A Regional Environmental
Strategic Plan (RESP)
for U.S. EPA and the States of
Region 4
May 1996
-------
A Regional Environmental
Strategic Plan (RESP)
for U.S. EPA and the States of
Region 4
May 1996
-------
Table of Contents
Section A Overview of the Region
Section B Guiding Principles
Section C Vision Statement
Section D Strategy Statement
Section E Issues, Goals, and Strategies
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
-------
Section A
Overview of the
Region
-------
The Context for the
Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
Overview
Region 4 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its member states are presently in
the initial stages of developing a multi-level planning process to guide themselves in dealing with the
important environmental issues facing the Region over the next twenty years. Specifically, the
collective intent of this process is to accomplish a number of objectives to include:
identifying the strategic issues with which the
EPA and the states of the Region must
collectively deal,
preparing long-term goals and strategies for
jointly dealing with those issues,
organizing the actions of the EPA and the
states to carry out those strategies,
creating a relationship of genuine partnership
between the EPA and the states,
changing the focus for guiding environmental
policy and decision making from a focus on
program performance to one of environ-
mental performance,
beginning to change the culture of both EPA
and the states to accommodate these new
orientations, and
changing the historic relationship between the
EPA program offices (and their tradition of
detailed prescriptive guidance) and the
regional offices to provide a more flexible,
environmentally-based relationship that
provides for regional differences and for
regional participation in funding decisions.
The RESP reflects the collective efforts of Region 4 of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the eight state that comprise the Region. Over the past 10 months the management and staff of
Region 4 EPA and the management and staff of the environmental agencies of Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee have been working
to develop this cornerstone planning product.
The RESP is a strategic plan and as such it is qualitatively different than other management tools
developed by EPA and the states. Most previous planning activities were for relatively short periods
(1 or 2 years) and focused on prescriptive program activities and achievements. This RESP is very
different in a number of important ways. The RESP:
• takes a long-term perspective, projecting environmental results, strategies and activities
over a 20 year period. The RESP recognizes that significant environmental improvement is often
the product of concerted activities over long periods of time. The RESP attempts to focus
attention, energy and resources on the achievement of important environmental results measured
by dynamic quantitative goals. The focus on the long-tern achievement provides the direction for
our short-term activities.
• focuses on issues that reflect the most important environmental concerns the Region will
face over the next 20 years. The major issues of the RESP reflect the most important priorities
for the environmental future of the Region. As such the issues are quire different from most EPA-
state planning efforts. Those differences are:
the issues are more broadly defined,
they reflect environmental outcomes more clearly,
they include environmental concerns not presently a part of the statutory missions of
either EPA or the states,
they include environmental concerns that are the responsibility of other agencies -- federal,
state, or local.
The intent of the RESP is not to plan for current problems with current programs and current
resources, but to identify all important environmental problems requiring treatment in the Region
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-1
-------
over the next 20 years and begin the process of setting priorities, assigning responsibilities and
allocating resources so that those problems can be successfully addressed. Only by taking such
a broad view can we coordinate all of the relevant stakeholders, allocate and coordinate
resources, integrate strategies and acquire the authorities we need in order to achieve the
environmental result we want to achieve.
• is a cooperative and collaborative process. Most previous planning processes involving EPA
and the states were vehicles for specifying requirements for states in carrying out EPA program
direction. The RESP is a very different process. Instead of mandates and requirements, the
RESP presents a set of negotiated and consensual goals and strategies that EPA Region 4 and
the states will work toward. The RESP creates a framework for cooperative action in which EPA
and the states can voluntarily work together to address the major environmental issues facing the
region. The RESP is not a mandate: it should serve as the foundation for other planning activities
and as a springboard for discussion of future joint EPA-state activities.
• has a regional focus. Most other EPA-state planning activities have been restricted to EPA's
relationship with individual states. The RESP is regional in scope and focuses on the
env ronmental results that can be obtained for the region through the joint, collaborative efforts of
EPA and the eight states.
