom for SM» UM In Ptrtomanc*
                        August 15, 1996, rwtMd August 22, 1998

-------
for making policy decisions.  Highly specific and special parameters, useful to technical
staff, will not be of much significance to policy staff or management decisionmakers.

Preferable Criteria include:

•   Results:  The  indicator should measure a  direct environmental result (e.g.,  an
    impact on human health or ecological conditions).  Indicators expressing changes in
    ambient conditions or changes in  measures  reflecting discharges or releases are
    acceptable, but not  preferred.  Process measures (e.g., permits, compliance and
    enforcement activities, etc.) are not acceptable.

•   Understandable:    The  indicator should be simple and clear, and  sufficiently
    nontechnical to be comprehensible to the general public with brief explanation. The
    indicator should lend itself to effective and appealing display and presentation.

•   Sensitivity:    The  indicator  is  able  to distinguish  meaningful  differences   in
    environmental conditions with an acceptable degree of resolution.  Small changes in
    the indicator show measurable results.

•   Integrates effects/exposures: The indicator integrates effects or exposures over
    time and space and  responds to the cumulative impacts of multiple stressors. It is
    broadly applicable to many stressors and sites.

•   Data comparability:  The data supporting an indicator can be compared to existing
    and past measures of conditions to develop trends and define variation.

•   Cost effective/availability:  The information for an indicator is available or can  be
    obtained with reasonable cost and effort and provides maximum information per unit
    effort.

•   Anticipatory:   The  indicator is  capable  of  providing an early warning  of
    environmental change.
                  I    Conceptual Frameworks    [


To provide additional information regarding the individual indicators,  each indicator will
be summarized in a matrix format that will  allow the application of two different
conceptual indicator classifications.

Pressure-State-Response.  A widely-used framework for environmental indicators has
been developed from a  seemingly simple set of questions:  What is happening to the
state of the environment or natural resources?  Why is it happening? What are we doing
about it? Indicators of changes or trends in the physical or biological state of the natural
world answer the first question; indicators of stresses or pressures from human activities
that cause environmental change answer the second, and measures of programs and

                Prospective Indteaton tor St*tt UM in Pstformtnc* AgntmgtUt
                     Stat* Environment!/ Go** «m* IndkMon Pnftet
                        August 15,1995, rtvisfd August 22.1995
                                      B-7

-------
policies created in response to environmental problems answer the third. This pressure-
state-response framework, developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECO) from earlier work by the Canadian government, is a means
for organizing indicators that reflects three different, but related and integrated, types of
indicators for each environmental issue. They are:
•  pressure indicators:  measures of pressures on the environment caused by human
   activities.
•  state indicators:  measures  of the quality  of the environment and the quality and
   quantity of natural resources.
*  response indicators:  measures that demonstrate how and  how much society is
   doing to respond to environmental changes and issues.

The value of this approach is that it allows a group of indicators to show for each issue
the source of the problems affecting the issue, the environmental status of the issue or
resource, as well as the measures that society is taking to deal with the issue.

In particular, pressure indicators  are useful  in formulating policy objectives and in
evaluating policy performance because they show short-term changes  and more direct
cause and effect relationships in the environment  State indicators involve longer lag
times in data collection and less direct cause and effect  relationships, but  are essential
to long-term evaluations of the  environment and programs to improve environmental
conditions.

In this  report's matrix,  each  indicator  has  been  assigned  one  of  these three
classifications as a demonstration of the use of this framework and to show what types
of indicators are being recommended.

A graphic below shows the linkage among pressure, state, and response indicators and
that, on a time scale, responses to  environmental trends should ideally be developed
after pressure and state data are known.
SOUTCK Hvtf.f*NVMidUBtoPlnl*.MM**tfMi«ia*<*MMM*v
             inwmton* IntMuM tar 'mttHmttt 0**<*mjmm*. January 1
                                                              18.
                        August 15, 1995, nvufd Auguit 22. 1996

-------
Hierarchy of Indicators.  Initially created by the U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Planning
and  Evaluation,  the  Chesapeake  Bay  Program has developed an indicator-driven
planning process that successfully uses a broad and extensive range of environmental
indicators that focus actions on the improvement of the resource. To measure the level
of quality of each indicator with respect to the strength of the type of data, they have
developed a six point scale for rating indicators.  That system is summarized below:
Hierarchy of Indicators
Administrative
1
Actions by
Federal or
Slat*
Regulatory
Agency
2
Responses of
the
Regulatory
Community or
Society
Environmental
3
Changes in
Discharge or
Emission
Quantities
4
Changes in
Ambient
f*i* *»«»i
nWmBBDOfl
6
Changes m
Health,
Eootogy or
Other Effects
Indicators rated as a "1" or a "2" (Administrative) do not reflect environmental measures
and are generally  not acceptable for  the present purposes.  In the pressure-state-
response context, ail of the  indicator levels have value in describing environmental
trends and conditions and societal  responses to them.  However, if we  are lacking
pressure (Level 3) or  state (Levels 4, 5, 6) indicators, response  (Levels 1 and 2)
indicators have little meaning or validity. In contrast, a measure with a rating of "6" is
able by itself to directly describe a human health or  ecological health  value, and
presents a very powerful type of information. These ratings are provided to show the
general quality of data supporting the indicators included in this document

A chart showing the relationship between the hierarchy of indicators and the Pressure-
State-Response framework follows the text of this section.
                 I
Sources
SEGIP has evaluated environmental indicators from the following documents for
consideration in the annotated listing:

States
•  Environmental Indicators Report, California Environmental Protection Agency,
   April 1995
•  Environmental Indicators  State/EPA Agreement Mid-Year Meeting Report,
   Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, June 6, 1995
•  Strategic Assessment  of Florida's  Environment,  Florida  Department  of
   Environmental Protection,  November 1994
*  The Changing Illinois Environment:  Critical  Trends,  Illinois Department of
   Energy and Natural Resources, 1994
*  The State of Kentucky's Environment:  1994 Status  Report, The Kentucky
   Environmental Quality Commission, February 1995
               Proep»cttv9 Indicators tor State Utt In P»rtormanc» Agntmtnts
                       August 15. 1996, nmftMtf Augutt 22, 1998
                                     34

-------
 •   TTre State of Kentucky's Environment:  A Report of Progress and Problems,
   The Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission, 1 992
 •  A  Place  in  Time,.. Maine's  Environment  1994, Maine  Department  of
   Environmental Protection, 1994
 •  Preserving Minnesota's  Environment for 25 Years, 1967-1992, Minnesota
   Pollution Control Agency, January 1993
 •  Tracking our Progress in Protecting Minnesota's Environment, Minnesota
   Pollution Control Agency, January 1995
 •  North Carolina Environmental Indicators, Department of Environment, Health, and
   Natural Resources, Draft, June 1995
 •  Oregon Benchmarks, Oregon Progress Board, December 1994
 •  State of the Environment:  Preview, Tennessee Department of Environment
   and Conservation, September 1994
 •  Environment 1994, The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, January 1994
 •  Environment 1995, The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, April 1995
 •  Washington's Environmental Health 1995, A  Summary  of Environmental
   Indicators, Washington Department of Ecology, April 1995
 •  Wisconsin's Environment  1970-1995,  Wisconsin  Department  of  Natural
   Resources, April 1995
 *  Prospective Indicators for State Use in Performance Partnership Agreements,
   State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project, Florida Center for Public
   Management, June 15, 1995, revised June 28, 1995

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 •  National Indicators for Water, Draft Report for  Discussion, Office of Water,
   June 16, 1995
 •  Environmental Indicators, Office of Air and Radiation, July 1 2, 1 991
 •  Strategies, Goals and Environmental Results, Draft for Discussion, Office of
   Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, Office of Policy, Planning and
   Evaluation, May 1992
•  Draft Interim 1995 Indicators Report, Environmental Results Branch, Office of
   Policy, Planning and Evaluation, April 1 995
 *  Candidates for Con Set of Environmental Indicators for State Reporting,
   unpublished, Environmental Information Division, Office of Policy, Planning
   and Evaluation, April 1995
 •  Proposed  Environmental Goals for America  with Benchmarks for the Year
   2006, Draft for Government Agencies' Review, Office of  Policy Planning and
   Evaluation, February 1995
•  Preliminary List of Performance Measures, Discussion draft, Office of Policy
   Planning and Evaluation,  March 27, 1995
•  State of the Chesapeake Bay 199S, Chesapeake Bay Program, 1 995
•  A  Conceptual  Framework  to -Support  the  Development and  Use of
   Environmental Information for Decision-Making, Environmental Statistics and
   Information Division, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, April 1995
•  The State of the New England Environment, 1970-1995,  U.S. EPA Region 1 ,
   June 1995
              Pmtpoctiv* Indteaton for Stgt* L>9» in P*formtnc*
                      Augutt IS, 1998, tma§*IAugu*22, 199S
                                  9-10

-------
•  List of Common  Indicators,  discussion  draft for USEPA Region 9  1995
   environmental indicators/state of the environment report, June 20,1995

Other Agencies
•  ORCA Indicator Project, Materials for Developing Environmental Indicators,
   Office of Ocean Resources Conservation  and Assessment, National Oceanic
   and Atmospheric Administration, February 1995
•  Environmental Indicators:    A Systematic Approach to Measuring  and
   Reporting  on  Environmental  Policy  Performance  in  the  Context  of
   Sustainable Development, World Resources Institute, May 1995
•  The Nationwide Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United
   States,  Final Report of the  Intergovernmental  Task  Force on  Monitoring
   Water Quality, Technical Appendices, December  1994
•  A Proposed Framework for Developing Indicators of Ecosystem Health for
   the Great Lakes Region, International Joint Commission, July 1991
                        To the Reader/Reviewer
As  this document is  aimed  at  readers  and reviewers  who  have environmental
management responsibilities at the state and federal levels, a suggestion is offered that
the questions posed by the  U.S. EPA Office of Water in  their  Draft Report for
Discussion-National Indicators for Water. June 16, 1995, be used as guidance for
considering the indicators presented:
•   What does the indicator tell us?
•   How will the indicator be used to track progress?
•   What is being done to improve the indicator?
          being done to improve condtticns measured by the indkator?
Also, it is well to remember that even if an indicator has been identified for a certain
issue area, the issue may not be fully-described using indicators due to a lack of
information or quality data.

This annotated listing does not mean we should not develop or identify other indicators
that effectively describe environmental trends and conditions.  The Hating is simply a
quickly produced sat of indicators potentially usable in Performance Agreements.  The
State  Environmental  Goals and  Indicators  Project will endeavor  to  monitor  the
environmental indicators used by the states in Performance Agreements and report on
their usefulness as accountability measurements on an annual basis.  SEGIP will also
work with the states over the transition year of the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System to identify environmental indicators that can be used in future years.
               Pro»pe(Xlve IndtaOors for State Use in Performance Agreements
                     State Emimnmentgl Qotts tnd Indicator* Project
                       August IS. 1995, revised August 22, 199S
                                    S-11

-------
                  Selection Criteria References
John  Cairns,  Jr. and Paul  V. McCorrpick,  "Developing an  ecosystem-based
capability for ecological risk assessments," The Environmental Professional, volume
14, pp. 186-196,1992.
Andrew Robertson and Wayne Davis,  The selection and use of  water  quality
indicators," pp. 119-128, August 1993, (handout).
Ingrid  Schulze and  Michael  Colby, "A  conceptual  framework to  support  the
development and use of environmental information,"  external  review draft,  U.S.
Environmental  Protection Agency, pp. 21-23, Septembers, 1994.
Westat, Inc., "Process for selecting indicators and data and filling information gaps,"
prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 14,1994.
Data QAT, "Criteria for selecting indicators," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
draft document, April 4,1994.
National Environmental Goals and Indicators  Conference, "What makes a good
indicator?  Selection criteria," conference materials, January 1994.
Ecosystem Protection Workgroup, Toward  a place-driven  approach:    The
Edgewater consensus on  an EPA strategy  for ecosystem  protection,"   U.S.
Environmental  Protection Agency, draft paper, March 15,1994.
             Prospective IndlCftoMforSttte Uee in Performance Agreements
                   State Bwtonmwrt* Go** end /ndfctien Preset
                     Augutt 15, 1998, revieed Augutt 22, 1995
                                   8-12

