ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
INDICATORS
RESULTS
TRENDS
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch, February 1991
-------
Environmental Indicators
Data Notebook
ERFB/OPPE/USEM
February 1991
-------
CONTENTS
Foreward
Introduction to Indicators
and Continuum off Indicators
Office off Air and Radiation (OAR)
Reported Indicators
Proposed Indicators
Potential Indicators
Regional Indicators
Office off Water (OW)
Reported Indicators
Proposed Indicators
Potential Indicators
Regional Indicators.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Reported Indicators
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Superfund
Proposed Indicators
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Superfund
Potential Indicators
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Superfund
Regional Indicators
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS)
Reported Indicators
Office of Pesticides Programs
Office of Toxic Substances
Proposed Indicators
Office of Pesticides Programs
Office of Toxic Substances
Potential Indicators
Office of Pesticides Programs
Office of Toxic Substances
Regional Indicators
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Cross Media Initiatives
Lead Strategy
Pollution Prevention
Biodiversity and Habitat
Great Lakes
-------
Foreword
Environmental indicators combined with measures of activity
accomplishments are expected to become an integral part of all the Agency's
strategic planning. These indicators will become the barometer of status and
trends of environmental quality and ultimately become the tool to evaluate success
of our programs. This indicators data notebook marks the first effort to assemble
data reported by the program offices in FY 90, the first indicator reporting year. In
addition, proposed indicators are listed and indicator data from other sources are
described. Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch (ERFB), Strategic
Planning and Management Division (SPMD), Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (OPPE), has prepared this notebook so that program managers can
easily judge the progress and future direction of Agency indicators. It is our
intention to annually update this document as the program offices report new data.
The notebook begins with our vision of what environmental indicators should
be and what they are meant to accomplish. This is followed by five major sections:
the four media Offices (Offices of Air and Radiation (OAR), Office of Water (OW),
Office of Solid Waste (OSWER), Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
(OPTS)), and a fifth section for cross media initiatives.
The four program office sections are each divided into four 'data type"
sections. The first is on environmental indicators data reported by program offices
for FY 90. The second is not actual data, but a listing of proposed indicators drawn
from the programs' strategic plans and/or ATS commitments for indicator reporting.
Some of these proposed indicators represent commitments to report with a listing
of planned reporting dates. Others do not represent commitments, and should be
regarded only as indicators the offices are considering until such time as reporting
commitments are made. The third section, potential indicators, contains examples
of data found from a variety of sources by ERFB. We suggest these might be
considered by the program offices for use as environmental indicators. The fourth
section, regional indicators, contains one or two examples of regional data
pertinent to some offices.
Program data type sections are further divided in 1) the OSWER program area
into Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund indicators and 2)
the OPTS program area into Office of Toxics Substance (OTS) and Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) indicators. The fifth major section contains a variety of
projects which yield indicator data relevant to some of the Agency's key cross
media programs and initiatives.
ERFB gratefully appreciates the contributions provided by the program and
regional offices, other agencies and contractors in preparing this notebook. For
further details or comments contact ERFB at 382-4900.
-------
INTRODUCTION
INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
INTO STRATEGIC PLANNING:
A VISION STATEMENT FOR THE AGENCY
Vision
Definitions
Relationship of
Environmental
Indicators to
External
Factors (Out-
side of EPA)
EPA will use environmental indicators combined with measures of
activity accomplishments to evaluate the success of our programs,
and to report status and trends in U.S. environmental quality to the
public, Congress, states, the regulated community, and the
international community. National program managers will use
environmental indicators to determine where their programs are
achieving the desired environmental results, and where inadequate
results indicate that strategies need to be changed. Over time, as
more data are reported, environmental indicators will become
increasingly important as measures of success.
Environmental Indicator: either a direct measure of environmental
quality (e.g., chemical and physical conditions), ecological health, or
human health; or an indirect measure, such as an emissions amount,
that measures the amount of pollution or other harmful factors to which
the environment is subjected. (See OPPE concept paper,
"Environmental Indicators and Activity Measures in the EPA
Management System" for more detailed description of types of data
that may be used as indicators.)
Activity Measure: the amount of a given function accomplished by
EPA or our state or other partners, such as the numbers of pollutant
abatement or pollution prevention permits issued or revised,
inspections completed, chemicals reviewed and acted upon, etc.
(Activity Measures are the traditionally used STARS measures of
program accomplishment.)
EPA will use environmental indicators primarily as we use activity
measures, to evaluate the success of our own programs. In addition,
our indicator reporting system will identify some environmental
improvements and problems affected by the actions of other
agencies, together with factors beyond federal or other government
control. Where appropriate, EPA may use information of this kind to
advise other agencies, Congress, states or other nations of environ-
mental problems that may warrant increased attention on their parts.
Where problems are due to circumstances beyond anyone's control,
EPA may use the information to recommend new strategies to accom-
modate to the inevitable circumstances.
-------
Once
Programs are
Reporting on
Environmental
Indicators and
Activity
Measures,
How Will the
Two Types off
Results Be
Used? How
Will They
Relate to Each
Other?
Spatial Scope
of Indicators:
Headquarters
and Regional
Respon-
sibilities
Comparison to Targets and Goals: Program Evaluation. Once
indicator reporting is in place, program evaluation can be based on a
much more complete understanding of how our activities actually
relate to our ultimate "outputs", the environmental results. This in turn
will allow strategic planning to focus more clearly on what approaches
are and are not working well, and to adjust our activities accordingly.
The process will work as follows. Programs will continue to be
evaluated according to how well they meet activity measure targets
each year. Environmental indicators will be expected to correspond to
measurable goals set forth in strategic plans, so these goals will in
essence provide "targets" for the indicators. However, in keeping
with the difficulties of projecting exactly how the environment will
respond to program activities, programs will not be held as strictly
accountable for meeting these goals as they are for activity measure
targets. Program offices and Regions will be held strictly accountable
for reporting on their indicators. Then, if environmental goals are not
met, they will be accountable for providing timely, technically sound
explanations of why they were not, and for promptly developing and
implementing new approaches to meet the goals in the future (for
example, controls on a type of source that has proven to contribute
more to an environmental problem than was previously understood).
Activity measure(s) corresponding to these approaches should be
adjusted accordingly. Provided that legislative or judicial constraints
allow, targets for other activities that have proven relatively less impor-
tant in terms of environmental impact and risk could be lowered for
future reporting periods to allow greater emphasis on the higher im-
pact/higher risk activities.
If a program lacks a technical understanding of why an environmental
goal hasn't been met, it will be held accountable for starting new
research, modeling or other activities to develop the necessary
understanding of what is going wrong, and for setting reasonable
activity measure targets for completing such research in timely fashion.
In the meantime, it will still be expected to try to set revised
environmental goals based on best professional judgement, with the
understanding that these may be adjusted when the research is
completed.
Headquarters: National Indicators. Each media office is responsible
to identify environmental indicators for each of the environmental
problem areas addressed by its strategic plan. Whenever possible,
these indicators should be national in coverage. They should also be
adequately representative of the entire resource to be protected or
major risks to be avoided, not just of some problem locations or causes
(e.g. not just some airsheds or watersheds, or just pollutants with high
health risks but not those with high ecological risks, etc.). Where there
-------
Support
Offices'
Respon-
sibilities for
Indicator
Development
and
Reporting
are data gaps, offices should report partial data at first, while
developing ways to eventually fill data gaps (e.g. working with states
that don't monitor or report, to encourage them to do so).
Regional Indicators. Where Regions do not differ from Headquarters in
identifying or developing strategies for environmental problems,
indicators for their programs will be provided by the national indicator
data base. Where a Region needs to address a problem for which
there are no national indicators, or for which it feels additional Regional
indicators would be appropriate, the Region should identify in its
strategic plan or risk management strategy an indicator(s) by which
environmental reults can be evaluated for that activity.
Special Studies. Indicators will be used to evaluate progress of
geographicaly targetted special studies, such as the Great Lakes
Program, or other special focus activities such as the Agency-wide lead
strategy. It will be the responsibility of the special group or task force
managing the project to identify suitable indicators, and make
commitments to ensure needed data are obtained and reported.
OPPE Strategic Planning and Management Division (SPMD). SPMD will
maintain an information system to receive, store, and produce reports
summarizing environmental indicator data reported by Headquarters
and Regional offices. SPMD will provide technical assistance to media
offices in identifying potential indicator data sets, conducting feasibility
studies, and developing techniques for data analysis, display and
evaluation. In addition, SPMD may identify data sets not in use by any
program office as environmental indicators but potentially relevant as
indicators for EPA, and would obtain data on these as additional
indicators of interest.
QPPE Center for Environmental Statistics (CESV The CES mission will
be to analyze and report status and trends in U.S. environmental
conditions, explicitly including factors affected by EPA's programs,
factors addressed by other agencies, and natural environmental
characteristics. Where data obtained and analyzed by the CES are
considered useful as indicators of EPA program success, CES can
serve as an intermediate data source, helping programs to obtain data
if the primary source is outside EPA, and can provide assistance with
statistical analysis and data presentation. CES State of the Environment
reports will be separate from but complementary to the program
environmental indicator summary reports compiled by OPPE/SPMD and
program offices, with some data sets most relevant to one or another
report, and some data sets presented in both types of report.
Material belongs to:
Office of Toxic Substances Library "-*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. TS-793
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-3944
-------
QRD's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP).
EMAP is a new national-scale monitoring program coordinated by EPA/
ORD. It will be implemented by ORD and other federal agencies, with
additional field work conducted in some cases by interested states,
universities and other cooperators. EMAP will collect data on a wide
variety of environmental quality factors and ecological conditions in all
media: water, terrestrial environments, and air deposition. EMAP will
be a potential source of environmental indicator data for many EPA
programs, particularly those addressing area-wide impacts or
cumulative impacts of multiple sources.
Data Sources Wherever possible, environmental indicators should be data that are
for Indicators already collected by EPA, states or other federal agencies (or, in a few
cases, other organizations with consistent national data gathering
programs). It is not expected that EPA programs will need to start new
monitoring programs to provide indicator data. In many cases,
however, EPA programs will have to develop new ways to obtain,
organize and analyze data that are already being collected and
managed in inconsistent ways from Region to Region or state to state.