Finally, like all effective planning, the RESP must be an evolving; dynamic process. This present
RESP is an beginning effort and, as such; reflects some limitations that can be expanded in future
years. By design, this present RESP was developed by the EPA and the eight state environmental
agencies corresponding to EPA in the Region. Since the relationship between EPA and the states is
the fundamental element of the plan, the decision was made to focus the initial plan on the roles and
relationships of these two participants. Missing from the planning process is the participation of
other state and federal environmental agencies, the private sector, the environmental community
and tne public. The development of a fully effective process must certainly include these
stakeholders. Future versions of the process will include their participation.
Next Steps
The RESP is just the first step in a process to ensure an effective planning process for the region.
Three additional planning activities are being considered to extend this process:
• Dev3;opment of a Regional Strategic Implementation Plan that — at the regional level — takes
the direction provided by the strategies of the RESP and develops a series of specific actions that
EPA, and the states will take to carry out those strategies and make them work. This step would
involve the creation of working groups or other coordination mechanisms to implement the RESP
strategies.
• Development of individually negotiated EPA-State Environmental Plans. EPA and each of the
states should use the same goal-driven, indicator-supported, and issue-based planning process
used in the RESP to develop a joint plan that is supported both by regional goals and indicators as
well as state goals and indicators. Each state plan should reflect the particular character and
distribution of environmental concerns for that state by identifying the key issues and developing a
strategic approach to implementing and measuring environmental performance. This plan would
then serve as the basis for a negotiation in the mix of resources received from EPA. State
performance would be judged, not by strictly program criteria, but also by environmental
performance.
• Development of an Internal Operating Plan that outlines how EPA will internally organize and
manage itself to accommodate these fundamental changes in operation.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-2
-------
Policy Context
The context for this plan is in part being set by the desire of EPA Region 4 and its states to develop
a stronger and more effective means of cooperating and collaborating their activities to achieve the
best possible environmental protection for the southeastern United States. Also heavily influencing
the development of this process is a number of trends that reflect national thinking about the
direction of environmental policy and management.
Environmental policy in this country is presently undergoing a rather dynamic re-evaluation. At the
national level, there are concerns about loss of focus and clear sense of direction in regard to
attempted achievements in dealing with environmental issues, and that the management tools being
used need increased emphasis and evaluation. In general, there are several major, fundamental
concerns driving this re-evaluation:
Focus on the Environment
The historic roles of EPA and the states have centered around the requirements of large national
programs and the reporting of specific program results. Most of the new environmental initiatives
are changing this focus to direct attention to the achievement of environmental results. To promote
this emphasis on results-oriented measurement, EPA is sponsoring a variety of activities designed
to increase its own use of measurement tools to drive its own decisional process, and it is working
dynamically with states to improve their capabilities of developing environmental indicator systems
as integral parts of their environmental management systems.
The current emphasis on environmental indicator systems is some of the clearest evidence of this
trend. EPA investment of funds in state indicator technical assistance programs through the State
Environmental Goals and Indicators Project and through the pivotal role assigned to indicators in the
Performance Partnership Agreements demonstrates this trend.
Further, EPA's funding and technical support of comparative risk assessment studies for states
demonstrate a commitment to identifying and prioritizing environmental issues as the core of
environmental planning processes. These projects provide the technical information required to
restructure policy — and, ultimately, redefine programs and re-allocate resources — based on a
comprehensive assessment of relative risk of all significant environmental issues.
At the national level the Governmental Performance and Results Act will require all federal agencies,
including EPA, to set goals regarding their missions and to measure their achievement. Both
environmental and program performance indicators will be used.