-------
"»
I


i
i
»
J
!
£
*

i
«
i
i
i

c
3
1
;. 2

\ 3
* SB
5 S
! •£
ierarchy ol
1 B
L ..
: ^
i ea
: c
i .g
>
• a
1 1
S
e
2
i- B
i M
! Ofl













VI
|
^*
0
a
z
^*
i^
^
H
z
MVIRONME
u













^—
i
3
i
i  i
                                                     I


                                                     i
                                                    I

                                                    i
                                            j
                                                               UJ

                                                               z

                                                               i

                                                               a

                                                               <
                                                                    >• -3 -
                                                                    -O W •=

                                                                    2 J I

                                                                    •2 Si
                                                                    u « 5
                                                               I
                                                               Q]

                                                               06
                                                                                 u
                                                                                 f
                                                                     S §
                                                                      a a.
                                                                   A- ao
                                                                   &• u w
                                                                   u is a;
                                                                    a   S
                                                                    .a 4i S
                                                                    SO— M

                                                                    | i^
                                                                    <3 s "o
                                                                    a S i
                                                                   I
                                                                   f=
                                                                   a
                                                                                f
,   I
iw 1
    i

                                B-13

-------
   Section C
Indicator Lists

-------
W'l V!M
        5«rai Siatus and Trends Reporting • Environmental Goa*s • State
        .-rO Risk Drcgr3m • Strategic Planning * BenchmarKs * p:ice-based
         .'•'::,"  Mc-r.jqement » Sustainable DewJop.r-nt  *  7-•:•<•;'vnphlc
                     E
                      nvironmental  Status  and  Trends  Reachin
                                                             ''
                                                             ''W*
       -v.ir.3! Goafs • State Comparative Risk Program * Strategic Planning
* :;=;.:•  ;ks  » Place-based  and Ecosystem Management * Sustainable
Je,3  ..    v * Geographic information System • Environmental Status and
Irenes .--.sporting • Environmental Goais * State Comparative Risk Program •
Strategic Planning • Benchmarks • Place-based and Ecosystem Management
                                                          tem   •
                                                           *  Slate
                                                          3-based
                                                          graphic
                                                          rting '*
                                                          lanning
                                                          ainabie
c n viron"
Hi format
        Results of the Survey of
      Environmental Management
Activities in State Environmental and
      Natural Resource Agencies
* Bench

Trends Reporting * Environmental Goals » State Comparative Risk Program •
EjJ|tegic Planning * Benchmarks • Place-based and Ecosystem Management
•  Sustainable  Development  *  Geographic  Information  System   *
Environmental Status and Trends  Reporting • Environmental Goais * State
Comparative Risk Program • Strategic Planning • Benchmarks * Place-based
 inc!  ecosystem  Management * Sustainable  Development  »  Geographic
  formation  System  » Environmental  Status  and Trends  Reporting  »
 znvironmental Goals • State Comparative Risk Program » Strategic Planning
  Benchmarks * Place-based and Ecosystem Management * Sustainable
 Development * Geographic Information System • Environmental Status anq
Trends Reporting • Environmental Goals • State Comparative Risk Program «
Strategic Planning • Benchmarks • Place-based and Ecosystem Management
*  Sustainable  Development  *  Geographic  Information  System   *
 .Environmental Status and Trends  Reporting • Environmental Goals » State
 lonipan
    E
      cc
        41 & •& j- f* ^*^ •
             ^i^ n»^*^>/^^v% • o»^*^-»^v^««^ nt^«^y^;^%^« *. p^^^.^t^r^^^^t^^. -. 01 ^#+
State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project
                   May 1996
                                                               H
                                                          graphic
                                                          rting  *
Hnvironmental Goals  •  State  Comparative Risk  Program *  Strategic
banning* Benchmarks *  Place-based  and Ecosystem  Management  •
Sustainable Develooment * Geoaranhic Information Svstem • Environmental

-------

-------
         Results of the Survey of
      Environmental Management
Activities in State Environmental and
      Natural Resource Agencies
             Compiled and Prepared by the
      State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project
           Florida Center for Public Management

           Nathaniel Emmert, Principal Author
       James R. Bernard, Editor and Project Manager
       Gilbert T. Bergquist, Jr., Ph.D., Project Director

                    May 1996
The State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project is funded wholly or in part by the U.S. EPA under
   assistance agreement CX823807-0102 to the Florida Department of Management Services.

-------
This report is available in alternative formats for our readers with special needs.
                        Please call (904) 921-1769
             Printed on 25% total recovered fiber recycled paper
         all of which is post-consumer measured by fiber weight O

-------
                   Table of Contents
Table of Contents	i
Introduction	1
Survey Results	3
     Overall	3
     Environmental Management Techniques	4
     Environmental Indicators	6
     Information Resource Management	7
     Needs Assessment	7
     Conclusions	9

Appendix A:  List of Agencies Contacted	A -1
Appendix B:  List of Responding Agencies	B -1
Appendix C:  Summarized Survey Responses	C -1
Appendix D:  Survey of Environmental Management Activity in State
             Environmental and Natural Resource Agencies ....D -1
5/31/96
State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project

-------

-------
                                     Introduction

       This document reports the results of the State Environmental Goals and Indicators
Project's Survey of Environmental Management Activity in State Environmental and
Natural Resource Agencies.  The Survey was undertaken to describe for the first time
state  agencies' efforts to use environmental management techniques and  tools.   The
results of the  Survey will be used to comprehensively inform the  State Environmental
Goals and Indicators Project, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the states
about  the  use  of  environmental   management  techniques  in   state  environmental
management agencies and where best to focus future technical assistance efforts to meet
identified needs.

       In September 1995, the Project formally contacted over 90 state environmental
management agencies (both  those  dealing with environmental protection  and  natural
resources) through their director/secretary/commissioner's  offices. The Project requested
identification of an individual who has management and policymaking responsibilities or
who has direct access to such an individual to act as  a liaison. The Project also asked
agencies to identify  up to five technical and policy staff who are  qualified to provide
comments and information with regard to the development of environmental indicators.
A listing of the persons identified by the agencies serves as a part of the Project Network
of Environmental Indicator Practitioners.

       Seventy-six  of the agencies contacted  were identified as respondents  to the
Swrvev. The Survey  was sent out December 8, 1995 with  a request for a rapid response.
Partial results were  reported  at  the National Environmental Management Practitioners
Conference  January 30, 1996.  By early March 1996,  responses had trailed  off and the
Project formally ceased its efforts to contact environmental management agencies  that
had not yet responded.

       The Survey, which is included as Appendix D to the report, requested  information
regarding environmental status and  trends reporting, environmental goals projects, state
comparative risk projects, strategic planning, benchmarks, place-based  or ecosystem
management activities, sustainable development  initiatives,  geographic  information
systems, and general, technical, and data needs.

       In addition to the basic Survey responses, the Project solicited and received a rich
variety of reports and other information that demands further attention  and that can serve
as a  source of high quality,  detailed information  about specific  state and  agency
environmental management efforts.

       The results section of the report is based on the responses received. Some of the
results reported differ from actual figures because 22%, or 17, agencies did not respond.
For instance, the Project is aware that more than 18 states have undertaken comparative
risk assessment projects. At least seven state environmental management agencies who
5/31/96
State Environmental Goala and Indicators Project

-------
are undertaking comparative risk projects did not respond to the Survey.  However, the
results do offer trends in the use of environmental management techniques and in the
needs of agencies.  A matrix of states and environmental management techniques based
on Survey responses and other information available to the Project has been  added to
display the state of environmental management graphically.

       For those agencies who  did not respond, the Project would still value a response
to add to the overall database that has been created and to add to this document, which
will  be available  on the Project's Internet site.   The document will be  able to  be
downloaded as a whole or available for investigation on a state-by-state basis.

       In an effort  to limit the  profusion of paper, the hard copy version of the Survey
results is being distributed to the heads of  all 76 agencies surveyed,  all 51 respondents
who  completed  the  survey,  the  Project's  Advisory  Board,  and the   Assistant
Administrators, Regional Administrators, Deputy Regional Administrators, and Planning
Branch Chiefs of U.S.  EPA.  A small number of additional copies will be available  by'
request.

       Finally, a  number of  directories  (one  for each environmental  management
technique) of practitioners will be developed  using the responses,  as  well  as other
information  available to the Project, to present complete, thorough information that will
be made available by the Project in hard copy and on the Internet.

       The  Project  thanks  all  respondents and  encourages appropriate use  of  the
document to better assist state environmental management agencies.
5/31/96             State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project


-------
                             Survey Results
Overall

      Responses, including eight formal declinations to respond, have been received
from 59 of the 76 agencies surveyed, a 78% response rate.  Lists of the agencies surveyed
and the respondents follow this section of the report as appendices.

      Of the 51 complete responses, 74% were from environmental protection agencies,
16%  were from natural resource agencies, and 10% were from other agencies composed
primarily of fish and wildlife management and health agencies.
                         Survey Repondents
                      by Agency Mission Area
             10%
                   16%
                   74%
                                                 • Natural Resources
                                                   (8 Agencies)


                                                 D Environmental
                                                   Protection
                                                   (40 Agencies)

                                                 S Other
                                                   (5 Agencies)
5/31/96
State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project

-------
Environmental Management Techniques

       A number of environmental management techniques are in common use, with
access to geographic information systems  (GIS) reported in 92% of the respondents'
agencies, place-based or ecosystem management found in 82%, strategic planning in 76%
and environmental  status and trends reporting in 71%  of the  responding agencies.
Environmental goals projects were reported in nearly half (45%) of the responding
agencies. The remaining management techniques - sustainable development and state
comparative nsk projects ~ were reported in 37% and 35%  of the agencies respectively.
                 Number of Respondents Using Each
                         Management Technique
                                                     • Environmental Status and Trends
                                                      Reporting
                                                     •Environmental Goals Project

                                                     O State Comparative Risk Project

                                                     •Strategic Planning

                                                     • Benchmarking Programs

                                                     • Place-Based or Ecosystem
                                                      Management
                                                     •Sustainable Development

                                                     • Geographic Information System
       Benchmarking programs were reported by 45% of the agencies.  Misinterpretation
of benchmarking  as  defined by  the Survey; however, lead to an inaccurately high
representation of agencies involved in this activity.  Respondents confused establishing
baseline or reference environmental conditions with benchmarking, a process of setting
attainable goals to be measured using milestones  or benchmarks at regular intervals to
determine relative progress in meeting the goal.
5/31/96
State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project

-------
       Following is  a matrix of the states participating in each management activity.
States that responded to the Survey that they engage in an activity are marked in the table
with a «J».  In an effort to present a more complete picture of environmental management
activities, those states that are known by the Project to participate in an activity,  but did
not return a completed Survey, were also included in the table below.  These actions are
noted by the  following symbol: n.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
• Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
ujuicncAina.
-------
Environmental Indicators

       Environmental  indicators  are being  used  in  some  aspect of  environmental
management by  71%  (36  agencies) of the  responding agencies, most  frequently in
environmental status and trends reporting.  Of the agencies performing environmental
status and trends reporting, 86% (31 agencies) stated that indicators are  in use for that
activity.  According to respondents, indicators are  in use in 83% (19 agencies) of the
environmental goals projects, 56% (10 agencies) of the state comparative risk projects,
56% (18 agencies) of the strategic  planning programs, 29% (12 agencies) of place-based
or ecosystem management projects and 32%   (6 agencies) of sustainable development
projects.
          Respondents Using Environmental Indicators
     35-r
                                                     • Environmental Status and  j
                                                       Trends Reporting         j
                                                     • Environmental Goals Project

                                                     D State Comparative Risk
                                                       Project
                                                     • Strategic Planning

                                                     • Ecosystem Management

                                                     • Sustainable Development
5/31/96
State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project

-------
Information Resource Management

       Thirty-seven agencies reported that they are involved in an information resource
management process.  Thirty-two, or over 86%, of those agencies noted that they have an
inventory of environmental information, but only 11 (30%) of the agencies stated that
they  have an  inventory of  environmental information  which  is  relevant to  the
development of environmental indicators or for policy planning and decisionmaking.

