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 lndx 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 Yw

    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 CJM) BVI7
                                                  11

-------
Floun
Water Quality Index TaMea for the State of Washington
Current Status and Trends (Cont)
                        1111 tm-i  tn
 runaiuw iy 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
                                                      RL2nwmaui|btoBwCr.) 1042
                                                                iwCiwk 1647
                                                            btoCoa^cLXD. 1042
                                                                HrOMk 1647
                                                            toCa^>U.&. (042
                                                               iLrivdwk 1647
                                                                       1042
                                                                       1647
                                                                 Hy.S22 1042
                                                                  rCMk 1647
                                                                  Matfh 1042
                                                               tawivCmk 1647
                                                                 )taV.a2 1042
                                                                  iMwr (647
                                                                  Battirf 1042
                                                                MpdMl 1647
                                                               UaMMBr. 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~  ? 8tm*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
                                                                               OliiyuCl  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)FnnoCr
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
                                                                              WHy.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 AMid KM2
              nrCr. IM7
bMr Aahtand Cf. 9 Vdby Vw> Rd. IM2
            rCmk l47
            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
        rTnFiiCourty) IMS
                                    Scl 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
tlt**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

-------