Direction
The current structure of environmental policy in this country is primarily the result of the passage of a
variety of pieces of federal legislation that have set direction for federal and state governments in
dealing with specific media or problem-based issues. However, the maturing of the regulatory
programs and the emergence of a variety of new environmental problems have raised issues
concerning whether the overall direction of environmental policy requires an integrated
reassessment to ensure a clear concept of sought-for achievements in the environment. The EPA
is responding to this concern through its implementation of the National Goals Project, an ambitious
attempt to open national discussion on the development of a series of unified, integrated national
environmental goals that can serve as the foundation for the structuring of national environmental
policy.
Partnerships
Achievement of environmental progress in the coming decades will require the resources of
governmental organizations, the private sector, and the public to be fully and effectively used and
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-3
-------
coordinated. A series of new partnerships and working arrangements will be required. The
proposed Performance Partnership Agreements that structure a new relationship between EPA and
the states are one form of a new partnership. Project XL is another strong new initiative that would
offer new working relationships with individual facilities, economic sectors, community groups, and
governmental agencies.
Environmental Context
In 1986 EPA began a process to reexamine its program and budgetary priorities by comprehensively
assessing all important environmental issues within the context of the relative risk each poses. This
effort resulted in the publication of Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of
Environmental Problems, an attempt to assess the environmental risks that still remained after
twenty years. A principal finding of this document was that EPA's program structure reflected the
public's perception of risk more closely than it did a scientifically based assessment of risk. The
process used to conduct this analysis — comparative risk assessment — was then utilized to
conduct studies in each of its ten regional offices. Region 4 completed one of the more thorough
comparative risk studies. This study established the policy and scientific infrastructure required to
accomplish quality strategic planning.
These activities represent a collective effort on the part of states and the federal government to
fundamentally reexamine environmental policy in this country. By using this approach they are
recognizing that our present process of dealing with environmental needs is incomplete and requires
a comprehensive reassessment. By emphasizing a scientific assessment of risk, a new and more
objective basis for designing and implementing environmental policy and programs is established
By definition, comparative risk assessment is a planning, management, and public policy tool
specifically designed to assist environmental agencies at the national, state, regional, and local
levels. The comparative risk assessment process:
identifies the critical environmental issues
with which an organization must deal,
rigorously assembles and consolidates the
best available scientific information con-
cerning that issue,
applies a process that considers this scientific
information in combination with the judgments
of 'he best available technical experts to
produce the best possible assessment of the
risk 'hat each issue poses to the ecology,
human health, and quality of life,
establishes, based on these assessments of
risk, relative rankings of the issues with
regard to their separate risk impacts on the
ecology, human health, and quality of life, and
confirms these rankings with the interested
and general public by conducting a partici-
pative public process that culminates in the
development of a single integrated ranking of
environmental risks.
The rosults of a comparative risk assessment project can be used in at least two major ways. First,
the rankings can become the basis for educating the public with regard to where the real
environmental risks lie. Comparative risk assessment — by focusing on scientific evidence — has
the potential to correct public perception of the relative risks of important environmental issues.
Second, it provides an excellent policy tool that elected officials and environmental agency
managers can use to restructure the priorities of environmental programs. By reviewing existing
programs that may deal with issues of relatively low risk and by identifying issues of relatively high
risk that are receiving little or no attention, programs and budgets can be restructured to meet our
environmental needs.
Comparative risk assessment is not a perfect policy tool for environmental issues, but it does
provide some substantial improvements over our current practices. Some of the more important
improvements include:
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-4
-------
the current unsystematic means of defining
environmental policy is replaced by a means
of making decisions that is based on the best
available science and the judgments of the
best available scientists,
the current practice of dealing with environ-
mental problems one at a time is replaced by
a process that comprehensively assesses all
environ-mental issues, allowing decisions
about environmental programs and budgets
to be made in a much more complete context,
comparative risk assessment actively
involves the public in defining the environ-
mental risks that will drive environmental
policy, a level of access not commonly found
in the current system.