       The responding agencies reported that the primary aspects of the information
resource management process which they are addressing include data gaps, data quality,
data collection, and data distribution. According to the responding agencies, data which
is needed for indicator development, strategic  planning, and  decisionmaking include
locational data, cross media data integration, updated base maps, inventories of data
availability and quality, the ability to share data in an electronic format,  indicator lists,
database lists, consistent data formats, environmental monitoring data, and specific data
sets such as groundwater, soils, land use, and game and fish population levels.
Needs Assessment

       While the Survey provides a great  deal of important information, the section
entitled "General Needs" contributes some of the most interesting data and affords much
insight into the needs  and concerns of the respondents.   It should be noted that the
respondents of the Survey are not necessarily the listed contact and the views expressed
may or may not be attributed to the contact person or their agency.
                                   Resources

       It is no surprise that the most common response is the need for financial and other
support to develop and  implement environmental indicators.  Monitoring, establishing
indicators, and measuring environmental progress are  all listed as resource intensive
activities  which  need  additional  funding.    The  lack  of sustainable  funding and
competition for current resources is submitted as the most frequent barrier to effective
environmental management.
                                  Data needs

       There is a significant demand for high quality data.  The lack of useful data is
nearly as common a barrier to successful management as the lack of funding.  Increased
monitoring networks and strategies to collect data, increased  computer technology for
data' analysis  and manipulation,  and the current  inability  to  measure  many  useful
indicators are listed frequently.
5/31/96
State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project

-------
       There is also a need for the ability to better integrate current/future federal and
state information systems. Many of the Federal information systems are not user-friendly
or accessible  by current state systems.  Additional suggestions include developing
common facility identification numbers, upgrading national databases to be supportive of
indicator use, and developing the necessary technological infrastructure  to track and
develop indicators.
                        Political/Management support

       Political and management support is a broad area of frequent comment.  On one
hand, institutional inertia,  resistance to goals and  accountability,  lack  of interagency
cooperation, and  lack of political initiative conspire to restrict innovative approaches:
Many respondents requested  flexibility in decsionmaking and use of Federal funding.
Respondents also requested the continued use of Performance Partnership Agreements.
Several respondents listed a need to include  states' input in the determination of
environmental priorities by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

       On the other hand, inconsistency during changing administrations and competition
for resources combine to hinder effective long-term efforts.  The lack of a broad focus is
often mentioned and many suggest the elimination of single-media reporting requirements
and developing integrated indicators which explain  a complete system. The scarcity of
cooperation by state and federal agencies and the lack of coordination of efforts are also
listed as obstructions, as well as the  absence  of standardized reporting criteria.  In
addition, the removal of  regulations which are no longer effective is  listed as means of
simplifying the process so that resources can be devoted to measurement issues.
                          Measurements/Standards

       Developing a means of measuring performance is a prevalent need listed in the
Survey. Some concerns cite difficulties in reaching agreement on measurement standards
and definitions. Suggestions include restructuring reporting requirements and developing
national  indicators  as a  means of  tracking  environmental  improvements.   The
identification and development of appropriate indicators for state use is the most frequent
reply concerning necessary infrastructure.

       Tying funding to indicators and requiring performance assessment to be measured
with indicators instead of workload  is a recurring  comment throughout the Survey.
Respondents call for a shift from the current "site-by-site" approach toward indicator
usage and a need to "take the places over programs philosophy seriously".

       Shifting to more effective environmental management policies  has numerous
obstacles. Survey respondents describe difficulties in linking measurements to activities,
developing links between human health and environmental quality, comparing risks of
5/31/96             State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project

-------
different compositions, and isolating influential factors.  Governmental aid is requested in
each of these areas with the Project being requested to focus and coordinate state and
federal efforts.
                              Information Needs

       A lack of general environmental information is listed in the Survey responses as a
barrier to indicator development. Facilitating the exchange and disbursement of this type
of information is requested from the regional and national U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency offices and the Project.  Respondents desire these agencies to share experiences
in developing indicators, act as a repository or clearinghouse for ideas in developing goals
and  indicators, and act as a  mechanism for sharing information.  Additional aid is
required for training state agency staff, technical assistance, and public education.
Conclusions

       Overall, the Survey results report that the responding management agencies are
using a  variety of environmental  management techniques.   Geographic  information
systems  are most widely  used  and the new technique of place-based or ecosystem
management appears to be solidly in place.

       Environmental indicators  are being used to  enhance all of the environmental
management efforts in the responding agencies.

       A limited number of natural resources agencies responded to the Survey (five
officially declined  to  participate),  but those  responding  use the  environmental
management techniques  as  actively  (except  for comparative  risk  assessment) as
environmental protection agencies.
5/31/96
State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project

-------

-------
Review Draft-Not for Distribution 7/17/98 Environmental indicators ana Assoc-.aiea Data Sources
Cataicg. State Environmental Goals and Indicatory Project
      Environmental Indicators and
   Associated Data Sources Catalog
             Daniel Parker, Principal Author
       James R. Bernard, Editor and Project Manager
       Gilbert T. Bergquist, Jr., Ph.D., Project Director
                     July 17,1996

-------
 Review Draft-Not tor Distribution 7/17/96 Environmental Indicators and Associated Data Sources
 Catalog. State Environmental Goals and indicators Protect
    Introduction to the Catalog of Environmental Indicators and
                      .  Associated Data Sources

This review draft of the Catalog, Environmental Indicators and Associated Data Sources
Catalog, represents a comprehensive list of over 1,000 indicators drawn from available
state  and federal  sources that  states and other interested  environmental indicator
practitioners can use in the development of their individual indicator systems.

When viewing this document, please keep in mind that this is a draft and is currently under
review,  if you would  like to  serve as a peer reviewer of this Catalog, or have questions'
comments, please e-mail at: dparkerOgamet.acns.fsu.edu

The principal author can also be reached at:

Daniel Parker
Florida Center for Public Management
118 N. Woodward Avenue
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4025

Tel: (904) 921-5714
Fax:(904)487-4169

About the Catalog
Indicators, benchmarks, and performance measurements in the Catalog have been drawn
from 37 federal and  state reports and documents.  There are 32 databases and data
sources reviewed and included in the most appropriate sections of this document.  The
purpose of the Catalog is to:

•   assist state environmental agencies in the development of environmental goals and
    indicators;
•   allow states and other indicator practitioners to see what has been used in the
    development of environmental indicators;
•   identify where improvements are needed and can be made; and,
•   see what the possibilities may be for the future development of environmental goals
    and indicators.

The list of indicators  is representative of both what has been done and what has been
proposed for use.

There is  inherent duplication in listing indicators that have been  used.  Some of the
indicators presented overlap with others, while others will have slight differences in their
wording or what is ultimately being measured. Most are derived from the same or similar
databases.

The indicators have been broken down into smaller groups where possible, in order to
better display them. The document source is included with each indicator. The document
source is identified by a code in parenthesis which usually includes an identifier of the
                                EXEC SUM -1

-------
       Draft-Nat for Distribution 7/17/96 environmental indicators ana Associated Data Sources
Catalog. State snwronmensal Goals ana indicators Prefect


document title and the year presented  or published;  for example, C895 stands for
Chesapeake Bay, 1995.  Where the information was available or determined to be
necessary, a source and a description are also included.

Each set of indicator's are analyzed along the following guidelines:
•   what the indicator or indicators is trying to measure,
•   how the indicators can be used to track progress, and
•   what might be done to improve the indicators or use of the indicators.

In most instances, the  indicators are  recommended to be used for a minimum of three
years.  The  reason is that one year of data represents a snapshot, a single point in time,
or a beginning.  Two years of data can give us an idea of the conditions, but- does not
provide us with a discernible trend. A minimum of three years of data not only allows us to
see the status and condition of the environment, but also trends in the conditions.   The
trend can then be extrapolated into the future to analyze what future conditions would be
according to the data supporting the indicator.

An annotated listing of contacts and address for the published sources used  in the
Catalog are  provided in Appendix B. Sources for the Catalog are:

                                Federal Sources
(Cat95) Catalog of Indicators, 1995 Draft.
(CB95)  Stefe of the Chesapeake Bay 1995, Chesapeake Bay Program, 1995.
(CCS95)  Candidates  for Core  Set of Environmental Indicators for State Reporting,
unpublished document,  Environmental Information Division, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, April 1995.
(DIIR95) Draft Interim  1995 Indicators Report, Environmental Results Branch. Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation, April 1995.
(EPA92)  Strategies, Goats, &  Environmental Results, Draft for Discussion, Office of
Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, Office of  Policy, Planning and  Evaluation,
May 1992.
(LCI95) List of Common Indicators, discussion draft for USEPA Region 9, June 20,1995.
(NE95)  T?7e State of the New England Environment,  1970-1995, U.S. EPA Region 1,
June 1995.
(OPPE95)   CWce of Policy Planning and Evaluation, Preliminary List of Performance
Measures* For Discussion Only, March 27,1995.
(ORCA95)  ORCA Indicator Project,  Materials for Developing Environmental Indicators,
ORCA Indicator Team, NOAA, February 1995.
(OW95)  National Indicators for Water, Draft Report for Discussion, Office of Water, June
16,1995.
(PEGA 7/95)  Proposed Environmental Goals for America with Milestones for the Year
2005, Draft for Government Agencies' Review, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
July 1995.
(POPM95)  Program Office Performance  Measures, Discussion Draft, Office of Policy
Planning and Evaluation, Proposed July 25,1995.
                                EXEC SUM - 2

-------
 Review Drift-Hot for Distribution 7/17/99 environmental Indicators and Associated Data Sources
 Cataiog. 3,'are Environmental Goals and Indicators Project


                                State Sources
 (CA95)  Environmental  Indicators  Report, California Environmental  Protection  Agency,
 April 1995.
 (CO95) Environmental Indicators State/EPA  Agreement  Mid-Year Meeting  Report,
 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, June 6,1995.
 (CT95)  St'ate of Connecticut, Goals and Benchmarks for the Year 2000 and Beyond, The
 Connecticut Progress Council, January 1995.
 (CT94) Environmental Quality in Connecticut,  The 1994 Annual Report of the Council on
 Environmental Quality, 1994.
 (FL94)  Strategic  Assessment  of Florida's  Environment,  Florida  Department  of
 Environmental Protection, November 1994.
 (IL94) The  Changing Illinois Environment: Critical Trends, Illinois Department of Energy
 and Natural Resources, 1994.
 (KY94)  The  Sfafe of  Kentucky's Environment:  1994  Status Report, The  Kentucky
 Environmental Quality Commission, February 1995.
 (KY92) The State of Kentucky's Environment: A Report of Progress and Problems, The
 Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission, 1992.
 (MA95) Massachusetts Environment: The State of Our Common Wealth, Executive Office
 of Environmental Affairs, April 1995.
 (ME94) A Place in Time...Maine's Environment 1994, Maine Department of Environmental
 Protection, 1994.
 (MN95) Tracking our Progress in Protecting Minnesota's Environment, Minnesota Pollution
 Control Agency, January 1995.
 (MN93)  Preserving Minnesota's  Environment  for 25 Years,   1967-1992,  Minnesota
 Pollution Control Agency, January 1993.
 (MN92)  Minnesota Milestones: A Report Card for the Future, Minnesota Planning Agency,
 December 1992.
 (NC9S) North Carolina Environmental Indicators, Department of Environment, Health, and
 Natural Resources, Draft. June 1995.
 (OH95) Ohio State of the Environment Report, Ohio Comparative Risk Project, December
 1995.
 (OK92) Sfafe of Oklahoma Environmental Subcabinet State Environmental Assessment, A
 Report to the Governor, Environment 1992. •
 (OR94) Oregon Benchmarks, Oregon Progress Board, December 1994.
 (OR92) Oregon Benchmarks, Oregon Progress Board, December 1992.
 (TN96) Tennessee's Environment: 25 Years of Progress, Department of Environment and
 Conservation, published April 1995.
 (TN94) Sfafe of the Environment  Preview, Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, September 1994.
 (VT96) Environment 1996, The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1996.
 (VT95) Environment 1995, The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, April 1995.
(VT94) Environment 1994, The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, January 1994.   .
(WA&5) Washington's  Environmental  Health  1995,  A  Summary  of Environmental
 Indicators, Washington Department of Ecology, April 1995.
(WI95) Wisconsin's Environment 1970-1995, Wisconsin Department of Natural
 Resources,  April 1995.                  •.                        '
                               EXEC SUM - 3

-------
Review Drmtt'Not for Distribution 7/17/96 Sfivtronrriertat /nc/carors arc Assoc:atec Data Sources
ra.'a>og. State ^nvtronmenial Goals ano indicators Protect


Datacases'reviewed in the Catalog with their corresponding sections are:

AIR
•  Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
•  Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)

WATER
•  USEPA STORET (STORage and RETrieval System)
•  USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
•  USEPA Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
•  USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA)
•  USGS Water Resources of the United States
•  USGS Estimated Use of Water in the United States

WASTE
•  BioCycle
•  USEPA's Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Factbook, Version Two
•  ERNS (Emergency Response Notification System)
•  USEPA Hazardous Waste Data
•  USEPA Report on State/Territory Non-NPL Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Efforts for
   the Period 1980-1992
•  USEPA Envirofacts Database
•  Right-to-Know Network (RTK NET)

ECOSYSTEM
•  US Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Inventory
•  US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory
•  North American Breeding  Bird Survey
•  Natural Heritage Network

USE AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL ECONOMIC RESOURCES
   US Forest Service, Forest Resources of the United States, 1992
   Natural Resources Conservation Service, Natural Resources Inventory
   US Decartment of Agriculture, Tree Planting in the United States
   US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators
   Institute for Southern Studies
   Natural Resources Defense Council, Beach Closure  Data
   National Marine Fisheries  Service, Fisheries Statistics Program
   National Shellfish Register
   US Department of Energy,  Energy Information Administration,  State Energy Data
   Reports

PESTICIDES
•  US Food and Drug Administration, Pesticide Program, Residue Monitoring, 1993
•  US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Chemical Use on Vegetables
*  US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Chemical Use on Fruits
*  US Department of  Agriculture, Agricultural Chemical  Usage,  1994  Field Crops
   Summary
                               EXEC SUM - 4

-------
                                                                                             I
       Drift-Nat for Distribution 7/17/96 Environmental indicators and Associated Data Sources
 Catalog, S;a;e Environmental Goals and indicators Protect
Information presented in reviews of the databases include:
•   how to get the data,
•   description of the database,
•   where do the data come from,
*   how the data are shown, and,
*   how can the data be used.