And in a few cases, new monitoring or changes in monitoring
approaches may be needed to fill gaps in national data sets.
How Will Reporting System. Program offices will report national indicator data
Indicators be using the STARS system maintained by OPPE. This will be a compan-
Reported? ion to the STARS activity measure reporting component. The format will
be flexible, to accommodate differences in types of data and formats
that are most useful to the offices doing the reporting.
Regional Reporting. Regions will report on any Region-specific activity
measures and indicators using Regional components of STARS. (This
should not be confused with the fact that Regions participate in
reporting on national activity measures and may also be encouraged
by Headquarters offices to help report on national indicators.)
Reporting Frequency. Environmental indicator data will be reported as
frequently as suitable for each indicator, typically much less frequently
than the quarterly reporting cycle for activity measures. Annual
reporting may be the most common approach.
-------
CONTINUUM OF MEASURES OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
Activity Measures
Environmental Indicators
Indirect Indicators
Direct Indicators
\
Actions by
States/EPA
examples:
revise SIP,
issue permit,
V issue grant
fc Actions by
Sources
h
1
example:
\ ;
install control
equipment, change ,
feedstock .* \
i •
* Quantified
Pollution
Prevention
Measures
1
Emission/
Discharge
Quantities
V
Risk Estimates
Based on
Emissions Data
Ambient
Concentrations
¥
Risk Estimates
Based on
Ambient Data
v
Uptake/
Body Burden
Risk Estimates
Based on
Body BurdenData
\
Health Effects
Ecological Effects
•preferred datai
Theme 1: Managing for Environmental Results. Data to the right are closer to the
"adverse ultimate impacts of pollution" that the States and EPA are charged
with preventing or mitigating. All else being equal, data further to the right
are better indicators of environmental result than data further to the left.
Theme 2: Emphasizing Pollution Prevention. Pollution prevention should result in the
same kinds of environmental improvements as all Agency programs, so all
these indicator types may be used to reflect pollution prevention successes.
However, to prove the results are due to pollution prevention, data would be
needed on the box marked with a *.
-------
OAR
-------
Reported Indicators
-------
OAR Reported Indicators
Under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program, OAR has
reported indicators for criteria air pollutants (N02, 862, Lead, CO, TSP, and Ozone)
since the 1970s as illustrated on the following six pages.
-------
LEAD AIR QUALITY
2.5
MAXMUU QUARTERLY AVERAGE
2 -
1.5
1 -
0.5 -
139 SITES
V J J-.4....4
125
LEAD EMISSIONS
TONS/YEAR
SOURCE CATEGORY
• THANMOHTAT10*
FUEL
coyautnoN
INOU8TWAL PROCESSES
90UOWMTE
-------
Areas In Non-Attainment For Ozone, 1987-1989
Non-attainment for ozone is typically
defined based on the fourth highest
daily maximum value in the three
year period.
Source: U.S. EPA AIRS System
Environmenta^gsults and Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
OZONE AIR QUALITY
CONCENTRATION, PPM
SECOND HIGH DAILY MAX 1-HOUR
;.30
J.2S -
1.20
).1S
).10 ->
J.OS
)00
388 SITES
VOC EMISSIONS
35
10s METRIC TONS/YEAR
30 -
25 -
SOURCE CATEGORY
• TRANSPORTATION
MDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
m FUEL COMBUSTION
X- SOLID WASTE » MISC
-------
S02 AIR QUALITY
SOx EMISSIONS
30
K)1 METRIC TON^AEAR
20 -
10 -
^&jb rA& <^Jb /A! o9&
-------
N02 AIR QUALITY
CONCENTRATION. PPM
J.07
(.06 -
1.06
1.04 -
1.03 -
1.02 -
1.01
).00
ANNUAL MEAN
116 SITES
NOx EMISSIONS
30
K>' MOWC TONS/TEAR
25 -
20
15
10 -
5 -
SOURCE CATEGORY
• TRANSPORTATION
FUEL COMBUSTION
NDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
SOLID WASTE! MISC.
]
-------
CO AIR QUALITY
20
CONCENTRATION, PPM
15 -
10 -
CO EMISSIONS
120
100
80
K)1 METRIC TONS/YEAR
SOURCE CATEGORY
TRANSPORTATION
yif INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
•V SOLID WASTE t MISC
-------
TSP AIR QUALITY
100 -
80 -
u
ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN
60 -
40 -
TSP EMISSIONS
15
10' METRIC TONS/YEAR
10 -
SOURCE CATEGORY
• TRANSPORTATION
Fua
COMBUSTION
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
SOLID WASTE tMISC
-------
OAR Reported Indicators/ Acid Deposition:
Nitrate Deposition, and Precipitation pH (Acidity)
-------
ANNUAL 1987 PRECIPITATION 9EICHTED pH
xvEPA
AREAL -.
• IIUMIMi. • tf/11
C4UC (MM-iMi PMJtttM
-------
ANNUAL 1387 NITRATE DEPOSITION
wEPA
AREAL -.=-
«uen OK OHM
] H.l« - U.IO
IM.M - ii.«
HI.IJ - 19.10
120.00 - «.00
t=> U.OO - 14.00
BBB 14.00 - «.M
^•U.00 - 20.00
••WEI 20.00
-------
Proposed Indicators
-------
Office of Air and Radiation Proposed Indicators
Stratospheric Ozone:
Stratospheric concentrations of chlorine reduced based on direct
monitoring
Stratospheric concentrations of chlorine reduced based on NOAA
emissions modeling
Production/consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals eliminated in the
U.S. and internationally
Monitoring of UV-B levels at Earth's surface demonstrate ozone shield
restored to effective levels
Global Warming:
Carbon dioxide emissions (worldwide) reduced
Methane emissions reduced and atmospheric concentration stabilized
i
Average global temperature does more rise by more that 0.3 °C by year
2050
Acid Rain:
Sulfur dioxide emissions reduced 10 million tons below the 1980
baseline
Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide deposition is reduced
pH of x number of streams and lakes increase by x points or x percent
within x timeframe
"x" number of streams and lakes are restored to productivity due to
reductions in sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen oxide emissions yielding x
tons incremental increase in fish and other biomass
Visibility in ("x" geographic area) increases by X percent
Ambient levels of acidic aerosols (in x deposition areas) decline by x
amount or x percent in x time after controls are implemented
Air Toxics Reductions:
Actual on-site measurements indicate reduced emissions of toxics from
major stationary sources
-------
Actual measurements at points of human exposure indicate reduced
ambient amounts of toxics
Estimates of risk reduction
Estimates of reductions in toxics emissions based on: the number of
sources estimates to be in compliance with MACT standards, the number
of sources with voluntary reductions, estimates from the Motor Vehicle
Control Program, state and local regulatory information, and estimates
based on the SARA 313 - Toxics Release Inventory [TRI] database
Radon and Indoor Air:
Number of new homes/buildings constructed with radon-resistant
techniques or design features
Number os existing homes tested nationwide
Number of existing homes tested in targeted areas
Number of homes testes with radon level about the action level that are
' mitigated
Number of comprehensive state radon programs established
Number of state/local building codes amended to require radon-resistant
techniques or design features
Number of states/localities requiring radon inspections or other action as
a part of real estate transactions
Indoor air trends analysis, based on actual measurements, shows lowered
levels of pollutants in indoor ambient air
Indoor air trends analysis, based on review of building parameters show
more building with acceptable parameters
Cross Media Radioactive Waste and Emergency Response:
Indicators of effectiveness of the radioactive waste disposal regulatory
program include:
-the number and substance of the regulatory standards established
-results of actual monitoring of released at disposal sites
-------
Indicators of effectiveness of radiological emergency response planning
and preparedness include:
-the promptness of response to any emergency
-the post-hoc analysis of actual casualties and estimation of
casualties avoided due to the response
-------
Potential Indicators
-------
Note:
In the first year of Regional Strategic Planning, Regions have not been
required to propose or report environmental indicators, but may do so if
they choose. OPPE has not yet comprehensively recorded the indicator
lists being developed by Regions; a few Regional indicators or data that
seem appropriate as potential indicators are provided throughout the
notebook for illustrative purpose only. This does not reflect the
significant amount of on-going Regional work developing indicators, and
the actual reporting of indicator type data by a number of Regions.
Region 10 in particular has reported on a comprehensive set of
environmental indicators since 1988.
-------
Exceedances In The Carbon Monoxide
Standard Dropped Significantly In Region 3
Since The Mid -1980's
The number of exceedances of the 8 hour carbon monoxide (CO) standard (9 ppm) has dropped significantly
since the mid-80's when motor vehicle emission inspections were started in several areas in Region III.
75 r
50
25
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Source: EPA Region III 1990 Air Quality Trends Report
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch /fobruary 1991
-------
Region 3 Estimates That Carbon Monoxide Levels
Would Be 140 Percent Higher Without The Controls
That Have Been Implemented Since 1970.
These figures are even more impressive when you consider that the number of cars on the road has
increased twice as fast as population.
Parts
Per
Million
20
15
10
DE
DC
MD
i Source: EPA Region III 1990 Air Quality Trends Report
i
Lrivironmunlal Results and forecasting Branch /I obruary 1991
Estimated 1989 CO levels
without the controls
implemented since 1970
NAAQS (9 PPM)
Actual 1989
CO levels
PA
Philly
Pittsburgh VA
WV Region III
-------
ow
-------
Reported Indicators
-------
Office of Water: Reported Indicators
Drinking Water
Significant Non-compliance of Community Water Systems
Rivers and Streams
Designated Use Support (See Figure)
Coastal
Shellfish Harvest Area Classifications (See Figure)
General
Number of Waters on Toxic Impact Lists *
Lakes
Numbers/acres of Lakes in Various Trophic States (See Table)
Wetlands
Wetland Acreage * *
* Tables not included in notebook. This indicator is partially based on
environmental data, but state to state administrative differences are so
major OPPE is concerned it may not be fair to some states to consider it
an environmental indicator.
* * Tables show discrepancies between State-reported data and data from
the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory.