Region 4 EPA has conducted a comparative risk assessment specifically for the eight states in the
Region. Twenty-five environmental problem areas were listed relative to one another based on
residual risk, the risk that remains after the consideration of present controls and regulations. For
each environmental problem area, staff estimated human health, ecological, and welfare risks.
Human health risk considered cancer and/or non-cancer health effects; ecological risk examined the
severity and extent of adverse effects on species, communities, and ecosystem structure and
function; and welfare risk estimated the dollar value of impacts including direct health care costs,
lost resource values, and diminished quality of life. The twenty-five issues are:
•Accidental Chemical
Releases
•Acid Deposition
•Airborne Lead
•Degradation of Terrestrial
Habitats
•Degradation of Wetlands
•Drinking Water
•Global Warming
•Ground Water
•Hazardous Waste
•Indoor Air Pollution
•Industrial Solid Waste Sites
•Industrial Wastewater
•Municipal Solid Waste Sites
•Municipal Wastewater
•Nonpoint Source Pollution
•Odor/Noise Pollution
•Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
•Paniculate Matter
•Pesticides
•Radiation (Other Than
Radon)
•Radon
•Storage Tanks
•Stratospheric Ozone
Depletion
•Superfund Sites
•Toxic Air Pollutants
In addition to the regional comparative risk assessment, several states have undertaken their own
state comparative risk projects. Three states have developed issue lists for their projects: Florida,
Kentucky and Mississippi. The overall approach of each project was to determine which
environmental problems posed the greatest risk to each state. The initial step in each project was to
develop issue lists of the areas of greatest environmental concern. Each project looked at the risks
to human health, the ecology, and quality of life associated with environmental problem areas
specific to their state. Each project has produced a list of environmental issue areas that were
determined to be of greatest concern. The issues developed for each state are listed on the
following page. (These lists do not imply any order of significance or priority.)
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-5
-------
Florida
Alteration and Loss of
Ecosystems
Watei Quantity
Surface Water Quality
Patterns of Development
Use and Management of
Public Lands
Soil Quality
Ground Water Quality
Trans oortation and
Storage of Hazardous
Mater als
Ambient Air Quality
Degradation of Indoor Air
Environment
Loss of Scenic, Historic
and Cultural Resources
Environmentally
Contaminated Food
Xantucky
Protecting/Maintaining
Biodiversity
Water Quality/Quantity
Graundwater
Surface Water
Di inking Water
Waste
Land Quality
Air Quality
Food Safety
Indoor Environmental
Quality and Safety
Mississippi
Industrial Wastewater
Discharges to Oceans,
Lakes and Rivers
Municipal Wastewater
Discharges to Oceans,
Lakes and Rivers
Aggregated Public and
Private Drinking Water
Supplies
Non-point Discharges to
Oceans, Lakes and
Rivers
Physical Degradation of
Water and Wetland
Habitats
Aggregated Groundwater
Contamination
Storage Tanks
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste Sites -
Abandoned Superfund
Sites
Municipal Solid Waste
Sites
Industrial Solid Waste
Sites
Accidental Releases to
the Environment
Pesticides
Sulfur Oxides and
Nitrogen Oxides
(Including Acidic
Deposition)
Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide
Lead (From all Sources)
Paniculate Matter
Hazardous/Toxic Air
Pollutants
Indoor Pollutants Other
Than Radon
Physical Degradation of
Terrestrial
Ecosystems/Habitats
Odor and Noise Pollution
Stratospheric Ozone
Pollution
CO2 and Global Warming
Water Quantity
Human Health
Problem areas with high rankings in the area of human health risk are primarily driven by large
popule.tions of individuals exposed to chemical and physical contaminants. For example, Indoor Air
Pollution is ranked very high in terms of human health risk because the exposed population
potent ally equals residents of the entire southeastern U.S. Similarly, radon in homes, pesticides on
foodstjiffs, workplace/home exposure, lead in drinking water, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides
and ni'lrogen oxides, other toxic air pollutants, and ultraviolet radiation also place large segments of