In some cases, limitations of the data supporting the indicator are included.

The Catalog table of contents is as follows:
Title                                                              Section

Criteria Air Pollutant Indicators	A
Toxic Air Pollutant Indicators	B
Global Atmospheric Indicators	!	C
Databases for Air Indicators	D
Water Quality Indicators	E
Water Resources Indicators	F
Drinking Water Indicators	,	G
Databases for Water Indicators	H
Solid Waste Indicators	I
Hazardous Waste Indicators	J
Databases for Waste Indicators'.	K
Ecosystem Indicators and Databases	L
Natural Resources Indicators and Databases	M
Pesticides Indicators and Databases...-	,	N
Food  Safety Indicators	'.	..O
En vironmentalJustice Indicators	,	P
Environmental Management Response	,	Q
Population Indicators	R

Appendix A: All Indicators	APPENDIX A
Appendix B:  Summary of State and Federal Reports Used	APPENDIX B
                                 EXEC SUM - 5

-------
oEPA
Community-Based
Environmental  Protection
     SUPPORTING COMMUNITY-DEVELOPED ENVIRONMENTAL, ECOLOGICAL,
     SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS

     During the past decade, an increasing number of federal, state, and local governments and Non-
     Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have developed an assortment of goals and indicators (e.g.,
     qualiry-of-life, sustainable development, "Healthy Cities") to assess the environmental,
     ecological, social, and economic conditions of a specific geographic area (and, in some cases, to
     assign benchmarks to measure performance over time).

     At present, there is no federal repository of information on the variety of indicators that have
     been developed and implemented by federal, state, and local governments and NGOs at the local,
     sub-state, and regional (e.g., community) level.  In addition, little analysis has been conducted on
     the relative advantages and disadvantages of different types of community-level indicators.
     Finally, there is a dearth of information to assist communities interested in developing, selecting,
     and using environmental, ecological, economic, and socio-cultural indicators.

     Project Summary
     Since May 1995, the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities has been identifying
     and collecting information on sub-national (e.g., multi-state regional, state, sub-state regional,
     county, city, and neighborhood) efforts to develop environmental, ecological, economic, and
     socio-cultural indicators. Thus far, we've identified more than 100 efforts, including more than
     30 community-generated efforts.

     We plan to categorize and analyze each community-developed indicators in order to
     quantitatively and qualitatively characterize the types of ecological/environmental, economic,
     and socio-cultural indicators being developed at the community level. It is hoped that this
     characterization will serve as a reference for groups interested in learning about community-
     developed indicators as well as enhance the quality of indicators being developed by
     communities. This information also will inform EPA HQ/regional staff, other federal, state, and
     local governments, and other interested groups (e.g., NGOs) about the number and range of
     community-based indicators efforts.

                                         Products
     1) Introductory Indicators Brochure: written for an average citizen who may be unfamiliar
     with indicators but is interested in learning about them and how they can measure
     environmental/ecological, socio-cultural, and economic conditions of her/his "community".
     Although the brochure is still in draft form, it's been distributed widely to federal agencies (e.g.,
     US Dept. of Interior; HUD; USDA; US Dept. of Commerce; US Dept. of Energy), states (e.g.,
     California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Texas), non-governmental groups (e.g., The
     Nature Conservancy, CONCERN, Redefining Progress), businesses, and communities (e.g., St.
     Louis; Northampton County, VA;  Jackson, WY).  Draft version is currently available.

-------
2} A Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators: Maureen Hart wrote the "Guide" as a "how
to" manual for citizens interested in assessing the environmental/ecological, socio-cultural, and
economic conditions of their community with indicators. The "Guide" describes the process of
developing, evaluating, and using indicators at the community-level in a step-by-step approach.
OSEC will distribute copies of the "Guide" to all EPA Reg: >ns, interested Program Offices,
other federal agencies, state, tribal,1 and local governments, NGOs, private businesses, and
citizens upon request.  OSEC also  is supporting a revision to the "Guide". The current version
of the "Guide" will be distributed in Autumn 1996.

3) Searchable Electronic Database: developed for local governments, NGOs, and citizens who
are developing environmental/ecological, socio-cultural, and economic indicators at the
community level.  We anticipate that "browsers" of the OSEC homepage (especially community-
level browsers) will refer to the database when they're developing measures for their own
communities, regions, or assisting others developing indicators. The database should be
available on the World Wide Web by Winter 1996/97.

4) Introductory Bibliography of Community-level Indicators: written for an average citizen
or group developing community-level indicators. The bibliography will contain an annotated
collection of handbooks, workbooks, reports, electronic media (e.g., CD-ROMs), studies,
brochures, and journal articles on community-developed indicators. It should be available by
Autumn 1996.

5) Half-Day or One-Day Train the Trainer Session on Community-level Indicators:
developed for a general audience (e.g., average citizen) interested in selecting, developing, and
using indicators to assess the environmental, ecological, economic, and socio-cultural conditions
of their community. A preliminary training course should be complete by Winter 1996/97.
For further information, please contact:
John Moses, OSEC Goals & Indicators Team Leader (202) 260-6380; FAX (202) 260-7875
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2134,401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460

-------
(0
o
(0
o
      CO
0
E
             CO
 o
 o
00

Jfl

CO
o

O

O)
c

"co


 I

CO
             CO
             0)
LU
             O)
             c

             '5)
             CO
             c
             CO
                                         CO
  I

il
A 5
*S |
* ,«


                                 o
                                   o
                                   &
                                         E
                                         a.
                                         o
                                         CO

-------

13
21
o"
SL
perspective)
OPPE/OfficeofSusI
0)
3"
cr
/n
w
rn
<
CO
r-f"
CD
rn
» & Commu
D
C*
3
V*



B
DO
2.
0"
c
nderstanding c
^•••^
•^•^^^
0
CO
0
0
5T
^
B
3
0
5T
o
Co
H
CQ'
0
o
juality indicatoi
CO










o
O
3
•^
3
c
^
lity indicators (
o

cT
^ —
o
co"
^
o
CO
o
3
B
OJ
o
4fe Ik
0)
0.
CD
dissemination
g^
5"
^
3
o"
D
O
^
C/)
c
5T
Q)
or
CD
^
^^^
Q£
w'
3
eeded?











O 9>
o 3
o- Q.
8 §
S S.
etal conditions
>k, ME; Jackso
<^j
— . — H
CD" ^
" CD
Tl =^"
™ • *
17 o
» s
al
w§
Q«J
—
s CD'
®£
W®
500
> -


0"
0
CD
D"
13
«HlBF
5"
CO
«— H
o
Q)
CO
CO
0
CO
CO
0
<
S

0
3^
j—
0
O
3
i
P

.
c/>
3
=
Q)
Q.
5T
CQ
0
O
O
3
I
0'
CO
Q)
o
s
CO
CO
3
0
o'
Q)
Q)
CD

g
I
w'
o
ccurring?














CD
D)
O
CO
MBHMI
O
C
3
Q.






f
o
o
3
3
c
i
CD
0*

^"
Q.
o"
0^_
Q
CO
i
•
I

-------
to
 CO
 o

 '•5

  E
  o
 O
  co

 b
 IU
 o
    0)



o»
o>
0
«
*-
Vw
^

§
0>
.c

'3
QQ
^
O
CO
Q.
8
h/Training/i
o
CO
CD
"5
O
.0
^^
*^*

CL
_0
*1
on community
information
"co
c
"E
0
tO
to

TJ

•
indicators
rr^
e to improve
k O
1 of developing
ice & assistan
N«/
CD
to
JO
L_
o
It
0
CO
2
"CD
^




L-
CD
-D
"D
0)
"CD
o
o
3
0
^^
o
^^
CL

•
CO
L.
^
"CD
o
ID
_c
?
_0
1
community
o
"(0
C7
0
^™
i*j


1
0
0
(/)
0
^^^^Jt
1^1^^^
O
0
D)
C
CO
•D
C
CO
CO
E
0
0
.N
"&
CO
CO
^^M
O

•
slivered?
0
developed/d
0
.a
to
"5
3
•o
g
Q.
o
^h
^


I
al agencies,
l^
0
co"
C
_o
0
LU
r>
MflH
CO
0
CO
^* ^v
CL
^H
•?

•


to
O
O
Z
•o
c
CO
(/)"
governmen
•^^^
ID
o
_o
co"
Is

to


*A
^
able Ecosystems & Communiti
OPPE/Office of Sustain








-------
o
TJ
TJ
m
8

9,

CO

CO

§f.

0)
CD

m
CO


O
o


I
CD
CO
s  Q)
   CD
i. 0
  o
  o


  CO
  0
      o" 0
      0 Q)
        CO
   =:.  Q)
   Q.  C
   Q)  CO A.
      ^^  .^i^

      5T 9
        CO
  Q)
O 2

1  &
=  o
3  Q.
      0

      0
      I^^H
      O
      to

      3
      0
               Q.
               0
      5' O
      Q. O
      o  3
      ££ -g

      O  g

         o'
        ^^ •*

        CO
      — Q)

      !"*
      Q}
g  CO

<•>  g

8  8
   D
   Q)
                   0
hat are
vaae
           0
         .  TJ

        a §
        q- Q.

        ^a
        s  ?
        O  CO
                      <
                      o
                      0
                           m
 0
CQ

 O"

 eo


 I

 D

 TJ

 3
CQ

 3

 3
 CO
0
Q.

0

Q)
••••

Q)
CQ

0
D
O

0'
CL

O.


N'
0
                              0)
                  8°
                  3 w
                  3 g:

                  § 0
                              0
                              CO
3" 0

c?o

»5>
Q}
      .? 0
                                  O
                                  0)

-------
                 Community-Based
                 Environmental  Protection
USING INDICATORS TO ASSESS LOCAL
& SOCIO-CULTURAL CONDITIONS
                             IOI
                 ECONOMIC,
      INTRODUCTION
      Every community is a complex system, consist!
interrelated components - environmental, socio-cult
states, private citizens, and federal agencies are beg
indicators called "indices") as an inexpensive and
ecosystem is doing (i.e., getting better, getting we
                                ferent, equally cB^^T, yet
                                         Many communities,
                                       tors" (or sets of
                           ray to^^^BlQOW a community's
      What are indicators?
      "Indicators" are simply pieces of
conditions, qualities, interrelationsl
ecosystem; or ii) the movement to]
protecting wildlife or improving^
reflect the tremendous  variety
that indicates often assess^lheBer one
relationshj^Btestat,
              & probl^fcof al
             i or awj^r from a'
            is. TWdefinitic
                   srs
         or measure: i) the
      "complex system, such as an
      goal over time, such as
  purposely very broad in order to
    :, as well as to reflect the fact
another (i.e., a cause and effect
homeowner's
Qualitative
setting 01
       Red" or
      ative indicators
    bspective" -
      /away from
                 i (i.e., expressed numerically), such as a
                  gallons of drinking water used each month.
      ; beorcssed in narrative terms (like the beauty of a natural
             MI of a species, such as the USFWS classifications for
         cies), but they may be more difficult to interpret than
          to measuring current conditions, indicators can be
   ; the past conditions of a system or historic movements
 sired goal.  They also can be "predictive" - describing the future
problems of a system, or the future movement towards or away from a
i).
              physical examination is an excellent example of the use and importance of
indicators.  During an examination, a doctor typically measures a patient's heartbeat, pulse,
and temperature - all familiar indicators of the condition of human beings - to quickly and
relatively cheaply evaluate a patient's health/ If a doctor believes it is warranted, she can
employ additional "indicators" to screen one's health (e.g., x-rays, throat culture).