-------
Number of Public Water Systems in Significant
Noncompliance with Drinking Water Standards
The Office of Drinking Water (ODW) has been reporting this
indicator in their National Compliance Reports (see figure next
page). In the future, ODW and OPPE will work together to report an
improved indicator - populations exposed to drinking water
standard violations, using data that are already reported to the
Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
-------
Trends in Significant Noncompliance of
Community Water Systems FY 1987-89
1200
1000
Number of Systems
In Significant
Noncompliance 800
600
400
X
Microbiological/Turbidity
a
Chemical/Radiological
— o —
T~ —' —
0
9/86 12/86 3/87 6/87 9/87 12/87 3/88 6/88 9/88 12/88 3/89 6/89 9/89
Compliance Period
Source: U.S. EPA, "The National Public Water System Program FY 1989 National Compliance Report"
Environmental Hesulls and Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Percentage of River Miles Supporting Designated Use in 1988
Caveats: These data are not comparable from state to state or from year to year because:
• Definitions of "supporting use" vary from state to state.
• Definitions of what counts as adequate data vary from state to state.
• Both definitions vary from year to year.
.:as!nvJ Ihur.ai/ JWOf MF.II
-------
Percentage of River Miles Supporting
Caveats: These data are not comparable from state to state or from year to year because:
• Definitions of "supporting use" vary from state to state.
• Definitions of what counts as adequate data vary from state to state.
• Both definitions vary from year to year.
Use in 1990
-------
Shellfish Harvest Area Affected by Pollution Sources
Total Harvest-Limited Area Includes Conditional, Restricted, and Prohibited waters.
Conditional: waters do not meet criteria at all times, but shellfish may be harvested
when criteria are met
Restricted: shellfish may be harvested if subjected to a suitable purification process
Prohibited: harvest for human consumption cannot occur at any time
Multiple pollution sources are often identified for a single Harvest-Limited Area, therefore the sum of the
area affected by sources in an estuary is usually greater than the amount of Harvest-Limited Area.
The West Coast
325.723 total acres are classified lor shellfish harvest (68% are
Harvest-Limited)
The West Coast, due to geographic differences, has fewer estuaries
and shellfish beds than either the East Coast or the Gulf of Mexico. The
major pollution sources are Industry (primarily San Francisco Bay) and
Urban/Suburban Runoff.
Boai
Wildlife (Animal Waste]
Agricultural Runoff
Urban/Suburban
Septic Sy:
Combined
Industry.
Sewage Treatment Plant!
Total Harvest-Limited Area
50 100 150 200
Area (thousand acres)
The Quit of Mexico
5,926.262 total acres are classified for shellfish harvest (57% are Harvest-Limited)
The Gulf of Mexico Is the fastest growing coastal region In the U.S. and Urban/ Suburban
Runoff. Septic Systems and STPs are the three major sources of shellfish harvest area
restrictions'.
Boatli
Wildlife (Animal Waste]
Agricultural
Urban/Suburban
Septic Systei
Straight Pi|
Indu
Sewage Treatment
Total Harvest-Limited Area]
The Northeast Region (Main* to New York)
2267.698 total acres are classified tor shellfish harvest (23% are
Harvest-Limited)
The Northeast Region Is highly developed and is affected by a combination of
sources associated with urban areas - Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs),
Combined Sewer Overflows, and Urban/Suburban Runoff. The Northeast is
the only region where Combined Sewer Overflows are a major pollution
Boatini
Wildlife (Animal Waste;
Agricultural Runoff.
Urban/Suburban Runol
Septic System:
Combined Sewers.
Industry. I
Sewage Treatment Plants. I
Total Harvest-Limited Area
100 200 300 400 500 600
Area (thousand acres)
The Mid-Atlantic Region (New Jersey to Virginia)
3,229.349 total acres are classified for shellfish harvest (10% are
Harvest-Limited)
The Md-Atiantic Region includes the Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary
In the U.S. STPs, Urban/Suburban Runoff and Recreational Boating are
(he largest pollution sources.
Boai
Wildlife (Animal Waste]
Agricultural Runoff.
Urban/Suburban Runoi
Septic SystemsJ
Combined Sewers.
Industry.
Sewage Treatment Plant!
Total Harvest-Limited Area.
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
Area (thousand acres)
500
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Area (thousand acres)
The Southeast Region (North Carolina to Florida)
2,588.458 total acres are classified for shellfish harvest (25% are Harvest-Limited)
The Southeast Region Is the most rural region on the east coast and it is dependent on agriculture and
silviculture. In the past few years, the Southeast has been experiencing rapid population growth and
Urban/Suburban Runoff, Septic Systems, and STPs are all increasing as pollution sources.
Boat)
Wildlife (Animal Waste]
Agricultural Runoff
Urban/Suburban Runoff
Septic Systems.
Combined Sewers'
Industry.
Sfwage Treatment Plant:
Total Harvest-Limited Area
i i i i i i i .
700
100
200 300 400 500 600
Area (thousand acres)
Souiui. NOAA National Esluanno Inventory 1988
-------
OW: Reported Indicator
LAKE TROPHIC STATUS
The identification of trophic status is the most commonly used
indicator of lake water quality and provides a scientifically well
understood, if not complete, measure of the ecological health of a
waterbody. Despite its well-sounding prefix, a eutrophic lake is often one
with poor or declining water quality. When a lake is eutrophic, the
presence of excessive quantities of nutrients leads to algal blooms which
can, when decayed, deplete the waterbody of oxygen, rendering it
unsuitable for aquatic life. While eutrophication is a natural aging
process, it can be accelerated by nutrient enrichment from sewage
discharge and run-off from agricultural fertilizers, feedlots, detergents
and other sources. In most cases, phosphorous is the primary nutrient
which affects algal production.
States report on the trophic status of publicly owned lakes in their
305(b) reports and in Clean Lake Classification reports that States file
under Section 314 of the Clean Water Act. The trophic of a waterbody is
generally, though not uniformly, reported in the following categories, in
order of increasing eutrophication: oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic,
hypertrophic, or dystrophic (low in nutrients, but colored with dissolved
humic organic mater). (See tables on following pages.)
-------
Trophic Status of the Nation's lakp«:
STATE TOTAL LAKES OLIG.
ASSESSED
CONNECT.
MAINE
MASSACHU.
RHODE IS.
VERMONT
NEW JERSEY
PUERTO RICO
DELAWARE
DIST. COL.
MARYLAND
PENNSYL.
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRG.
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
N. CAROLINA
S. CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
ILLINOIS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
WISCONSIN
LOUISIANA
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
TOTALS
204
1882
414
56
184
21
18
30
3
62
53
219
76
34
142
99
33
120
40
109
278
684
1563
125
578
101
55
67
114
217
103
45
65
48
149
129
62
8182
'/. (100)
MESO.
38
154
28
5
28
0
4
0
0
2
1
23
18
2
84
12
0
27
0
19
3
99
202
0
16
0
5
8
0
0
8
0
8
6
0
0
10
810
(9.9)
EUTR.
95
1075
124
21
104
0
2
0
2
15
39
65
29
21
30
31
0
78
4
33
17
357
529
30
332
0
9
17
0
56
36
2
25
21
12
8
36
3205
(39.2)
HYPER .
29
653
202
14
38
21
12
30
1
45
13
130
29
6
28
56
33
44
36
50
136
228
539
69
230
101
31
35
114
97
56
31
32
16
58
121
15
3379
(41 .3)
ny,
i i
0
•^
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
n
0
9
0
7
1?2
0
?93
?6
n
0
0
7
0 ~
64
3
12
0
0
79
0
1
693
(« . •>)
0 T H F R
0
0
1
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o-
29
(
u
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
' 0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
66
(
-------
Trophic Status of the Nation'-; late.: h,. FT A R o a ' n n
[Optional -- also final version of taM » on provin'
page would likely b<> put i"
alphabetical oro>r]
TOTAL LAKES OLIO. MESO. FHTR. HYTFR
ASSESSED
OTHFR
REGION 1
REGION 2
REGION 3
REGION 4
REGION 5
REGION 6
REGION 7
REGION 8
NATION
2740
•/. (100)
39
X (100)
443
X (100)
577
X (100)
3228
'/. (100)
223
'/. (100)
479
X (100)
453
X (100)
8182
X (100)
253
(9.2)
4
(10.3)
44
(9.9)
144
(25.0)
320
( 9.9)
13
(5.8)
8
(1.7)
24
(5.3)
810
(9.9)
1419
(51 .8)
2
(5.1)
150
(33.9)
147
(25 5)
1265
(39.2)
26
(11.7)
94
(19.6)
102
(22.5)
3205
(39.2)
9J6
( 34 ?)