the population at risk. For example, ozone non-attainment areas generally correspond to densely
populated counties and, as a result, large numbers of people Region-wide are at risk. The ranked
human health issues are:
Ranking of Human Health Issues
(High to Low)
Indoor Air Pollution
Radcn
Acid Deposition
Drinking Water
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Pesticides
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Toxic Air Pollutants
Airborne Lead
Ground Water
Hazardous Waste
Industrial Solid Waste Sites
Industrial Wastewater
Municipal Solid Waste Sites
Municipal Wastewater
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Particulate Matter
Superfund Sites
Accidental Chemical Releases
Odor/Noise Pollution
Storage Tanks
Radiation (Other Than Radon)
. Degradation of Terrestrial
Habitats"
Degradation of Wetlands"
Global Warming**
**Not Ranked
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-6
-------
Ecological
Similar to the findings of the human health risk assessment, many of the problem areas that pose
'Very high" risk to ecological systems are linked to population growth or to areas with high population
density. Past development has physically degraded formerly healthy terrestrial and wetland
ecosystems; urban areas continue as the source of pollutants that stress natural ecosystems. The
environmental damage that results from Acid Deposition, Industrial and Municipal Wastewater, and
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide are all derived from activities of our industrialized society. Some of the
same processes that contribute to acid rain and tropospheric ozone formation (such as electric
power generation and automobile transportation) also contribute to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
and climate change, which were also ranked very high in the ecological risk assessment.
Ecological risk, moreover, is not limited to densely populated areas. Much nonpoint source pollution
is associated with agribusiness and is only indirectly related to population density or rapid population
growth. The primary factor remains the same — a large population using limited natural resources.
The ranked ecological issues are:
Ranking of Ecological Issues
(High to Low)
Degradation of Terrestrial
Habitats
Degradation of Wetlands
Global Warming
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Acid Deposition
Industrial Wastewater
Municipal Wastewater
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Pesticides
Accidental Chemical Releases
Ground Water
Hazardous Waste
Industrial Solid Waste Sites
Municipal Solid Waste Sites
Storage Tanks
Superfund Sites
Toxic Air Pollutants
Airborne Lead
Paniculate Matter
Radiation (Other Than Radon)
Drinking Water"
Indoor Air Pollution**
Odor/Noise Pollution*
Radon**
"Not Ranked
'Not ranked within box
Welfare
In terms of welfare risk, the problem areas identified as producing the highest economic damage
typically result because of their high health and ecological impacts. Reductions in ecological and
human health risks will produce concurrent reductions in welfare risk. The ranked welfare issues
are:
Ranking of Welfare Issues
(High to Low)
Acid Deposition
Drinking Water
Global Warming
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Paniculate Matter
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Accidental Chemical Releases
Degradation of Terrestrial Habitat
Ground Water
Indoor Air Pollution
Industrial Solid Waste
Industrial Wastewater
Municipal Solid Waste
Municipal Wastewater
Odor/Noise Pollution
Pesticides
Radon
Toxic Air Pollutants
Airborne Lead
Degradation of Wetlands
Hazardous Waste
Storage Tanks
Superfund Sites
Radiation (Other Than Radon)
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-7
-------
Demographic and Economic Context
The distribution and character of these environmental issues within the Region reflect demographic
and economic trends and conditions. Analysis shows that densely populated areas correspond
closely to areas where existing health and ecological risks are high. These are likely caused by
unwise patterns of land use, water use, or waste disposal — all of which must be addressed.
Existing risks require clean-up/restoration type activities to correct old problems and source
reduction efforts to eliminate or reduce continuing sources of pollution.