-------
       Why use indicators?
       Complex systems, like the human body or an ecosystem, are very difficult to evaluate
as a whole.  Developing a mathematical or conceptual model that adequately characterizes the
condition of a complex system can be very expensive and time-consuming. Therefore,
scientists, policy makers, and private citizens use indicators as a relatively quick, easy, and
inexpensive way to gather information about the condition of a complex system.  The
Jacksonville, Florida Community Council described indicators as "a way of see^^the big
picture by looking at a smaller piece of it" (MacLaren).
       SELECTING INDICATORS
       Developing a set of indicators can be quite
monitoring the condition of your community's ecosy
as the effectiveness your efforts.  There are four basi
ecosystem management indicators.  First, define the i
indicators will measure. Second, identify the audi
each proposed indicator to select die best ones for y
appropriate data sources for your indicators

       These steps are not a strict recipe
help you select appropriate indicators for
step one (refining your topics and
(identifying the  audience for your ii
(evaluating your indicators), you:
indicators.
       Invi
school
reflect your
process
                      system, o
                           s.  Third, evaluate
                        fourth, identify
                             merely a guide to
                            you may begin with
                        proceed to step two
                     (ginning step three
                 one to generate additional
       crucial to involve a broad group of
, environmentalists, business people, teachers or
and clergy) throughout this process to accurately
.  Working with community members early in the
for your ecosystem management project, it
                                 relevant indicators.
       STEP 1 - DEFVE WHAT YOU WILL ASSESS
       The first stepJVselecting indicators generally is highly iterative - involving writing,
          and ii  •MiML draft alter draft. Your goal is to identify a topic(s) (e.g., system or
                    to assess, and to identify a large list of potential indicators) that
                     movement towards it.

       Purpose of Your Indicators          v
       After you have refined the topic(s) you wish to investigate, you need to clarify how
each indicator will be used. Indicators can serve a variety of purposes, ranging from
summarising the condition of a complex system, assessing progress towards your goals, or

-------
 investigating a cause and effect relationship. Think about the primary purpose each indicator
 will serve.
       To help you clarify the purpose of your indicators, consider the following questions:

       Would you like to characterize the condition of the "big picture", or do you want to
       measure progress towards/away from a goal(s)?
       Would you like to measure a cause and effect relatic

       Would you like to investigate the past, present,

       What eiement(s) best characterize the "big pic

       What elements best show movement towards/av
                      lict thcu
                           :ified goal(s)
       STEP 2 - IDENTIFY YOUR AUDffiNC
       Once you have refined the topic(s)
list of potential indicators, you need to k
indicators. Different indicators are
                                   generated a broad
                                audience of your
       Scientists and technical
not easily understood by a non-s
like to use a smaller group of ii
general public generally is j
and reres^Hte issues.
       To1
your indicate)?
purpose of yc
that each
presenvon formats
   for insjffce,  reH^s of detailed indicators that are
                   s.g., elected officials), in contrast,
                    to policy objectives or targets. The
               Ucators, which are easy to understand
              cLaren).

 ^scientists, policy makers, or the general public will use
       Indicator Preference Chart.  Think about the
   them, and how they will be presented.  Keep in mind
: type and quantity of indicators, and different
Fqflstance, if your inAators are intended for policy makers to measure progress towards
     [you will need a^pof indicators whose characteristics are in the middle of the figure.

                   AUDIENCE INDICATOR PREFERENCE CHART
                                 Policy Makers                    General Public
                1, "raw data" < -less detailed, technical, raw- >   easy to understand
comparable to other places   < -either local or comparable- >  relevant to local concerns
many indicators             <	moderate amount	>  fewer indicators
<	reflect policy goals, targets^ or evaluation criteria	>

-------
       STEP 3 • EVALUATE YOUR INDICATORS
       After you have generated a large number of potential indicators, you need to analyze
the qualities of the indicators themselves.  Are the indicators accurate enough to measure what
you intended?   Are they cost-effective and reliable? The key is to evaluate each potential
indicator according to factors which ensure that they are scientifically valid and tailored to
your community's  needs.  Also, don't hesitate introducing new indicators during the
evaluation phase if it becomes apparent that important issues are not being adeojpfely
assessed.

       The Alberta Round Table on the Environment
following seven criteria to reduce an initial list of 850
59 (MacLaren). You may find these criteria helpful wiBL e
CRITERIA
Reflects stakeholder's concerns
Measurable
Understandable
          DEFINITION
          An indicator whicti!
          .. .measures an is
          to the lives of its'
Responsive
is important or relevant
                                              in a scientifically
                                      a format that is
                                    differences with an
                          of resolution

          t.can be compared to existing and past measures of
                   to define trends and variation

           Tis relatively easy to gather and interpret; generally at
         modest cost

         .. .measures movement towards or away from a specified
         target or goal (also known as a benchmark or threshold).

>r criteria which you may find useful include:
'Geographic/Temporal Scale


-Timely/ Anticipatory
         DEFINITION
         An indicator which...
         ...measures an appropriate geographic area and/or an
         appropriate interval of time (e.g., one, two, five years)

         .. .provides early warning of changes

-------
-Results-oriented
...focuses on measuring achievements (e.g., percentage of
adults who are literate) instead of efforts or expenditures
(e.g., money spent on a literacy education). Results-
based indicators can help you discern what works so you
can adjust your efforts accordingly.
-Long-range reliability


-Flexibility
.. .are reliable for up to two decades or mqj
typical time frame for strategic p\

...are flexible enou;
information and c
                                                                                  is a
       STEP 4 - IDENTIFY INFORMATION SO
       Your last step in selecting indicators involves i
sources, which will provide the data for the indicators
sources are virtually limitless, many communities,
local government agencies have developed materials
to measure.
                                 reliabl
                          appropriate intoiveron
                             Even though indicator data
                              jind federal, state, and
                                 jfine what you want
                                 , as official records
                             sioned research (i.e.,
                             . and commissioned
                         newly gathered or originally
                                                  1 may not currently exist, such as the
                                                 on preserving nearby wildlife habitats.
                                      citizens and school children who participate in
                                       community surveys, thereby increasing community
       Your objective is to identify
(e.g., local, county, state, or federal
from universities, or non-profit
research are cheaper and easier to
generated information.

       Ho
quality
Suchi
streambank
participation in
                                  only as a "starting point", which you should tailor to
                            licators and dropping irrelevant ones.
                                                            Source of Information
       Resource
       founds ofjflKl waste land filled per capita per year      Waste/Public Works Dept
                 5le Electricity Consumed per capita per year  Local Power Company
                 Air Quality Index (AQI) in the good range    Local/State Enviro Agency
       forest Index - acreage, health, rate of harvest/land-loss
       Acres of land available for agriculture
                          State/US Forest Service
                          Local/State Natural Resource
                          Conservation Service Office
Natural Environment
*      Percentage of samples of rivers, lakes, and
       streams that meet EPA water quality standards
                          State Enviro. Dept/US

-------
*      Wetlands Index - acreage, health, rate of land-loss

*      Biodiversity - Ratio of healthy populations of native fish/
       wildlife/plants vs. those species classified as endangered
*      Acres of sensitive habitats protected by priv./pub groups

Economic
*      Distribution of affordable housing throughout community
*      Sales of locally produced food/prodcts at farmers
*      Land Use- % development occurring in local
*      Ratio of public expenditures/revenues for devel
       (eg, houses) vs. undeveloped land (e.g.,

Socio-Cultural
*      Percentage of students receiving environmental
*      Percent of Population 18 or older voting in i
*      Total Population with annual population grot

References:
1) "Monitoring Sustainability in Your
Singer, The Izaak Walton League of
                                                             Local/State Natural Resource
                                                             Conservation Service Office
                                                             US Fish & Wildlife Service

                                                             Local/State Parks or Enviro.
                                                             Agency; Private Land Trusts
                                                                            ing Agency
                                                                           of Commrce
                                                                  State School Board
                                                                  State Elections Board
                                                                       Bureau
                                                                    lomeo, and Michael
                                                                  , 20 pages.
This brief, easy-to-use handbook
nation, to assess a community's
condition of local ecosyi
selection

Tooi
The
Izaak Walton
707 O
                                                         tiled from efforts used across the
                                                        of natural resources, and the
                                                          , including reasons for
                                    email message to: general@iwla.org; or write:
                                        Cost: $2.00 (includes postage)
                             unity Indicators', Maureen Han, QLF/Atlantic Center for the
                           May 1995, 86 pages.

                          is an excellent guide for those interested hi assessing the
                        and socio-economic quality of one's community. The guidebook
                    of developing, evaluating, and using indicators at the community level in
a step=Dystep approach.  Besides its clear, in-depth, and thorough presentation, this guidebook
contains a superb set of sample indicators, evaluated by the author, as well as a list of other
community sustainability  projects, potential'data sources, and references.

-------
To order, call: (508)356-0038; or send an email to: ATLANTICTR@igc.apc.org; or write:
QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment
55 Main Street
Ipswich, MA 01938                     Cost: $12.50 (includes postage)

3) Developing Indicators of Urban Sustainabilitv. Virginia MacLaren, Intergovernmental
Committee in Urban and Regional Research (ICURR), Toronto, May 1995, 13J  ^

This well written report is a one of the most comprehensivi
characteristics, frameworks (including State-of-the-Envi
City reporting), and selection criteria published today. ME well ill
community-indicators used throughout the U.S. and C
To order, call: (416)973-1376, FAX: (416)973-1375;
Intergovernmental Committee in Urban and Regional
150 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 301
Toronto, ON M4P 1E8 Canada          Cost: $3l?75
4) State Environmental Goals and Indicator
agreement with US EPA, Washington,
                                                                 »x. $25.00 US)
                                                                rsity, in cooperative
                                                              be used in agreements
                                                     It is written for a technical
                                                     data sources) that could be useful
                                                 and environmental conditions.

                                                     il.epa.gov@IN; or write:
This report describes prospective envy
that US EPA negotiates with state^
audience, but it contains a large^HCer of j
for communities interested in avBsing k

Too
Otto GUI
U.S.
401 M Street,
W;
                             Srs and Data and Filling Information Gaps - Final Report",
                             EPA, Washington, DC, July 1994,19 pages.

        )rt presentsj^rocess for selecting indicators and data sets to measure the current
        atterns, ojKnds of environmental quality.  It is written for technical managers within
                 snsible for specifying and quantifying such indicators.

To ordef! call: (202)260-6380; email: moses.john@epamail.epa.gov<@IN; or write:
John Moses                           .                  •
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/2182^
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

-------

-------
                   Sustainable Development Indicators and Indicator Bulletins

 I. Sustainable Development Indicators:  EPA is an active participant in the Interagency Working
 Group on Sustainable Development Indicators under the WH Council on Environmental Quality. The
 group is working with the President's Council on Sustainable Development to develop a candidate set of
 indicators to report on progress in achieving sustainable development in the U.S., including measures
 for the environment, the economy and social equity.  This work also involves developing a framework
 for reporting on sustainable development in the U.S. by expanding upon the pressure-state-response
 framework, used in environmental reporting, to include features such as endowments, e.g., financial and
 social capital. Information and draft products from this effort are being distributed to the EPA Data QAT
 for comment and will also be made available to the points of contact for sustainable development in
 each AA'ship and Region. A subgroup of this working group is helping support communities in their
 development of measures of sustainable development. Contacts: National Indicators: Tim Stuart, PK.
 260-0725 or Ron Shafer, Ph. 260-6966, Community Indicators; John Moses, Ph. 260-6380.