33
(84.6)
248
(56 .0)
253
(438)
1202
(37. 2)
167
(74.9)
298
(62.2)
242
(53.4)
3379
(41 .3)
70
( ? A 1
0
80
(17 7 )
693
(8. 5)
15
«1 )
0
(0)
1
«n
12
(2.1)
0
(o.m
i
«i )
0
(0 . 0>
0
(0.0)
29
«1 )
47
(1.7)
0
(0)
0
(0.0)
5
«1 )
0
(0.0)
9
(4.0)
o -
(0.0)
5
(1.1)
66
«1 )
-------
Amount of Wetlands (Coastal and Freshwater) in
Each Reporting State, as Reported in State 305(b) Reports
Note: There are discrepancies in accounting/reporting between these data and
USFWS data (shown in next table)
Wetlands Total Surface Area
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
Ml
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
(acres)
3,000,000
> 170,000,000
*
800,000
*
*
469,156
221,800
1 1 ,400,000
5,000,000
101,749
*
1,175,000
*
36,852
34,256
*
5,882,070
5,199,360
*
588,486
*
5,020,000
642,000
*
1,882,176
361,842
136,650
102,941
900,000
(acres)
32,490,880
375,040,000
33,920,000
3,205,760
1,267,840
37,544,700
38,341,760
4,112,000
36,060,800
36,016,000
52,657,500
30,477,440
21,289,600
5,301,760
54,686,080
30,521,200
94,108,800
49,425,280
70,758,900
5,954,560
4,983,900
% of Surface A
covered by We
9.2
45.3
*
2.4
*
*
14.6
17.5
30.4
13
2.5
*
3.3
*
0.1
0.07
*
19.3
24.4
*
11.1
*
9.2
2.1
*
2
0.7
0.2
1.7
18.1
* Not reported
Source 1990 State Section 305(b) reports
-------
Wetlands Total Surface Area
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
Rl
SO
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
Wl
WY
DC
PR
VI
(acres)
*
1 ,025,000
3,392,000
2,000,000
*
356,647
161,844
498,000
60,873
4,700,000
1 ,332,562
787,000
6,976,000
1,000,000
220,000
1 ,044,900
1,500,000
102,000
5,331,392
940,000
49
*
3,408
(acres)
31 ,728,640
33,735,680
45,225,600
44,748,160
62,126,720
29,013,120
775,900
19,329,920
49,310,080
27,036,160
167,690,880
52,526,720
6,149,760
26,122,880
42,743,040
15,508,100
35,938,560
62,664,960
44,160
178,080
% of Surface A
covered by We
*
3.2
10
4.4
*
0.8
0.3
1.7
7.8
24.3
2.7
2.9
4.1
1.9
3.6
4
3.5
0.7
14.8
1.5
0.1
*
2.2
* Not reported
Source 1990 State Section 305(b) reports
-------
Wattands
The National Wetlands Inventory
The National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) is a long-
term program of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to map
the Nation's coastal and
inland wetlands. Wetland
maps developed by the NWT
provide important informa-
tion on the extent of State
wetland resources and
provide a basis for a wide
variety of regulatory and
nonregulatory activities The
NWI also provides a consist-
ent way of reporting the
extent of wetlands by State.
Wetlands are mapped
primarily by the use of good-
quality, high-altitude aerial
photography. Wetlands are
identified from these photos,
and their boundaries are
transferred to maps. Wetland
acreage is then estimated
from the completed maps.
Tb date, approximately 60
percent of the lower 48
States, 100 percent of
• Hawaii, and 16 percent of
Alaska have been mapped.
Table 5-2 summarizes wet-
land acreage by State. Six
States have greater than
5 million acres of wetlands,
12 States have between 1 and
5 million acres, 8 States have
between 500,000 and 1 million
acres, and 13 States have less
than 500,000 acres of wet-
lands (see Figure V4). Re|j.
able data are not available
for 11 States.
As discussed earlier in
this report, several States
provided estimates of current
wetland acreage in their
305(b) reports. In order to
provide a consistent basis for
comparing wetland acreage
between States, Table 5-2
includes wetland acreage
estimates provided only by
NWI. No attempt has bevn
made to compare what the
States reported in 19S8
against the findings of the
NWI.
Source: 1988 National Wetlands Inventory.
Figure 5-4. Wetland* Acreage Distribution Nationwide
96
-------
FROM 1988 Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress
Wetlands
Table 5-2. Estimated Wetland Area by State
State
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
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
NewVbrk
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Acres
(in thousands)
3.069
2.764
389
675
261
223
11.333
5.298
110
712
285
435
205
8.674
1,731
436
542
5.583
7.540
4.067
836
1,906
190
916
482
1.184
5.690
2.868
1.270
498
84
4.650
1.548
787
3.957
584
1,045
748
102
4,410
Percent of Total
State Land Area
9
8
1
1
8
18
33
u
__
2
1
1
1
30
9
7
11
15
15
13
2
4
3
19
1
4
18
7
3
2
13
24
3
3
2
1
4
2
>1
13
— Reliable wetland area data not Mtette.
Source: US. Fan and Wildlife SOT**. Natter* MMcnds 'memory. June 1988
97
-------
Office of Water: Reported Indicator, But Not in
Strategic Plan
Attainment of Clean Water Act goals
Note: Although not included in the OW Strategic Plan, OW provided
data on attainment of 'fishable' and 'swimmable' goals as part of the
1990 national 305(b) report. Indicator can take into account information
different from that used in assessing designated use support (e.g. fishery
closures) and is easily understood by public. However, due to
inconsistent determinations of "fishable" and 'swimmable' among states,
OW decided to omit this indicator from their Strategic Plan.
-------
Proposed Indicators
-------
Office of Water: Proposed Indicators
Coastal
Dead Zones
Biological Community Integrity
Habitat
Designated Use Support
Shellfish Bed Closure Base;
Finfish Ban Baseline
Beach Closure Baseline
Toxics in Fish and Shellfish
Marine Debris Baseline
Industrial Waste Baseline
Dredged Material Baseline
Rivers and Streams
Biological Community Integrity
Extent of Hypoxia/Anoxia
Wetlands Acreage
Fishing Bans
Adoptions of Biocriteria by States
Designated Use Support
Lakes
Biological Community Integrity
Lake Trophic Status
Wetland Acreage
Designated Use Support
Toxics in Fish and Shellfish
Wetlands
Acreage
Functional Integrity
Landscape Integrity
Note: No reporting dates established on any of the above indicators.
-------
Office of Water: Indicators Proposed and Planned
Reporting Dates from ATS
Drinking Water: Underground Injection Control
Number of mechanical integrity tests conducted, test results
(passed or failed), and whether appropriate action was taken,
12/31/90
Drinking Water: Public Water Supply
Number of people exposed to Phase I VOCs, 10/31//93
People exposed to poorly filtered water 10/31/93
People exposed to conform bacteria, 10/31/93
Number of violation of rules for lead, phase II VOCs,
radionuclides, 10/31/93
-------
Office of Water: Proposed Indicators
Ground Water: Number of public water supplies with MCL violations,
6/15/92
Hazardous waste sites with on and off-site G.W. contamination, 6/15/92
Waste sites and industrial sites with VOC contamination, 6/15/92
Area-wide sources of nitrate contamination, 6/15/92
Area-wide .sources of pesticide contamination, 6/15/92
Note: Dates shown are targets for potential inclusion in the 1992
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASWIPCA) report.
-------
Potential Indicators
-------
OW: Potential Indicator
ESTIMATING POLLUTANT LOADS FROM THE PERMIT COMPLIANCE
SYSTEM (PCS) USING THE EFFLUENT DATA STATISTICS (EDS)
PROGRAM
EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) data base was initially
created to track the compliance of facilities regulated under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The monitoring data
stored in PCS is taken from monthly or quarterly Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRs) submitted by each facility, and represents averaged
discharge values (usually based on a combination of daily, weekly, and
monthly self-monitoring) for the pollutants specified in the NPDES permit.
Region 5, in cooperation with a Region 2 computer specialist, has
been pilot testing a PCS program called the Effluent Data Statistics
(EDS) that uses data from DMRs. EDS can be used to analyze and graph
DMR data, generate loadings estimates from this data, and aggregate the
estimates for a specified time period by outfall, facility, city, county, state,
or river basin. The map shown on the following page displays PCS
reported
While the load estimation component of this program is still in the
developmental stages, it has the potential to be a very useful tool for
compiling and presenting the loading estimates on a national basis. The
capability to depict national trends using PCS data is dependent on
Regional and State participation (both past and present) in the data base
and efforts to improve the quality, consistency and comparability of PCS
data. In the future, the ability to generate trend information should
improve as participation in the data base increases and if OW invests
considerable resources into PCS data management improvements.
-------
PCS Reported Mercury Releases
In The Great Lakes Watershed - 1988
\ Outagamie County: 1,606.73 Kilograms
Kilograms Per County
Total From All Counties = 2815 Kilograms
• 1205 to 1607
804 to 1205
402 to 804
1 to 402
D OtoO
Source: Permit Compliance System, U.S. EPA
| Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/February 1990|
-------
Note:
In the first year of Regional Strategic Planning, Regions have not been
required to propose or report environmental indicators, but may do so if
they choose. OPPE has not yet comprehensively recorded the indicator
lists being developed by Regions; a few Regional indicators or data that
seem appropriate as potential indicators are provided throughout the
notebook for illustrative purpose only. This does not reflect the
significant amount of on-going Regional work developing indicators, and
the actual reporting of indicator type data by a number of Regions.
Region 10 in particular has reported on a comprehensive set of
environmental indicators since 1988.
-------
Region 10 Water Quality Index: Parameters
Included in Index
-------
Region 10 Water Quality Index: Parameters Included in Index
Criteria Categories tor River Water Quality
Temperature. Water temperature influences the type of fish and other aquatic life that can survive in a
river. High temperature can be detrimental to fish spawning and rearing.
Dissolved Oxygen. Fish and aquatic life must have certain levels of oxygen in the water to survive.
Low oxygen concentration or saturation levels can be detrimental to these organisms.
ph. ph is the measure of hydrogen ion concentration in water and determines whether the water is
acidic or basic. Extreme levels of either can imperil fish and aquatic life.
Bacteria. Bacteria indicate probable presence of disease-related organisms and viruses from human
sewage or animal waste.
Trophic. Indicates the extent of algae or nutrients in water. Nutrients promote algal growth. When
algae flourish they make the water murky and the growths make swimming and fishing unpleasant.
Decomposition of dead algae can decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations to levels harmful to fish.
Aesthetics. Refers to oil, grease, turbidity and algal blooms which are visually unpleasant. Generally
this group is represented by either turbidity or chlorophyll a- Turbidity is a measure of the clarity of the
water. Chlorophyll a provides a measure of suspended algae in the water.
Solids. Dissolved minerals or suspended material such as mud or silt. Excess dissolved minerals
interfere with agricultural, industrial and domestic use. Excess suspended solids adversely affect fish
feeding and spawning.
Metals Toxtetty. Excess concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury and zinc are toxic to human, aquatic and other life forms.
Organic Toxtetty. Excess concentrations of pesticides, herbicides, PCBs and other organic
substances that are toxic to humans, mammals, birds, fish and other water dependent life forms.
Ammonia Toxlctty. Excess concentrations of ammonia in its un-ionized form are toxic to fish and
other aquatic life forms.
