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)
------- |