 2. EPA Indicator Bulletin Series: In order to increase the availability of environmental information to
 the public, the media, and decision makers, EPA is developing a series of bulletins to report in a timely
 and regular manner on national environmental issues. We also expect that the bulletins will be useful
 building blocks in developing larger reports on the state of the environment.  The first bulletin is on the
 Protection of the Ozone Layer and tracks U.S. progress in reducing the production of ozone-depleting
 chemicals. Other bulletins are presently being developed on  air quality, drinking water quality, climate
 change and wetlands.  The bulletins are prepared by working with other EPA offices using a
 collaborative consensus approach. Indicators  for the bulletins are selected using documented selection
 criteria. Draft bulletins are reviewed prior to publication by the EPA Data QAT and the Interagency
i Committee on Environmental Trends. For additional information or to discuss developing  one or more
 indicator bulletins for your program area, please contact Tim Stuart, Ph. 260-0725 or Susan Auby,  Ph.
 260-4901.

 3. Federal Environmental Indicator Bulletin Series: The WH Council on Environmental Quality,
 working through the Interagency Committee on Environmental Trends, is planning to develop a series of
 environmental indicator bulletins on major environmental topics of international or national importance
 where more than one agency has major program responsibility (topics where one agency has exclusive
 major responsibility may also be included if so desired by the agency and the ICET). As with the EPA
 series, the intent is to increase the availability of environmental information to the public, the  media,
 and decision makers. The new series is expected to improve environmental trends reporting, enhance
 integration of environmental information housed in different agencies, enhance the integration of
 socioeconomic data with environmental data, and develop better indicators to support integrated state of
 the environmental analysis and interpretation. The federal series is expected to provide agencies with the
 opportunity to increase their constituency, and promote a broader demand for and understanding of their
 specific agency's work. Having a regular series is also expected to build media interest over time and
 may have more credibility to the media and public than single-agency publications. In addition, the
 interagency preparation of bulletins is expected to leverage limited resources, increase the usefulness of
 information, stimulate new insights on data analysis by providing for interagency data analyses and
 technique development, and lead to more consistent reporting using commonly defined terms. The
 completed indicatorbulletins are also expected to serve as building blocks for developing a tnie state of
 the environment report for the U.S. For more information, contact: Tim Stuart, Ph. 260-0725 or Susan
 Auby, Ph. 260-4901.  •

-------

-------
                                      AGENDA
 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ACQUISITION PLAN - BREAKOUT SESSION
OBJECTIVES:
To  gather  regional  input on identified  information  acquisition  and
improvement plans for national  level indicators; to identify data  and
information gaps in regional  indicator programs and to  identify steps to
address those.
1:00-1:15
1:15-2:00
Introductions and Overview of EIAP

Introductions of break-out session participants

Brief Overview of EIAP Findings and Recommendations Related to National
Indicators

Discussion of Regional Environmental Indicator Needs

What is the current status of indicator reporting in the region? How are the
indicators used by the regions?

How are the regions coordinating efforts with Headquarters and the states on
a range of projects including Goals, GPRA, and NEPPS/

What are the biggest gaps in the suite of indicators currently collected and
reported on by the regions?

For which programs/activities do the regions need to develop reliable
indicators?   What prevents the regions from currently reporting on the
indicator? Data availability? Data Reliability?

How can the regions best meet local data and information needs? What is the
appropriate role  for the regions  to play in facilitating the transfer of
information to states and to local communities?
2:00-2:45
Discussion of Regional Data Needs for Existing Regional Indicators

Looking at the indicators that the regions currently collect and report on; how
good are the data currently being used? Are data collected consistently
across the states in a region?

What are the biggest data gaps facing the regions in developing appropriate
environmental indicators?

-------
2:45-3:00

3:00 - 4:00
Break

Review of Findings/Recommendations Regarding National Indicators

How well do the recommendations and findings relate to information and
data needs identified at the regions?

What changes  would the regions  recommend  to the findings and
recommendations?

What new findings or recommendations can the regions  suggest  for
information acquisition and improvement activities to respond more directly
to their indicator needs?                                      .

What can EPA HQ do to increase the regions' access to information they
consider important, whether EPA data or not? Hardware support? Training?
Hotlines?

Identification of key issues raised in break-out session

Development of presentation for Thursday's plenary session

-------
 lf
          if '—' *" s.
          2 2 .S J
          «»H « cd ™

          °Q « fe
          M 4> Q W
          C -=l   «,


                a
SJ»

II
rview
a.I
c c
      |




      i
      u
      •K
          1

    g
£ «
? '55
<*H C
      <*H

      O
^6?|
  w 6 S

  !<53
ter Measures
                              i

-------

-------
           THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ACQUISITION PLAN
                             DRAFT INTERIM REPORT
                       THE GOALS REPORT AND THE EIAP

BACKGROUND

   As part  of its effort to reinvent  the government's role in environmental protection, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  needs to improve its data collection and reporting
systems. This point has been raised in numerous EPA reports and in the Vice-President's report on
re-inventing government. In order to evaluate  information needs  and  establish priorities for
improving systems or acquiring new data, the EPA has initiated development of an Environmental
Information Acquisition Plan (EIAP). The EIAP will provide EPA with a new way to look at
environmental information, working with program offices, the regions, states and local communities
to identify ways to provide useful and accurate information on the state of the environment and EPA
efforts to improve it.

    The EIAP will focus first on ways to improve the information used as environmental indicators.
Obviously, agency information needs go well beyond environmental indicators, but focusing on
these measures is appropriate for the  first phase of the EIAP.  These measures provide useful
information  to policymakers within the Agency,,.to members of the regulated community, and to
members of the general public.

   Currently, program offices at EPA must develop environmental indicator information to meet
the requirements of several new initiatives, including the National Environmental Goals Project and
the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).  In addition, indicator information that can
be used to track environmental program effectiveness and trends or changes in the state of the
environment is important to EPA regions, the states and local communities.

   The EIAP team is analyzing the indicator information needs of national, regional, state and local
governments (identified as four "tracks" of investigation). The following report presents the results
of our analysis of data needs related to the National Goals Report.  As detailed below, we have
identified a number of instances where the Agency will need better data to fulfill commitments
included in Goals  Report. Among the report's findings are the following:

•  insufficient data exist to allow national reporting on risk reduction at NPL sites;
•  there is an over reliance on TRI for reporting national trends in toxics;
•  data needs to be unproved to allow national tracking on water quality; and
•  there is insufficient data on air pollutant loadings, especially on air toxics.

   The following sections of this report discuss how we arrived at these conclusions, as well as
proposed next steps to help address the issues raised.
Draft: May 10, 1996

-------
THE EIAP AND THE NATIONAL GOALS REPORT

    This brief report presents the results of the work done by the EIAP on the first of the four tracks
identified above, to identify national level information needs  associated with the National
Environmental Goals Report (the Goals Report).  The Goals Report represents an Agency-wide
commitment to collect and report up to 64 milestones that will track progress made by EPA and
other government agencies in reaching a series of long-term goals. The Goals Report will serve as
a communications tool with EPA customers, including other federal agencies, Congress, the
regulated community and the general public.

    In September 1995, the EIAP team conducted a workshop during which representatives from
EPA's program offices reviewed the proposed milestones and discussed data needs to support them.
The EIAP  team prepared a  summary workshop  report  highlighting  questions  about the
appropriateness and quality of some of the data proposed to report on the milestones. Members of
the Goals Project used this summary, as well as other information, in reviewing and revising the
milestones that were included in the most recent version of the Goals Report, currently out for
government review.

    While many of the issues raised at the workshop were addressed, questions still remain about the
data underlying some of the proposed milestones. In order to clarify some of these remaining
questions, the EIAP team prepared and delivered a questionnaire to the Goals Team seeking more
specific information concerning these milestones.  The questionnaire asked respondents to provide
additional details on the specific data source underlying each milestone and the challenges that exist
to reporting on the milestone, now and in the year 2005.

    Using information from the questionnaire, results from the September workshop, the Goals
Report and other sources, the EIAP team assembled the attached Figure 1 which identifies each
milestone, the  data source(s) used to track it, the EPA contact person responsible for reporting on
the milestone and a section entitled "About the Data".  This last section includes a discussion of the
availability of  data to report on the milestone, limitations of the data, and some suggestions from
ways to improve the milestone.

    Figure 1 also includes a column identifying each milestone as a pressure,  a state, or a response
measure.  Pressures on the environment relate to human-induced stressors, such as discharges and
emissions of contaminants. These pressures in turn cause changes in the state of the environment,
indicated by such metrics as ambient concentrations of contaminants or biological diversity. Finally,
information about pressures and states lead to societal responses to reduce or mitigate adverse
environmental  impacts. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of pressure, state and response measures
among the milestones.  In that figure, the PSR framework includes the following sub-categories for
the state measures:

       State
              Chemical State (level of specific chemicals in the environment);
              Physical State (e.g., water temperature or sea level);

Draft: May 10, 1996

-------
              Biological State (including ecological states, such as the condition of
              habitats or individual species, and  human health states, such as
              exposure to toxic substances or direct health impacts);
              The State of Human Welfare (e.g., loss of recreational opportunities)

    A conceptual framework such as the P-S-R allows a broad look across the spectrum of
milestones provided in the Goals Report and helps identify gaps in the type of information provided
in the report.  Fully one third of the milestones are response measures.  While these do  provide
useful information, EPA generally considers the pressure and state measures to be increasingly more
meaningful indicators of environmental quality. For example, there are no pressure milestones for
the Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces or the Restoration of Contaminated Sites Goals, while
there are a large number of response measures. Accordingly, the Agency might choose to encourage
the collection of information that would track progress in improving the state of the environment,
and not simply outputs such as the number of sites remediated.

    The matrix illustrated in Figure 3 provides another way of arraying the milestones to help
identify gaps in the type of environmental information they convey.  Using a model developed by
the World Bank, this figure lists the milestones, organized by P-S-R classification, against a series
of important environmental issues. This figure highlights the absence of measures tracking changes
in the state of the nation's natural resources and the plants and animals living within the different
systems.  To improve its ability to monitor these changes, as reflected in some of the Healthy
Terrestrial Ecosystem milestones, EPA will have to work closely  with its sister Agencies   to
supplement their data collection.  In addition, the matrix highlights  the absence of waste-related
measures that report on the state of the environment.

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

    Based largely on the key points raised about the individual milestones and summarized in Figure
1, the EIAP team has  identified a preliminary set of information improvement activities that will
address some of the gaps and problems identified about the milestones. The EIAP is not designed
to review and evaluate each database or data source used by individual program offices in designing
milestones for the Goals Report. More details on the milestones and some of the issues raised about
them are included in Figure 1.  Rather, the focus of the EIAP is on those data improvement measures
that can address problems and issues that go beyond individual milestones and respond to broader
Agency concerns. A preliminary list of findings reached concerning the information available about
the milestones and gaps that remain in the story that the Agency wants to tell about environmental
progress are noted below.

    The next step in developing the EIAP will be to work more closely with technical data experts
to refine cost and time estimates associated with these activities. As noted above, the  EIAP team
is also working to identify  data improvement and acquisition needs for  environmental indicator
information at  the regional, state, and local community levels. We will also develop time and
resource estimates for these activities and attempt to develop a set of recommendations for projects
to be included in the EIAP.
Draft: May 10, 1996

-------
•   Incomplete Data for Many of the Agency's Tracking Systems. In reviewing the information
    available on the various milestones, it  became clear that the Agency needs to improve its
    system for collecting and reviewing information that we have about the data, its availability,
    reliability, and limitations about its collection and use. This is also referred to as metadata and
    improving it will help data analysis efforts at the national, regional, state, and community levels.
    There are a number of proposals, including one from the GIS workgroup and from OIRM that
    the EIAP will review.

•   Intensive inter-agency efforts needed to report on Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems,  The
    Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystem Goal contains three milestones; all of which rely on the use of
    data collected by Agencies outside of the EPA. As noted on Figure 1, it is difficult to use the
    available data to accurately report on milestones 2 and 3, and milestone 1 could be improved
    if the data allowing an assessment of ecosystem health and function could be collected.  As part
    of the EIAP, EPA could provide funds to the National  Biological Survey  to support its data
    collection efforts, especially with regard to ecosystem health and function addition, the GIS
    workgroup has proposed a series of activities including providing financial support ($500,000)
    to the Interagency Agreement between EMAP and the Department of the Interior to enhance
    National Wetlands Inventory data. In addition the group has proposed working with the Nature
    Conservancy on habitat protection activities ($250,000) and working in conjunction with the
    USGS to complete development of Reach File 3, providing improved georeferencing data for
    identifying waterbodies.