Because the Region's population is showing significant growth, only offering a snapshot of present
risks to the public and the environment — without a discussion of future trends — is simply planning
for the past. Demographic analysis connected to risk evaluations will allow the Region to reduce
present and future environmental risk and plan for sustainable development. For example, air
qualit/ problems have a strong correlation with areas of high population density and rapidly
increasing population growth. EPA's air emission trends data for 1988 show NAAQS exceedances
for ozone in virtually every urban area with a population density greater than 500 persons per square
mile. In the four coastal states, virtually all of these nonattainment areas are surrounded by counties
with high growth rates. Thus, an effective strategy must focus on both existing and future activities.
In rapid growth areas, regional strategies should focus on preventing new nonattainment areas.
Future environmental degradation will occur in those geographic locations which are environmentally
sensitive and where development pressures are the greatest. The degradation of natural
environments in the Southeast may be especially severe in coming years due to predicted rapid
population growth. Region 4 is an especially diverse biological area and many of the natural areas
are environmentally sensitive. Areas of critical concern in the Southeast include ground water
recharge areas, tidal wetlands, the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin, the Everglades, and many
fragmented terrestrial ecosystems. Fragmented habitats are especially prone to localized species
extinctions due to development pressure. Since prevention activities are especially useful in
averting likely future problems, this plan relies heavily on them to manage areas where significant
growth is likely.
Taken together, the eight states of the southeastern United States are growing faster than any other
Region of the country, except the desert southwest. The Region 4 states are projected to grow to a
population of 52 million by 2000, reflecting a growth of 34 percent from 1980 levels, while the nation
as a whole is projected to grow only 18 percent. With a high rate of growth will come increasing
pressure on the natural environment.
EPA Regional Population Comparison
Fegion 1
Region 2
Fegion 3
Fegion 4
F egion 5
Fegion 6
Fegion?
Fegion 8
Region 9
Region 10
U.{>. Totals
1980
(Thousands)
12,348
24,923
24,610
38,880
45,758
25,050
1 1 ,765
6,952
28,151
8,111
226,546
1990
(Thousands)
13,208
25,720
25,916
44,708
46,384
28,218
1 1 ,950
7,605
35,735
9,266
248,710
1980-1990
% Change
6.9
3.2
5.3
15.0
1.4
12.6
1.6
9.4
26.9
14.2
9.8
% Of 1990
U.S. Population
5.3
10.3
10.4
18.0
18.6
11.3
4.8
3.1
14.4
3.7
2000 (Projected)
(Thousands)
14,002
26,348
28,000
52,241
47,123
29,137
12,095
7,733
41 ,367
9,701
267,747
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-8
-------
There are dramatic differences in the rate and nature of growth among the eight states of Region 4.
Thus, the population patterns and changes in Region 4 can best be discussed by bisecting the
Region into two geographic areas which we have called: 1) Coastal states, comprising the states of
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida; Alabama, and Mississippi (although the latter
two states have short Gulf coastlines and 2) Inland states, composed of Kentucky and Tennessee.
The split dramatically documents where growth will likely occur in the Southeast.
Population Growth Rate
1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
2000-2010
The patterns of growth, immigration, and land use differ in character between the Coastal and Inland
sub-regions. In agriculture, the Mississippi Valley is more intensely cultivated than anywhere else in
the Southeast and is subjected to a pesticide load that is among the highest in the U.S. In the Inland
states, mining and heavy manufacturing have been key components of the industrial base for over
one hundred years, building the Region's major metropolitan centers. For example, more chemical
emissions from the Industrial Toxics Project are released from Inland states than from Coastal
states.
Population Density
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
In contrast, much of the future pressure from population growth and development is likely to occur in
the Coastal states. In general, while the Coastal states have exceeded the rate of population growth
in the U.S. during the past two decades, the Inland states have lagged behind.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-9
-------
State sponsored population projections through the year 2000 show considerably higher growth in
the Coastal states than in the Inland ones. For example, 33 counties in four (FL, GA, NC, SC) the
Coastal states of have projected increases in population exceeding 100 percent between 1980 and
2000, compared with none in the Inland states. Overall, between 1980 and 2000, these four Coastal
states are projected to experience a 44 percent increase in population, exceeding the national
average of 18 percent; the Inland states' projected population growth is 11 percent.