-------
Ftgurf
Water Quality lnd«x TablM for tlw state of Washington
Current Status and Trends
StMonMm* Vmr
MnfimCr. 1*47
9 Uouth n*« Spoun* 1042
. 1647
UidnigniUiiwNrWtHpnl 1042
1647
Satan N*jm Y«w
Pilvrhom »647
«7NECoRd 8042
Reeky Ford Ck W-B7
® Rouu 17 8M2
LMC4UM 8647
0R1. 17 Craning 8O4Z
LracrdmbOwk «647
e UoUwvw feMd 1042
CrabdMk M47
1042
//,////#///
KtMWW 1647
• Adxm FrwiWr C*» IMS
ElHDWW (M7
• ROM* 17 Craning MM!
Cuinnn C«JM») BVI7
11
-------
Floun
Water Quality Index TaMea for the State of Washington
Current Status and Trends (Cont)
1111 tm-i tn
runaiuw i«y Tf. 1*47
ao42
Lyon Cmk 1647 |
mrUoutti 1042
HwiOi Thornton Crart (647
1043
MeAlHrCiwk IM7
1042
idMk I&47
• LriwSvnmMiih 1042
CMvMwr IM7
etagwaLBr.etof** »42
iCiwk 1647
• EvlFerk K>42
t 1647
taMWrilCmk 1647
• OOTSMion 1042
•wmnMiR. 1647
• MvynavPvk 1042
EvmCiMk 1647
• RL2nwmau»i|btoBwCr.) 1042
•iwCiwk 1647
btoCoa^cLXD. 1042
•HrOMk 1647
«toCa^>U.&. (042
iLrivdwk 1647
1042
1647
• H»y.S22 1042
rCMk 1647
• Matfh 1042
tawivCmk 1647
• )taV.a2 1042
iMwr (647
• Battirf 1042
•MpdMl 1647
• UaMM»Br. 1042
12
-------
noun r_ar*;
Water Quality Index Tables for the State of Washington
Current Status and Trends (Cent.)
If Jl/i It/I I
SMtattm* f~ •? 8t»m*M flp* NR.
1647
K>42
ill!
•
•i 1 1
•! ] i
Washington Water Quality. Bated on Region 10 Water Quality Index
State of Washington
13
-------
ater Quality Index Table* for the State of Oregon
Current Status and Trends
200 rraun bMow OvynM Dam 8042
MtMwrRIWf »S-87
8042
UtitaurRlvw 8547
JoftnteyRlwr 6647
6647
9 Moody nw Bigot Ora. 6042
CotanMiR. 6647
I I I I I I I
•ulHunRtw 1647
taadMov 1043
• apntgMdBr. 8042
1647
• Hvrabwg Bt. 8042
l l l l l l
8M7
• U.S.Hwy.90EBr. 8042
OliiyuC««l 85-87
• So. Sin* BM. 80-82
RMkCr. 8547
» W. Urton Rd. *» DM>irtcn O. 8042
8M7
• OliiHG Hurt dub 8042
TuMrinR. 8S-87
RockCr.K)F«nnoCr
SeoggnCf.loRookCr
Tu^ttnR. 8547
MowFmoCmk 8042
• ngglni Ct. 8S47
«>H**.47 8042
UdUyCiwk 86-87
• HomHkwRd. 8042
•MWMWiCr. 8547
NROranto 8042
MMfcCr. 8547
8042
8547
BonaRd. 8042
ntnr 8547
• WH»y.213Br. 8042
8547
WttMiHMr 8547
«>H>y. 101 8042
8547
101 8042
MMRHw 8547
N.OISMZ 8042
MnaRlwr 8547
8042
• Brawi'tBiUo* 8042
• Mntfon Bnto* 8042
OMrCiwk 8S47
14
-------
ftoun 1J(i)
Water Quality Index Tables for the State of Oregon
Current Status and Trends (Cent)
[ I Beneficial Use Protected
Beneficial Use Generally Attained
Beneficial Use Threatened
Beneficial Use Impaired
| • | Insufficient Data for Evaluation
No Data Collected
•nrCr. IM7
•K Aihtand Cf. w A»M«id KM2
•nrCr. IM7
bMr Aahtand Cf. 9 Vdby Vw> Rd. IM2
••rCmk l»47
• KMwidRd.
Oonior uM IMwi M«*r 1*47
NflFiwehgtan IM3
i&47
Flgun
Oregon Water Quality, Baaed on Region 10 Water Quality Index
State of Oregon
15
-------
Flour* 1.4(i)
water Quality Index Table* for the State of Idaho
Current Status and Trends
«WV Sorter *OMrlri« CM! IMS
•wrMwr 1*47
C UT/10 3M« Lra (UT Boratr)
Beneficial Use Protected
Beneficial Use Generally Attained
Beneficial Use Threatened
Beneficial Use Impaired
- I Insufficient Data for Evaluation
No Data Collected
Meek dvk(TMn MM county) 1647
6M2
1647
Idaho Water Quality, Based on Region 10 Water
Quality Index
1647
AbCMnCorfl IMS
State of Idaho
MKtCmk U47
NR North NRTwiF* IMS
1647
rT«nF«iiCourty) IMS
Sc«l« of Milts
0 20 40 80
Oil> Clllt 6*47
cbCo) IMS
M. IM7
2JML8EMUdMan(OHaMief4 IMS
1647
CMyan Don IMS
16
-------
-------
Heponea indicators
-------
Superfund
Reported Data
-------
Superfund Indicators Reported in FY 90
As shown in the following figures, environmental progress was
documented during FY 90 for 604 Superfund sites. This data reflects
progress to date in the Superfund program. Specifically, progress was
reported in terms of these three indicators:
Addressing Acute Threats: This indicator describes the number of sites
where immediate actions to protect nearby populations and to control the
threat of exposure to hazardous contaminants have been taken. It
includes all emergency actions at NPL sites and emergency actions that
cost more than $200,000 at non-NPL sites.
Achievement of Health and Environmental Goals: This measure reports
progress at sites toward the 'goals' established in the appropriate Record
of Decision (ROD). For example, if ground water at a particular site is
contaminated, the goals will usually be expressed in terms of the
concentration of key contaminants that must be achieved before the
subsurface water is considered clean. In some cases - particularly for the
land surface - varying goals are established for different areas of a given
site. In addition, different parts of a site may be at different stages of
cleanup. In 1990, progress was reported in two categories:
• Cleanup Initiated: This measures the number of sites where
hazardous wastes or contaminated water or soil have actually been
addressed at a site or medium (i.e., actual physical cleanup has
begun), but work has not gone far enough to claim with any certainty a
great deal of progress.
• Progress Toward Cleanup: This describes the number of sites where
one or more contaminated areas - such as two out of three lagoons, or
the northern section but not the southern section of a site - have been
cleaned up to meet permanent health and environmental standards,
but not all of the work for the particular site or medium has been done.
This also includes cases where cleanup goals for a site or medium
have been fully achieved, i.e., the land is clean, the surface water is
clean, and so on.
Quantities of Waste Managed: This measure reports the sheer volume of
hazardous waste that has been moved in cleaning up sites. Absolute
information about volumes and quantities is not always available, and the
amount of waste handled to date is only rarely reported as a comparison
to the total amount of waste to be addressed. Therefore, this information
is provided only as a general progress indicator. In addition, although
physical volumes are a poor measure of actual risk reduction, they
provide a useful measure by which to understand the magnitude of the
Superfund program and help explain its duration and cost.
-------
Superfund Indicator Reported in 1990
Actions Ranging From Waste Treatment to Site Security
Have Addressed Acute Threats At 538 Superfund Sites*
450
400
350
300
Number
of Sites 25°
200
150
100
50
0
Some sites have more than
one risk reduction activity
Removal,
Treatment, or
Containment
Alternative
Water
Supply
Population
Relocation
*The total number of Superfund sites was not given in the source report.
Source: U.S. EPA, SUPERFUND: "Reporting on Progress Through Environmental Indicators." October 1990
Site
Security
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Superfund Indicator Reported in 1990
317 NPL Sites Are Moving Toward Achieving Cleanup Goals
Progress Toward
Cleanup (251)
Source: SUPERFUND: Reporting on Progress Through Environmental Indicators October 1990
Cleanup Initiated (67)
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Superfund Indicator Reported in 1990
The volume of materials handled at Superfund sites*
indicates the magnitude of the program
Quantities of Waste Managed
Pathway
Volumes Addressed
Land Surface:
Soil
Solid Waste
Liquid Waste
Groundwaten
Surface Water:
4,130,000 cubic yards
5,270,000 cubic yards
1,000,000,000 gallons
3,880,000,000 gallons
104,000,000 gallons
'Data on volumes of material handled was compiled for 499 sites (329 NPL sites and 170 non-NPL sites)
Source: SUPERFUND: Reporting on Progress Through Environmental Indicators October 1990
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/hebruary 1991
-------
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Reported Data
-------
Office of Solid Waste Indicators Reported in 1990
The data source used in reporting on the environmental indicators for
hazardous waste was the 1987, "National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators,' known as the Generator Survey. As OSW acknowledged
in its November 1990 ATS submission, the Generator Survey
includes data on wastes other than RCRA hazardous waste (e.g.
PCBs, state regulated hazardous wastes, etc.). In future reporting on
these indicators, OSW will use the Biennial Report and other data
sources to avoid the problem of non-RCRA hazardous wastes being
included in the data. It is unlikely that data reported in 1990 can be
used as a baseline for future environmental indicator reporting or
trend analysis.
Three indicators were reported on by OSW in 1990.
Highlights of reported data include the following:
(1) Quantity of hazardous waste generated:
• 744,348,187 tons of hazardous waste were generated by 16,028
generators
• 455 million tons (60%) was managed in exempt units only
• 289 million tons (40%) was managed in RCRA regulated units
• 30% of all generators accounted for 46% of all the hazardous waste
generated in the U.S. and are located in five states (Texas, New
Jersey, Michigan, California, and Virginia)
• Industrial organic chemicals accounted for 18% of all wastes
generated, even though they comprise less that 2% of all generators
• Approximately 40% of all hazardous waste generated were either
solely corrosive waste (D002) or D002 mixed with other waste
• The largest source processes of hazardous waste were (in millions of
tons):
Other production processes (14.4)
Wastewater treatment - exempt (10.7)
Electroplating (9,.0)
Hydrogenation (7.1)
Distillation and fractionation (7.0)
-------
(2) Ratio of hazardous waste generated to
production quantity ratio:
The purpose of this indicator was to capture the quantity of waste
generated that cannot be explained by changes in production. The
method used in this calculation was to calculate 'value added" because
data on production levels were not reported in the Generator Survey. This
indicator revealed that the industries generating the greatest quantity of
hazardous wastes did not necessarily generate the greatest amount of
hazardous waste per unit of production.