Toxic/Waste Measures

*   Lack of National Reporting of Risk Reduction at Waste Sites.  This is an information issue
    that needs analysis to determine the means of reporting.  For the Safe Waste and Restoration
    of Contaminated Sites goals, there are no "state" measures, addressing the issue of primary
    concern to the public; the exposure and resultant risk faced by humans and the environment.
    The Contaminated Sites milestones are all response measures; tracking the actions taken at
    various sites but not the results of these actions. While it may be difficult to aggregate and
    report on this "state of the environment" at the current time, the data do exist and the EIAP
    should work with and support OSWER efforts  to facilitate their collection and inclusion as an
    indicator.

    Similarly, the Safe Waste Management milestone 3 tracks the number  of confirmed releases
    from underground storage tanks but does not include measures to monitor progress in protecting
    human health and the environment.

•   No Consistent and Reliable Data Regarding the Nature and Cause  of Pesticide Hazard.
    The EIAP will also consider supporting efforts by the Office of Pesticide Program (OPP) to
    track the exposure of workers to hazardous levels of pesticides (Safe  Homes,  Schools, and
    Workplaces Milestone 4). At the present time, consistent reliable data on the nature and cause
    of poisonings is difficult to obtain. OPP is in the process of designing a national-level database

Draft: May 10, 1996

-------
    but it will require a significant commitment of resources.

    Over Reliance on the TRI Database  for  Reporting National Trends.  A number of
    milestones, including Toxic Free Communities milestones 1 and 5, and Clean Water milestone
    7, rely on the TRI database for information on chemical releases. In fact, the TRI database is
    the primary source of toxic emissions data used by the Agency. However, since the data are
    self-reported and only selected industrial categories are required to report, several participants
    at our workshop questioned whether the TRI database was appropriate for national indicator
    reporting. It seems clear that the Agency has made a commitment to the continued use of this
    database and an effective use of the EIAP might be to support efforts to modify the TRI, or a
    subset of it, to make it more appropriate as a status and trends database.
Water Measures

•   Inability to Produce Progress Report on National Water Quality. Several of the milestones,
    including milestones 2, 3, and 4 under the Clean Water Goal and milestone 3 under the Safe
    Drinking Water Goal rely on information provided by the states as part of their 305(b) water
    quality reports. There are, however, a number of well-documented problems associated with
    using this 305(b) data as status and trends indicators. Problems exist regarding consistency,
    within and between states, in the criteria used^to evaluate waterbodies, the number and selection
    of waterbodies that are assessed within each two-year cycle, and the information available to
    specify the geographic location of the various assessment sites. Improving this information
    would provide very valuable state of the environment data that would likely be useful at the
    national, regional, state, and local level. The Office of Water is working closely with the states
    to modify the 305(b) reporting process to respond to these concerns and the EIAP will consider
    providing support for this effort

•   Inconsistent and Incomplete Water Loadings Data for National Reporting. The Permit
    Compliance System (PCS) database is one of the main data sources for the only Clean Water
    milestone (7) that reports on pressures to the environment. However, the PCS data suffers from
    lack of quality control and it is difficult to use the database to estimate loadings of specific
    pollutants from point sources. The Office of Water has proposed  improving the database by
    modifying the guidance provided to states to ensure that they collect and report data necessary
    for estimating pollutant loads. Moreover, the Office of Water proposes to improve the software
    package available to states to assess water quality. These improvements would help both the
    Office of Water and the Office of Enforcement by providing more reliable pollutant loading
    calculations. Moreover, many local communities are interested in obtaining better information
    about the impacts  of regulated point sources on local waterbodies and these groups would
    benefit as well from improvements to the PCS. In addition, the EIAP will review with the
    Office of Water the possibility of gathering indicator information on non-chemical loadings to
    the nation's waterbodies, due to agricultural or other habitat modification actions.
Draft: May 10, 1996

-------
Air Measures

*   Lack of Complete Information for A National Assessment of Indoor Air Quality.  With
    regard to the Safe Homes, Schools, and Workplaces Goal, there are no pressure milestones and
    no measures reporting on the chemical state of the indoor environment. In an attempt to address
    this deficiency and to provide a thorough baseline of information on indoor air quality, the
    Indoor Air office  has begun development of a database on the status of the indoor air
    environment  for randomly selected sites.  A preliminary estimates that the office needs
    approximately $1 million per year to develop and maintain the database.

•   Incomplete Data on Pollutant Loadings and Especially on Air Toxics. The Office of Air
    and Radiation currently collects emissions data for six criteria pollutants from a number of point
    sources nationwide (see Clean Air milestone 1).  As currently  collected  this information
    provides good status and trends data.

    Neither EPA nor the states routinely collect data on emissions or the ambient conditions of
    hazardous air pollutants. The Clean Air milestone relating to air toxics (no. 4) tracks whether
    facilities have installed appropriate pollution control systems however there  is no monitoring
    in place to track changes in ambient conditions or the specific impacts of emissions from mobile
    sources.

NEXT STEPS

    The EIAP team is currently engaged in activities to  identify indicator data needs for regional,
state, and community organizations to augment the findings noted in this report. To gather this
information, the EIAP team is conducting literature reviews, interviewing key personnel in and out
of government and, when appropriate, conducting meetings and workshops to give individuals the
opportunity  to share ideas with the EIAP team.   After  completing  each of these preliminary
analyses, the EIAP team will conduct a workshop designed to look across all the measures identified
by  each of the four  tracks.  The workshop participants  will set criteria for choosing a set of
information acquisition and improvement activities  and  attempt to apply  those criteria to the
activities identified in the four tracks. The EIAP team will then make its recommendations to the
OIRM Steering Committee. That group will decide which, if any, of these priority data acquisition
activities to support with additional targeted resources.

    Since  this report was drafted in May,  the  EIAP team  has developed  a set of
recommendations to respond to several of the findings hi this report. That report is currently
being reviewed at Headquarters.
Draft: May 10, 1996

-------
IB

t5
Q
IS

§
««*
(0
I

3
 SJC  O
— O 1> C*J

ii s^
.5 n o —

I «SS
w u o *-.
i 3 3 &
O a! Cfl «
Z «  SJ.
     ii
^^5  5.?i
1 B£  -8 g|
A '3 O>  ., « fi

?|£  |E
•^ O   O
                             •a
                           o. u
               i
               -il1!!!
               niffll
               "*" ** Q ^  B S,

               li|l|li
               i K •» i ^ ffi S
                 "5
                 I
                i  i

                ifl

                O IM Wl
                E 3 i-
                e  "g .2 «

                              
-------
(0
O
o
V
s
Ml
8
           S..H
           S §
           — eg
            •
           e -a
           8-s
             8-8
              1
                 s
              ,'
              2 if'
               !I
           •s!
           fit
           111
           ili
            J fan 'S

           Sl-S
          £ 13
          23
          a §
          .S2-S
           -
                      ll!
                      .2  . *
                      us g M
                      'I'S 2
                      ? 2 S
                      j S|
                      5* s
                      •= So
                      5 3 7,

                      I 111

                      Ifli
                                  > a
                                  si
                                    ts
                                          .a "§
                                          S 3
                                      3
                              m
                              •s
                                       O.
                                       • 2
                                                                         CM
                                                                         CO
                                          18! 8  I
                                          u u 5 jj  g
                                          .S « it ~  n
                                  s s i -s
                                  O O ta TS
                                  o g-> *
                                .2 - a
                                ill
                                                   ll
                       I
                          Ji rr>

                       &  1?

                       ?S
                       i  s*
                                          •S
                                1*. Ofi
                                o =
                                     £S  "S
          Si
          i •
          •.&.
                                          8'i
                                          c: .2
                                             = •<
                                             a^S
                                             8-30
                                             I
                                   O
                                   <
•S  vj
t  §

•?-||


I|l
il°
l5^
8 B3
S3 S «
                                                              (O
                                                              O

-------
a
•a
                                                                                                                                                     n
                                                                                                                                                      l
                                                                                                                                                     (O
                                                                                                                                                     0)
                                                                                                                                                      A


                                                                                                                                                       I


                                                                                                                                                      t

-------
 a
a

 £
 8
o

                                                                                                                                               S
                                                                                                                                               3
I
                                                                                          2.
                                                                                            ^
                                                                                            S
                             S
                            .a
                         •S

-------
a>

o
                         •5  S
                         < T
II
                                      .2 §  «
                                      U« U CO
                                                                               I
                                                                              a
 •-"  'S
 a  g -a  «

>  S a "2

£  j* »"§
 o  «- S  «
 MI  rt ^ *••
                                                                               0 X
                                                                               Sf
                                                                                  I
                                                                              m
                                                                                                                                                                     in
 eo §
•S  
-------
<0
Q
o
I

                                                                                                                                                         -
                                                                                2
                                                                                  I
                                         -
                                         i
                                         S
I
"8

I
O
                                                                               2
                                                                               r

-------
1
BU
                    vi
                    t~
             U
             •rt

             I
             DD
i-<

"3 i
  00 M


sll
.2 JHI
  o«
                               '5
                               5

                               2
                                   s e -a
                             I Htm
                                 CO
                               1 e .8 1
  3  I
    3 S

    53


* 5
O bfl


il
                                        '> e

                                        J -S
                                        .
                               £ JS »-
                               « 75 o
                      •3 a
                      O- oi

                      of
                              PQ
                                              4- OO

                                              U tM
             u

             1
             SO
                                                        ;.»!


-------
i
0
•a

§
    I
    1
in!!!
     .1
             o •- 5 ^
             hh
          CO
                           III
                         s £s|
                         ~ 005
                                  S
                                  3
                                           •a —
                                               t


                                               g

                                               O

-------
i
Q
O

2
i
o
C3
ABOUT
       a;
       Q
                                                                               I
                                                                               en

                      .
            It  S^

              2

              I
              00
                                                                               (O
            ^  . a   o
            « a &£ s.

-------
«3



Q
1
(9
       li
                     c
                                 I
                                              oc
                                              a

-------
(B
Q

•o

<0
«

S
o
O
.S
                       •= a
                    •s
   .s B •= 1
     #JJ *
     3=o
     •e a*
                       J
                      til
                    ns
                «• i
                "8
                      3 = -2
                      §fcl

                      Idfg
      1

                -i -i
                         OQ
                 .S
                                                  I
                                                  O)
                                                                       to
                                                                       I
                                                                       cc
                                                                       o

-------
(B

S
T3
s
       1
o
O
                        '1
                        •si
                                               Ou 
-------
CT P
PA O
E
o
u
           4i * b 2
           00 c & .a
             Sri ^
             ?l S
i|lc
15J:8

i!"l
•8 | §|

SiH^
O Bu V5
     E.fr
                                                             tt

                                                             o>
                                                             iZ
                                                             A


                                                             I



                                                             t


                                                             g

                                                             Q

-------
o
(0

1

O
      PS

      i
S 1 1
JJ ° §•

2 "8 2 x

•a :«f
*S ID  ^3

I 111

"I aP|
tn •"•• wj •«•;
« 3 .s s



111 |
"
                           on
                           ft
                      ,2


                     £ £ *
   sj-i
                  g'^g
                  I £ | 'i
                  I •= fc | .a


                  *iil|
                  s :s § s a
                        £
|
                                                                         to
                                                                         0>

-------
s
*"*
Q
O
(9
         w
       e

                 ifl >,
                 o

                 ?
                 S 2.
                 ^3 on
                 a-§
            a
            a
            e
            o
            1
                 t*
            S.
•4. JJ UH
5 |<
**J
•« $ S
S 5"*

p
all*
2 ^
            § 3
            i»-
            _. W U WQ ™ ta 1)
            *S« S*g.l
            ^ ,0 « ,-g S * *
            ll^l^l
            o^|l|l§
               8--S5 8-
                       I
                 3 S T U
                 S * •» «
                                                                             ID
                                                                             I
                                                                             01
                                 »   Kg1
                                 g   u
                                                                             
-------
a
a

•a

m
        I
•5
a
a
       t
  «

•Si
- n •>-•
Z ,, a.
•= & a ff  c
  " s § a §•
• » - e I S 'E1
S S o a, — •"
— JJ « >, JS -S
£•5 | &^«
g a 
-------
i
0
-e

a
                                                                                                                                                .5"
                                                                                                                                                u.
                                                                                                                                                <0








                                                                                                                                                 I


                                                                                                                                                t



                                                                                                                                                Q

-------
DATA
at

BL.
CONTACT
EPA
S
i

I
             2 2
               J

       Hlilii
   1

   1!
   I!
       .S
?s

                     •> ^
                     "C (S
              .16
              II
              y.a


              II
               S OB
               2S
                "
                      eo
                    S u J

                       ls
                                                00
                                          
                                                <
                                                O

-------
i
i
              I
2


                                     ."2
                                                     8.
                                        s
                                                                                            0.2
                                                                                                                                                        OJ
£

                                                                                                                 a
                                                                                                                                                        (C
                                                                                                                                                        O)
                                                                                                                 n  8  §15

-------
 a .5 c
                                
-------
 o
 1


1
 *
»
«
o
O
       Q
        I
       at


       i
DATA SOURCE
o

S


            — -~
            II
            z

             s   -
                      if
                                                                             O)

                                                                             !E
         21
         Q. W

         S •g u
         2 £ •-
                     | a1
                      L. S
              II1
            1-3 5.11

            «n 1 S.^ a



            ** I -s "i J
                                                                              (0



                                                                              ^

                                                                              a

                                                                               I


                                                                              t



                                                                              Q

-------
(0

Q

•a





M
9
i
1
                     » £
                     I
                           o
                                                           2
                                                           er\
                                                                1
                                                              oo


                                                              ?
                                                              tn
                                                                                                                 N

                                                                                                                 C4
                                                                                    i
                                                                                 VI
                                                                                                                  t


                                                                                                                  2

                                                                                                                  a

-------
m

I
       OS


       Bk.
»s   _!«
** •"•   => o fi
     81-S
                 a

                 P"
            n
            eg — s»
            b A] U



            HI
            Jj?