The six industries with the largest ratio of hazardous waste generated to
value added were:
Explosives (42.1)
Industrial organic chemicals (11.4)
Cyclic crudes and intermediates (10.7)
Inorganic pigments (9.3)
Small arms ammunition (9.3)
Pulp mills (9.1)
(3) Number of hazardous waste generators reporting waste
minimization activities:
The data reported were the number of generators with waste minimization
programs, defined as a reduction in volume or toxicity of waste.
Number of respondents in the Generator Survey = 16,028
Generators with waste minimization programs: 13,036
Generators without waste minimization programs: 2,992
Generators implementing programs: 7,053
25% implementing programs report decreases in quantity of waste
generated
80% implementing programs report decreases in toxicity levels
-------
proposed indicators
-------
Superfund
Proposed Indicators
-------
Proposed Indicators for OERR (Based on ATS*)
Population protected from current and future threat (feasibility study to
be completed in FY 1991 -1992)
Reduced concentrations of contaminants/comparison with health
standards (feasibility study to be completed in FY 1992)
Ecological Indicator ( not yet defined)
During FY 1991, OERR will examine feasibility of indicators
recommended by OPPE:
1) reduced contaminant stress,
2) improved biological health and,
3) reduced threats to sensitive environments
*While these indicators are included in OERR's ATS commitments, they
are not mentioned in OSWER's strategic plan.
-------
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Potential Indicators
-------
Future Environmental Indicators Proposed by OSIV in ATS
OSW proposed to continue reporting on the environmental indicators
reported on this year, with some modifications. Note: The data source for
future reporting on these indicators will be the Biennial Report.
• Quantity of hazardous waste generated:
Continues
• Ratio of hazardous waste generated to production quantity:
Continues
• Quantity of hazardous waste prevented due to waste minimization
activities:
Improved over 1990 in that actual quantities of waste will be reported
New Addition to OSW ATS Environmental Indicators
Reporting Schedule:
• Identify additional environmental indicators for waste minimization,
waste management, and corrective action
Future OSW Environmental Indicators Proposed in OSWER's
1993-1996 Strategic Plan
Goal 1: Waste Minimization
• Continual reduction in the volume of hazardous and industrial
solid waste generated per capita
• Continual reduction in the toxicity of targeted waste streams
• Annual increases in the amount of municipal solid waste
recycled
• Annual reduction in the quantity of municipal solid waste
disposed of or sent to incinerators and landfills
• Annual increases by state in the amount of municipal solid
waste recycled
• Reduced volumes and toxicity of waste in industries targeted for
combined enforcement and permit activities
Goal 2: Environmentally Sound Management
No environmental indicators proposed by OSW in the plan
-------
Goal 3: Prevent Harmful Releases
• The environmental damage resulting from these releases
declines over time
Goal 4: Prepare for and Respond to Hazardous Releases
No environmental indicators proposed by OSW in the plan
-------
Koienuai maicaiors
-------
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Potential Indicators
-------
The Universe of Wastes Regulated Under RCRA
The volumes of non-hazardous waste regulated under Subtitle D of RCRA are very large compared to the
volumes of hazardous waste managed at Subtitle C regulated facilities. Due to the Toxicity Characteristic Rule,
which became effective in September 1990, some of the Subtitle D industrial wastes (an estimated 0.81 billion
tons) are now categorized as hazardous wastes.
r
Hazardous Waste (Subtitle C)
Approximately .26 Billion tons per year are managed in regulated units
Non-Hazardous Waste (Subtitle D)
Municipal Solid Waste: .18 billion tons per year
Industrial and special wastes: 12 billion tons per year
Sources: U.S. EPA , TSDR Survey, 1986
Franklin Associates, "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2010," March 1990.
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Hazardous Waste Incinerated
According to the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (TSDR Survey), 1.1 million tons of hazardous
waste were incinerated in 1986
Alaska: none
Hawaii: none
Puerto Rico: 6 facilities (22,065 tons)
There are 163 incinerator facilities in the TSDR Survey, 6 of which are not shown on this map
due to incorrect latitude and longitude coordinates.
Top Six Industries Incinerating
the Largest Quantities of
Hazardous Waste
Chemical Products 92%
D
4% Petroleum & Coal Products
1<5<( Electrical & Electronic Machinery,
Equipment, & Supplies
L% Electrical, Gas, & Sanitary
9 Services
ll% Instruments
1% Printing & Writing Paper
Tons
150.000
75,000
1
Environmental Results and Forcasting Branch/Ffbiuaiy1991
-------
Hazardous Waste Landfilled
According to the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (TSDR Survey), 3.2 million tons of hazardous
waste were disposed in landfills in 1986
Alaska: 1 facility (1 ton)
Hawaii: none
Puerto Rico: 2 facilities (206 tons)
There are 99 landfill facilities in the TSDR Survey, 3 of which are not shown
on this map due to incorrect latitude and longitude coordinates.
The Five Most Common
Types of Hazardous
Waste Landfilled
Electroplating Wastewater Treatment
Sludge
5.9%
Lead
J5.9%
Chromium
I 14.4%
Electric Steel Furnace Sludge
I 13.8%
Petroleum Refinery Wastes
Top Five Industries
L
J61%
Electrical, Gas, & Sanitary Services
I 111%
Miscellaneous Services
De%
Chemical Products
D5%
Air, Water, & Solid Waste Management
DS%
Business Services
Tons
600,000
300,000
1
Environmrnental Results and Forcasting Branch, Feb. 1991
-------
RCRA Exempt Wastewater
According to the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (TSDR
Survey), 493 million tons of RCRA exempt wastewater entered treatment units in 1986. Units such as treatment tanks are
exempt from RCRA Subtitle C controls because the effluent is regulated under the Clean Water Act through NPDES permits.
Alaska: 1 facility (13 tons)
Hawaii: 4 facilities (44,500 tons)
Puerto Rico: 31 facilities (1.7 million tons)
There are 2,146 facilities in the TSDR Survey, 202 of which are not
shown on this map due to incorrect latitude and longitude coordinates.
The Top Five Industrial Sources
that Send Hazardous Waste to
Wastewater Treatment Units
37%
Chemical
Products
Electrical Machninery,
Equipment, & Supplies
11%
Primary Metal
Industries
Transportation Equipment
Petroleum & Coal Products
Tons
I 32 Million
15 Million
1
Environmental Results and Forcasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Results of Ground-water Monitoring at 11 2
Industrial Subtitle D "Non-Hazardous Waste"
Facilities in California and New Jersey
Ground-water contamination has occurred at 68 (61 percent) of 1 12 industrial non-hazardous waste management units for
which ground-water monitoring data are readily available. At 32 of these facilities, industrial landfills and surface
impoundments handling Subtitle D wastes from the processing and manufacturing of food, chemicals, rubber, paper, paint,
metals, and construction/demolition debris were identified as the source of contamination. At the other 36 non-hazardous
waste facilities with ground-water contamination, either the source was unknown or the contamination was attributed to an
adjacent hazardous waste management unit, underground storage tank, or other adjacent facility. GAO found that states
regarded the threat to ground water as "moderate to severe" at more than half of the facilities where Subtitle D
(non-hazardous) landfills or surface impoundments were the known or suspected source.
Ground water
contamination by Industrial
Subtitle D Landfill or
Surface Impoundment
32%
Ground water
contamination by
Another Source
No Ground-water
Contamination
39%
Source: GAO, "Non-Hazardous Waste: Environmental Sageguards for Industrial Facilities Need to be Developed," April 1990
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Management Trends
and Projections, 1960-2010
Projected municipal solid waste generation in the year 2010 will be over 250 million tons (4.9 pounds
per person per day). Based on current trends and information, the total quantity of waste landfilled
will decrease to 85 million tons by 2010 (34 percent), the quantity incinerated will rise to 65 million
tons (26 percent), and the amount recovered for recycling and composting will reach 100 million tons
(40 percent).
300
Millions
of Tons
so
Recovery for
Recycling or
Composting
Incineration
Landfill
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Source: Franklin Associates, "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2010," March 1990.
environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/February ,1991
-------
Environmental Contamination at Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills in 1984
Most landfills did not monitor ground water or surface water in 1984. 25 percent of landfills with ground-water monitoring
had at least one violation of State ground-water protection standards, and 58 percent of those monitoring surface water
violated State surface water protection standards. The nature and extent of these violations are unknown. The proportion
of landfills with monitoring systems is currently higher than shown here.
19%
Ground-water
Contamination
75%
7% 5%
88%
Surface Water
Contamination
—
— Facilities that did not monitor ground water or surface water in 1984
Facilities with no violations in 1984
Facilities with at least one violation of State ground-water or surface-water
protection standards in 1984
Source: U.S. EPA. "Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Programs," October 1986
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Generation and
Management
An estimated 180 million tons of municipal solid waste were generated in the United States in
1988, or 4 pounds per person per day. About 73 percent of this waste was disposed in landfills.
Recovered for Recycling
or Composting
23.5 million tons (13 percent)
Landfilled
131 million tons
(73 percent)
Incinerated
25.5 million tons (14 percent)
Source: U.S. EPA, "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update, Executive Summary." June 1990.
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/February ,1991
-------
I
Municipal Solid Waste Generation Per Square Mile
The national average per square mile is74.4 tons per year.
VT NH
Tons Per Year
800 to 1300
400 to 800
150 to 400
50 to 150
1 to 50
Source: Glenn. J. 1990. "The State of Garbage in America." BiQflffilfi March 1990.
"rivirorimentnl Results and Forecasting Branch /Tebruary 1991
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Generation Per Capita
The national per capita average is 1.11 tons per year.
VT NH
Source: Glenn, J. 1990. "The State of Garbage in America."
I nvimnmc.Milal Results HI id forecasting Branch /I obruary 1991
March 1990.
Tons Per Year
• 1.26 to 1.60
H 1.11 to 1.25
HI 0.86 to 1.10
n 0.61 to 0.85
D 1 to 0.60
-------
RCRA Facilities and Groundwater
Contamination
'o
fl
•5
Land Disposal Facilities (LDPs) with Groundwater Contamination
Where Action has been taken (permits or enforcement)
28 j
26 • •
QW Contamination Detected Source Determined
Actions Taken
Land Disposal Facilities (LDPs) Physical Clean-Up Activities Initiated
Where Groundwater Contamination Has Been Found
.S
I
-5
Goundwater
Contamination
Detected
Source
Found
IntCA Final CA CA Complete
Initiated Initiated
Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities (IDS) with Groundwater
Contamination
Where Action has been taken (permits or enforcement)
QW Contamination Detected Source Determined
Actions Taken
Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities (TDS) Physical Clean-Up
Activities Initiated
Where Groundwater Contamination Has Been Found
Final CA CA Complete
Initiated
-------
Hazardous Waste Environmental Indicators
Description & Results
The ground-water hazardous waste environmental indicator is a classification
scheme for all hazardous waste sites and facilities in Region 10. Starting in 1988,
RCRA-regulated land disposal facilities (LDFs) Superfund sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL) and federal facilities were categorized in one of several ways
describing the impact of the site on ground-water or ground-water based drinking
water supplies. The classification was done by polling all EPA Hazardous Waste
Division staff familiar with site status. Staff members were
asked to complete a questionaire describing the nature of ground-water
contamination for each site.
Sites or facilities were categorized into one of four possible categories based on
whether the ground-water at the site had been assessed for contamination. If a
ground-water assessment had been conducted, the site or facility was placed into
one of the following categories:
1) No ground-water contamination found associated with the site;
2) Ground-water contamination associated with the site, but no drinking
water contamination;
3) Ground-water contamination associated with the site, but impacts on
drinking water supplies unknown; and
4) Ground-water and drinking water contamination attributed to the site.
Summary of Ground-Water Contamination
Status For Region 10 CERCLA, RCRA and
Federal Facilities
Ground Water
Contamination Status
Total Sites -FY89
Assessment of GW
contamination done
No known GW
contamination
associated with site
GW contamination but
no drinking water
contamination
GW contamination;
drinking water impacts
unknown
GW and drinking water
contamination associated
wit site
No. of No. of Sites Population at
Sites Above LOG Risk
105
93
50
24
16
26
17
14
Site Ground-Water Contamination Status
105
93
87
1.114,855
-------
Note:
In the first year of Regional Strategic Planning, Regions have not been
required to propose or report environmental indicators, but may do so if
they choose. OPPE has not yet comprehensively recorded the indicator
lists being developed by Regions; a few Regional indicators or data that
seem appropriate as potential indicators are provided throughout the
notebook for illustrative purpose only. This does not reflect the
significant amount of on-going Regional work developing indicators, and
the actual reporting of indicator type data by a number of Regions.
Region 10 in particular has reported on a comprehensive set of
environmental indicators since 1988.
-------
OPTS
-------
Reported Indicators
-------
Office of Pesticides Programs
Potential Indicators
-------
Potential Indicator Data for Office of Pesticide
Programs
The following two maps show estimates of average total annual use (in
pounds) by county of the herbicide atrazine and the insecticide
carbofuran. Use in agricultural crop production by county has been
quantified for one year circa the late 1980s. Non-crop land uses are not
accounted for. Publicly available reports from federal and state
agencies were used to determine the extent of use of each of these
pesticides for all crops for each county with significant acreage. For
counties and crops for which there is little or no publicly available use
data, the estimates were based on a survey of state Cooperative
Extension Service personnel.
Mapping of this sort of pesticide use information over time would clearly
portray trends in pesticides use not only by changes in volume applied
but also changes in geographic distribution of pesticide use.
-------
Pesticide Indicator Reported for the First Time in 1990
Percentage of Selected Crops on Which Pesticides are Used
Cotton
Citrus
Soybeans
Parathion
Cypermethrin
Trifluralin
Chordimeform
Floumeturon
DSMA
Dicrotophos
Esfenvalerate
Mepiquat Chloride
Pendimethalin
Aldicarb
Norflurazon
Azinphos-Methyl
Dimethoate
Diuron
Bromacil
Glyphosate
Ethion
Simazine
Copper Sulfate
Oil
Paraquat
Dicofol
Chlorpyrifos
Fenbutatin Oxide
Aldicarb
Copper Hydroxide
Trifluralin
Metribuzin
Imazaquim
Bentazon
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IOC
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/January 1991
-------
Pesticide Indicator (Continued)
Percentage of Selected Crops on Which Pesticides are Used
Tomatoes
Potatoes
Corn
Maneb
Dithiocarbamates
Chlorothalonil
Methomyl
Permethrin
Azinphos-Methyl
Napropamide
Methamidophos
Dithion
Copper Sulfate
Trifluralin
Fenvalerate
Copper Hydroxide
Bt. var Kurstaki
Pebulate
Paraquat
Metribuzin
Methyl Bromide
Esfenvalerate
Carbaryl
Maneb
Metribizin
Mancozeb
Dithiocarbamates
Methamidophos
Zineb
Aldicarb
Triphenyltin Hydroxide
Esfenvalerate
Phorate
Permthrin
Chlorothalnil
Metolachlor
EPIC
Carbofuran
Atrazine
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Cyanizine
Dicamba
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
90 10C
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/January 1991
-------
Office of Toxic Substances
Reported Indicators
-------
OPTS/OTS Reported Indicators
OTS has no reported indicators at this time. They have an ATS commitment to
report on two indicators in 1992 (see "OTS Proposed Indicators")
-------
Office of Pesticides Programs Proposed Indicators
1. Workgroup to develop environmental indicators pilot program.
September 1991.
Note:Reporting dates for the following indicators have not been established
2. Pesticide Usage/Human and Ecological Risk Index.
3. Poisoning Incidence Reporting (human and ecological incidence).
4. Commodities Residue Levels.
5. Field Residue Monitoring of Environmental Matrices.
6. Pesticide container Reuse/Recycle.
7. Indoor Exposure to Pesticides.
8. Ecological Community Monitoring.
9. Ground Water Quality Monitoring.
-------
Office of Toxic Substances Proposed Indicators
TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE INDEX
The Index is intended to reflect trends in industrial emissions of toxic chemicals
and their risks. It will be constructed from data on releases for a large set of TRI
chemicals. Release quantities will be adjusted by factors which account for
toxicity and exposure, and then combined into national indices-one of human
health risks and one of environmental risks. The Index (indices) would be reported
annually.
Difficult decisions lie ahead: which chemicals to use in the Index; how to estimate
and score exposures and toxicities; how to "index" the combined release, toxicity
and exposure scores.
The ATS schedule calls for construction of the Index by October 31, 1991, testing
(i.e. data reporting) and evaluation by December 31, 1991, and further revisions as
necessary one year later (December 31, 1992).
PCBs INDICATOR: AMOUNT OF PCBs TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE COMPARED WITH
AMOUNT PROPERLY DISPOSED OF
This indicator is intended to reflect the amount of PCBs that currently pose
unacceptable risk, i.e. the difference between the amount of PCBs in leaking
transformers ("taken out of service') and the amount of these that no longer pose an
unacceptable risk ('properly disposed of).
The ATS schedule calls for the first annual report on this indicator by February
1992.
-------
Potential Indicators
-------
Office of Pesticides Programs
Potential Indicators
-------
Potential Indicator Data for Office of Pesticide
Programs
The following three maps show estimates of average total annual use (in
pounds) by county of the herbicide atrazine and the insecticides aldicarb
and carbofuran. Use in agricultural crop production by county has been
quantified for one year circa the late 1980s. Non-crop land uses are not
accounted for. Publicly available reports from federal and state
agencies were used to determine the extent of use of each of these
pesticides for all crops for each county with significant acreage. For
counties and crops for which there is little or no publicly available use
data, the estimates were based on a survey of state Cooperative
Extension Service personnel.
Mapping of this sort of pesticide use information over time would clearly
portray trends in pesticides use not only by changes in volume applied
but also changes in geographic distribution of pesticide use.
-------
Pesticide Use by County: Atrazine
Pounds Used
1 to 8,000
D
8,000 to 45,000
Over 45,000
None
SOURCE: Resources for the Future
GENERATED BY: Data Tree Services, BRQ (800) 477-8194
-------
Pesticide Use by County: Aldicarb
Pounds Used
1 to 400
400 to 2,000
Over 2,000
None
Maximum = 229.291
SOURCE: Resources for the Future
GENERATED BY: DataTree Services, BRQ (800) 477-6194
-------
Pesticide Use by County: Carbofuran
Pounds Used
I to 1,200
1,200 to 4,000
Over 4,000
None
SOURCE: Resources for the Future
GENERATED BY: DataTree Services, BRG (800) 477-6194
-------
PCB's in Freshwater Fish Tissue, Region 10
s
a.
a.
.1
1
S
1
a>
o
2
-------
Concentrations of Pesticides in Puget Sound Reconnaissance Survey of Pesticides in Sediments (1988)
(ug/KgDryWt)
8MB
PMtlcldx Category
Atrazine
Butytate
Diazinon (a)
Disutfoton (a)
Ethyl Parathton(b)
Methyl Parathion
Phorate
Prometon
PronamkJe
Simazine •'
Trtfluralin
Vemolate
Chlordane
N
N
N.P
P
N
N
P
N
N
N.CI
N
N
Cl
Chtorpyrtfos (b) CI.N.P
Dicamba
Dichobenll
2.4-D
Fenvalerate
Undane
Cl
Cl
Cl
CI.N
Cl
Pentachtorophenol Cl
em
PeSttCMM
Atrazine
Butylate
Diazinon (a)
Disultoton (a)
Ethyl Parathton(b)
Methyl Parathion
Phorate
Prometon
Pronarride
Simazine
Trtfluralin
Vemolate
Chlordane
Chtorpyrtfos (b)
Dicamba
Dfchobenil
2.4-D
Fenvalerate
lindane
River
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.4
PentachtorophenolH QM
/a\ niavifwt anri rvienK/
OC
Dotoctiofl
UmKLk.WMh. LLWaah.