            8s ?
              2
              >>
            .^
            ^ 3 4>
            flu C Q.
collect
n p
en
No

this
                                                                             S
OS
                                •a
                                i
                                3
                                Z
                                                                             
-------
eg
Q
«
S
o
      &



      I
e S * 3
.S g «,.§

J-o-S


I ill


*!*!
in (S <2 S •
"5 8 .S | ff
-1 .a«i

Sa i i*
j= u •>,,£ o
£ 3 3 § 3

   y!h
          R

          g


          I I "S o -
    «fl
          .5 O
          II
              •S 1.8

              8 1-5
          e
          o

          >
          <




          D
             •S 2
             o


             1
                   O
                       i
         •1  *1
         P  l!
         li  Ij
         li
         l&
         if.
         tS
                       Q

                       £
         ii«i

         Nil
         ES 5 ^ ™
         i|l|
         an o. u" *3
         => el I
         55 | .e
         * = u-a J3
         «' * | 1 5
         pv| O 3 ^ **"*
         (S-li §§
                      *    .fi
                      IS   £
                      s?2  •« <
-I
,; m  .H  \o

II  ZeS »
a!sris I
                                                                 <0
                                                                 01

-------
II
      i
      I
      tf

      fib
        s
ACT
EPA
      I
                                                                1C)
                                                                CM
            3 2
            r §
ill
Sll
121
i*i


O 4* Si
Cfl T3 «J
           ,1

           l§
    111
    u « >
    £ g'S
    o |<
          li
          a o
                .ss
                I
            I   1

           ll
^ Sz


IP
BO <£
z-a g
"S ° §
Sll
-1 e
 , O V
il
 • o"
I a
2 S

                 I
VI. s s E > s
(S1 u 3 5 c JJ
                                                                
-------
 bfi
£
w
00
2
g
en
UJ










*
o*

fii

f-
en










D
en
y
Qu







*
§




i
E *
3 C'
I ~
"» §
u "—
SI
en >
u
1
'1.
"3 ?
a'~ «-
<^^

a
S
en
1
«
1
en
"3
.a
E
U »
d £
,
^.







|| Clean Waters

















(S






















1
I Healthy Terrestrial Ecosysti






••r

^o,
<<^
n"









>n























(Safe Homes, Schools, and
Workplaces






r*"l
fNl"



























"»
^*
^^



|| Toxic-Free Communities







IN





























^™


Cfl
1
|| Preventing Accidental Rele;







U-i


























.4.
f"T
*"l
"*



|| Safe Wastes

r**
*4$
"i
~°v
'^
ci
*^
































en
•o
|| Restoration of Contaminate







"*









Ov














«
=.
w"
r-"
vtf
^—


1
Reducing Global Environm
Risks
                                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                                   I)

-------
                                     Figure 3
PROBLEM AREAS
PRESSURE
STATE
RESPONSE
1.  Resource Indicators
   A.  Agriculture
   B.  Forest
   C.  Marine
   D.  Water
   E.  Subsoil Assets
CW6
2.  Sink or Pollution Indicators
   A.  Climate Change
   B.  Stratospheric Ozone
   C.  Acidification
   D.  Eutrophication
   E.  Toxification
CA3, RGER1
CA5, RGER10
RGER6, RGER7,
RGER8.RGER11,
TFC1.TFC5, SW1,
SW2, SW3, SW4,
CW7, PAR!
                  RGER2, RGER3
                  RGER4
                  CA4, TFC2, TFC3,
                  RCS1,RCS2,RCS3,
                  RCS4, RCS5, RCS6,
                  PAR2
3.  Life Support Indicators
   A. Biodiversity

   B. Oceans
   C. Special Lands
                  CW2, HTE1, HTE2,
                  RGER5
                  CW1, HTE3
                  RCS7
4.  Human Impact Indicators
   A. Water Quality

   B. Air Quality

   C. Occupational Exposures,
      etc. (incl. homes)
   D. Food Quality
   E. Housing/Urban
   F. Waste
   G. Natural Disaster
CA2, CA3, RGER1,
RGER7
SF2
TFC4, TFC5, SW4
DWl, DW3, CW4,
CW5
CA1.CA6, RGER9
SHSW1,SHSW3,
SHSW4
SF1, CW3
DW2, DW4

CA4

SHSW2, SHSW5,
SHSW6, SHSW7
SF3

SW5, RCS4

-------

-------
                                          ATTENDEES
                                       Confirmed, as of: 9/11
*
 Abel, George (RO X)
 Allen, Deny (OPPE/OSPED)
 Baamonde, Roch (RO II)
 Berish, Cory, Region IV
 Bernard, Jim, Green Mountain Institute
 Bertram, Paul (Great Lakes Program Office/RO V)
 Brubaker, Henry (RO III & PBA)
 Buccigrossi, Michael (RO II)
 Bulanowski, Gerard (Colorado)
 Capacasa, Jon (RO II/CBP)
 Carriker, Neil (Tennessee Valley Authority
 Carter, Cathy (RO VI)
 Carter, Mary (RO VII)
 Case, Heather (OPPE/EIAP)
 Colbourn, Jack (RO IX)
 Cole, James (RSPD)
 Conomos, Margaret (ESID)
 Cooper, Robert (RO IV)
 Dea, Joanne (RSPD)
 DeMoss, Tom (RO III)
 Devonald, Kim (OPPE/RO III)
 Downing, Maria (RO VII)
 Fellows, Elizabeth (OWOW)
 Fenedick, Al (RO V)
 Fox, Sarah (Western Center for Comparative Risk)
 Garl, Jerri-Anne (RO V)
 Gardiner, David (OPPE)
 Goetzl, Robert (RO I)
 Greening, Holly (Tampa Bay)
 Gutenson, Otto (OPPE/RSPD)
 Hackenbracht, Anna (RO IX)
 Hadrick, Michael (OAR)
 Hallinan, Sharon (OSWER)
 Harper, Sallyanne (OARM)
 Hill, Annette, Region IV
 Hoist, Linda (RO V)
 Hooven, Thomas (OPPTS)
 Katz, Marilyn (OPPE)
 Keach, Steve (OPPE)
King, Helena

-------
 Kipp, Katrina (RO I)
 Koines, Arthur (OSPED)
 Kramer, Kate (WCCR)
 Lane, Brian (RO VIII)
 Lehmann, Sarah, OW
 Lombardi, Gabriella (OPPE)
 Martin, Debora (OPPE)
 McGeorge, Leslie J. (New Jersey)
 Metcalfe, Jane
 Milbourn, Gordon (PBA)
 Moses, John (OPPE)
 Mouck, Steve (RO VI)
 Mountford, Kent (RO III/CBP)
 Murray, Bill (RO VIII)
 Agi Nadai (RO II)
 Nicholas, David (OSWER)
 Nussbaum, Barry (OPPE)
 Pastalove, Barbara (RO II)
 Paterson, Chris (Green Mountain Institute)
 Reeverts, Carl (OW)
 Schweiss, Jon (RO X)
 Shafer, Ronald (ESID)
 Stanton, Patricia (Massachusetts)
 Summers, Sara RO (VII)
 Sumpter, Richard (RO VII)
 Switzer, Diane (RO I)
 Sylvester, Nita (RO III/CBP)
 Taheri, Diane (RO VI)
 Tankoos, Jenine (RO II)
 Treash, (Robertson) Anne (OW)
 Truitt, Peter (OPPE)
Wolfe, Alex (PBA)
Wood, Carol (RO I)
Zimmerman, Ann (RO VI)
Zimmerman, Bob (Delaware)


-------
                                  ATTENDEES
                               Confirmed, as of: 9/11
Abel, George (RO X)
Allen, Derry (OPPE/OSPED)
Baamonde, Roch (RO n)
Berish, Cory, Region IV
Bernard, Jim, Green Mountain Institute
Bertram, Paul (Great Lakes Program Office/RO V)
Brubaker, Henry (RO III & PBA)
Buccigrossi, Michael (RO n)
Bulanowski, Gerard (Colorado)
Capacasa, Jon (RO n/CBP)
Carriker, Neii (Tennessee Valley Authority
Carter, Cathy (RO VI)
Carter, Mary (RO VII)
Case, Heather (OPPE/EIAP)
Colbourn, Jack (RO IX)
Cole, James (RSPD)
Conomos, Margaret (ESED)
Cooper, Robert (RO IV)
Dea, Joanne (RSPD)
DeMoss, Tom (RO III)
Devonald, Kim (OPPE/ROIJJ)
Downing, Maria (RO VII)
Fellows, Elizabeth (OWOW)
Fenedick, Al (RO V)
Fox, Sarah (Western Center for Comparative Risk)
Garl, Jerri-Anne (RO V)
Gardiner, David (OPPE)
Goetzl, Robert (RO I)
Greening, Holly (Tampa Bay)
Gutenson, Otto (OPPE/RSPD)
Hackenbracht, Anna (RO IX)
Hadrick, Michael (OAR)
Hallinan, Sharon (OSWER)
Harper, Sallyanne (OARM)
Hill; Annette, Region IV
Hoist, Linda (RO V)
Hooven, Thomas (OPPTS)
Katz, Marilyn (OPPE)
Keach, Steve (OPPE)
King, Helena

-------
 Kipp, Katrina (RO I)
 Koines, Arthur (OSPED)
 Kramer, Kate (WCCR)
 Lane, Brian (RO VIII)
 Lehmann, Sarah, OW
 Lombardi, Gabriella (OPPE)
 Martin, Deijora (OPPE)
 McGeorge, Leslie J. (New Jersey)
 Metcalfe, Jan£
 Milbburn, Gordon (PBA)
 Moses, John (OP,PE)
 Mouck, Steve (RO VI)
 Mouhtfo(& Kent (RO III/CBP)
 Murray; Bill (RO VIII)
 Agi Nadai (ROII)
 Nicholas, David (OS\VER)
 Nussbafiitt, Barry (OPPE)
 Pastalove, Barbara (RO II)
 Paterson, Chris (Green Mountain Institute)
 Reeverts, Carl (OW)
 Schweiss, Jon (RO X)
 Shafer, Ronald (ESID)
 Stanton, Patricia (Massachusetts)
 Summers, Sara RO (VII)
 Sumpter, Richard (RO VII)
 Switzer, Diane (RO I)
 Sylvester, Nita (RO III/CBP)
 Taheri, Diane (RO VI)
 Tankoos, Jemne (RO II)
 Treash, (Robertson) Anne (OW)
Truitt, Peter (OPPE)
Wolfe, Alex (PBA)
Wood, Carol (RO I)
Zimmerman, Ann (RO VI)
Zimmerman, Bob (Delaware)

-------