Detector ug/KgDryWt
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
ECD
ECD
ECD
ECD
ECD
ECD
ECD
ECD
Sta.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.5 QM
ND
ND
ND
2.2
6.7 QM
tff>n fv\-Al
1
1.6
3.0
1.6
2.6
1.3
1.3
4.6
2.4
2.2
1.4
55
2.1
0.02
1.4
0.06
13.2
2.1
0.01
Sta.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.7 Ql
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31 QM
NlaquattySnohomfa
Sta.2 Sta.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12 QM
ND
ND
ND
11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.9
7.5 QM 24 QM
bita tHarafnra al
Sta.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.0
ND
ND
20
56 QM
SI
Sta.2 Bey
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.8 QM
i rafv^HaH
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.5 QM
fxMvafitr!
LXWash. UuWath. IXWaah. U.Wa*h.
Bta.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.3
ND
ND
7.1
14 QM
to
StagH
Sta.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15QM
itinne rat
Sta.4 Sta.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.6 Ql 3.0 Ql
ND
4.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.6
ND
ND
3.5
53 QM 12 QM
Stagtt
Ste.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31 QM
ND
ND
7.9QM
\FAfiAnt a
StagM
Sta.9
ND
ND
'ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
17 QM
ND
2.8
10 QM
t»lt**lMU
Sta.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
32 QM
StagKSeqiMlHehew
Sta.4 Cmk
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
43 QM
NO
6.7
16 QM
±*t **
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12 QM
ND
ND
46 QM
(b) Ethyl Parathion and Chbrpyrifos co-elute, therefore all reported concentrations represent a summed result
N « Nitrogen
P-Phosphorus
Cl • Chlorine
NPD • Nitrogen phosphorus detector
ECD - Electron capture detector
ND • Not detected at the given detection limit in column 4.
QM - Quafified as data possWy lower than actual value because of tow matrix spice recoveries.
Ql - Qualified as unreliable data because of matrix interferences in matrix spke recovery test
-------
Pesticides of Concern in Puget Sound - 1988 Sampling Sites
-------
Note:
In the first year of Regional Strategic Planning, Regions have not been
required to propose or report environmental indicators, but may do so if
they choose. OPPE has not yet comprehensively recorded the indicator
lists being developed by Regions; a few Regional indicators or data that
seem appropriate as potential indicators are provided throughout the
notebook for illustrative purpose only. This does not reflect the
significant amount of on-going Regional work developing indicators, and
the actual reporting of indicator type data by a number of Regions.
Region 10 in particular has reported on a comprehensive set of
environmental indicators since 1988.
-------
Subset off OTS Toxics Release Inventory Data Relevant
to Pollution Prevention Strategy
This figure shows the releases
and transfers of the 17 chemicals
targeted for voluntary pollution
prevention activities under the
Industrial Toxics Project
41-187
87-630
630-31399
Regional County Quartiles, in thousands of pounds
Environmenta^^sults and Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Lead Strategy
-------
Lead Stack Air
Lead Stack Air emissions reported to TRI for 176 counities in the Great Lakes Watershed.
Total Releases From All Counities equals 74,132 Lbs.
Pounds Per County
16,068 to 20,085 IDS
12,051 to 16,068 Ibs
8,034 to 12,051 Ibs
1 to 8,034 Ibs
Source: Toxics Release Inventory
U.S. EPA, 1988
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Lead: Fugitive Air Releases
Lead Fugitive Air emissions reported to TRI for 176 counities in the Great Lakes Watershed.
Total Releases From All Counities equals 49,526 Lbs.
Pounds Per County
9,487 to 11,859 Ibs
7,115 to 9,487 Ibs
4,744 to 7,115 Ibs
1 to 4,744 Ibs
Source: Toxics Release Inventory
U.S. EPA. 1988
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Transfer off Lead for Off-site Treatment and Disposal
Transfer of lead for off-site treatment and disposal reported to TRI for 176 counities
in the Great Lakes Watershed. Total Releases From All Counities equals 1,908,709 Lbs.
Pounds Per County
335,106 to 418,883 Ibs
251,330 to 335,106 Ibs
167,553 to 251,330 Ibs
1 to 167,553 Ibs
Source: Toxics Release Inventory
U.S. EPA. 1988
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/August 22, 1990
-------
Lead: Land Disposal
Lead land dispoal reported to TRI tor 176 counities in the Great Lakes Watershed.
Total Releases From All Counities equals 367,098 Lbs.
Pounds Per County
204,193 to 255,241 Ibs
153,145 to 204,193 Ibs
102,096 to 153,145 Ibs
1 to 102,096 Ibs
Source: Toxics Release Inventory
U.S. EPA, 1988
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch/Kebmary 1991
-------
Pollution Prevention
-------
Subset of OTS Toxics Release Inventory Data Relevant
to Pollution Prevention Strategy
\
This figure shows the releases
and transfers of the 17 chemicals
targeted for voluntary pollution
prevention activities under the
Industrial Toxics Project
Triangles indicate the top 100 facilities in each region
Minimum=26,602 pounds
Maximum=16,320,413 pounds
Environmenta^esults ancj Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Biodiversity and Habitat
-------
Endangered and Threatened Fish as of 1983
The 42 species of fish shown here were considered endangered or threatened by the American Fisheries Society (AFS) as of 1983.
Since then the list has grown substantially, due to new data and actual increases in threats. Of the approximately 1,000 existing
species,103 are currently listed by AFS as endangered, 114 as threatened to become endangered in the near future, and 147 are of
special concern because minor disturbances to their habitat could place them in danger. Habitat destruction and modification is
considered the most widespread threat to North American fish. Pollution, introduced
species, overfishing, disease, and hybridization also contribute to extinction
and population decline. Nearly 40 species and subspecies
of freshwater fish in North America have become
extinct in the past 100 years.
Widely Distributed
42. Lake sturgeon
Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence River Basins
1. Copper redhorse
2. Shortnose Cisco
3. Shortjaw Cisco
Greet Basin
36. Cui-ui
37. Desert dace
38. Modoc sucker
39. Warner sucker
40. Borax Lake chub
41. Lahontan cutthroat trout
Colorado River and Pacific Coastal Basins
25. Greenback cutthroat troul
26. Humpback chub
27. Bonytail chub, Colorado squaw-
fish, razorback sucker
26. Apache trout
29. Gila trout
30. Woundtin
31. Moapa dace
32. Ash Meadows fishes
33. Pahrump killifish
34 Toloaba
35. Unarmored thteespine stickleback
21. San Marcos River lishes
22. Texas blindcats
23. Clear Creek gambusia
24. Comanche Springs puplsh
Atlantic Coast and River Basins
4. Shortnose sturgeon
5. Maryland darter
6. Roanoke fishes
7. Lake Wasccamaw fishes
Tennessee and Ohio River Basins
8. Alabama Cavefish
9. Slackwater darter
10. Spring pygmy sunfish
11. Snail darter
12. Barrens topminnow
13. Blackside dace
14. Northern cavefish
Mississippi River Basins
17. Niangua darter
18. Ozark cavelish
19. Peppered shiner
20. Leopard darter
Tombidgbee and
Alabama River Basins
15 Okaloosa darter
16. Watercress darter
Source Ono. Williams, aid Wagner. 1983 'Vanishing I ishusol Nonh Amorcj Washington. DC Slone Wall I'luss
f rwiKiiiriicnl.il Ki.'i.ulls ;iric1 ForocHshng Hrnrtch/ICtini.'tiy PHI
-------
Declining Waterfowl in North America
Certain waterfowl populations have declined steadily during the past three decades, due mostly to the loss of wetlands in the northern U. S. and
Canada. The 1989 spring breeding population for ducks was 24% below the 30 year average. Acid rain has also harmed waterfowl by releasing
naturally occuring metals into streams and lakes that can bioaccumulate in aquatic food chains. Overcrowding from habitat loss increases the
spread of disease. Outbreaks of avian botulism in western North America have killed tens of thousands of waterfowl in a few months.
Prarie Potholes (Approximate Area)
Agricultural filling and drought caused the loss of 40% of the prarie
potholes during the 1980's, resulting in extreme crowding and
increased disease. Waterfowl breeding habitat has decreased by 90%
in Iowa and 50% in North Dakota.
Kesterton Wildlife Refuge
Irrigation is leaching naturally
occuring selenium from the
soil, causing severe
reproductive affects. Wetlands
have decreased throughout
the Central Valley during the
drought of the past five years
as water has been diverted for
irrigation.
Atlantic Flyway
About 50% of the
coastal wetlands
have been destroyed
since the early 1950's.
Southwest Oil Producing Areas (Approximate Area)
Pits and ponds used for storing oil industry wastes were
responsible for killing an estimated 500,000 migratory
waterfowl in 1989 alone. Flying birds are attracted to
uncovered oil pits, mistaking them for fresh water.
Source: Multiple sources compiled by the Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch
and published in "Idenlilication of Biological Indicators ol Environmental Quality," 1991
Lower Mississippi Valley
200,000 to 300,000 acres of bottomland
hardwood wetlands have been cleared each
year since the late 1930's.
j- nvironim/ntal Rosulls and Forecasting Branch/February 1991
-------
Great Lakes
-------
Municipal Phosphorus Loadings To the Great Lakes Have Decreased
Municipal Phosphorus
Loadings To the Great Lakes 1976 - 1986
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
1976
1980
1982 1984
Erie
Ontario
Michigan
• Huron
—» Superior
I
1986
Source: US.EPA. Great Lakes National Program Office
FnvirixnTKiiil.il HusuBb and Foracaslirig HiMK:M (ilm..uy r.BI
1986 Estimated Phosphorus Loads
To The Great Lakes From Major Source Categories
12000
10000
8000
6000 - -
Tons
Per Year
4000 --
2000 --
n Connecting Channels
El Tributary
® Direct Municipal Discharge
• Direct Industrial Discharge
• Atmospheric
Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario
------- |