TRENDS IN POPULATION 1970 TO 2000, COASTAL STATES
Total population growth in the Coastal states outpaced the national average by a considerable
margin in both of the reported periods (1970-1980 and 1980-1987), and this trend is projected to
continue through the year 2000. With this growth has come a steady increase in pressures on the
environment (for example, lack of suitable landfill sites in North Carolina and inadequate freshwater
supplies in Florida).
Percent Change In Population Density
D% Change 1970-1987
D% Change 1970-2000
Alabama Florida Georgia Mississippi N. Carolina S. Carolina Total U.S. Kentucky Tennessee
Coastal States Inland States
In each ten-year period, the Coastal states in Region 4 rank in the top quartile of the country's
fastest growing states, with Florida consistently among the top five states, along with less populous
Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Net migration data for the Coastal states in Region
4 show that much of the above growth in population is drawn from other states outside of the
Region, especially from the northeast and midwest.
Population of Coastal States (in thousands)
Florida
Georgia
N. Carolina
Alabama
S. Carolina
Mississippi
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-10
-------
Coastal States' Population, in thousands
State
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
N. Carolina
S. Carolina
U.S. Total
1970
3,444
6,791
4,588
2,217
5,084
2,591
203,302
1980
3,894
9,746
5,463
2,521
5,882
3,122
226,546
% Change
1970-80
13.1
43.5
19.1
13.7
15.7
20.5
11.4
1990
4.181
12,818
6,663
2,699
6,690
3,549
249,891
% Change
1980-90
7.4
31.5
22.0
7.1
13.7
13.7
10.3
2000
4,410
15,415
7,957
2,877
7,483
3,906
267,747
% Change
1990-2000
5.5
20.3
19.4
6.6
11.9
10.1
7.1
% Change
1970-2000
28.0
127.0
73.4
29.8
47.2
50.8
31.7
As indicated by the migration data, the four states with the largest stretches of coastline (FL, GA,
NC, SC) are growing by virtue of migration and not as a function of a particularly high birth rate or
low death rate. This influx has created and will continue to create rapidly increasing immediate
pressures on the local environment (e.g., new houses, transportation corridors, etc.).
Percent of Coastal States' Population Change
Due To Migration
Florida Georgia N. Carolina S. Carolina Total US
Net Total Migration — Coastal States (in thousands of people)
State
Florida
Georgia
N. Carolina
S. Carolina
U.S. Total
1970-1980
Change
2,955
875
797
531
23,244
Migration
2,519
329
278
210
4,516
%
85.2
37.6
34.9
39.5
19.4
1980-1987
Change
2,277
759
531
303
16,854
Migration
2,007
424
275
121
4,884
%
88.1
55.9
51.8
39.9
29.0
When arrayed by county, a pattern emerges showing the differential growth by state. By the year
2000, the most intense growth in the Region is projected to occur in the coastal counties of the
Carolinas, the northwestern counties surrounding Atlanta, and central and southern Florida.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-11
-------
As a demographic measure, the change in population in the Coastal states lacks the dimension of
density, an important factor indicative of preexisting population pressure and related ecological
damage. Cities were built at the expense of native habitats and the infrastructure to support
society's activities are in place. Population density increased by more than 25 percent in the
Coastal states from 1970 to 1987 and is projected to increase through the end of the century.
Coastal States' Population Density
(Population Per Square Mile)
Florida N. Carolina Georgia S. Carolina Alabama Mississippi Total US
Population Density (Pop/sq. mile) - Coastal States
State
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
N. Carolina
S. Carolina
U.S. Total
1970
67.9
125.5
79.0
46.9
104.1
85.7
57.4
1980
76.7
180.0
94.1
53.4
120.4
103.4
64.0
1987
80.4
222.0
107.2
55.6
131.3
113.4
68.8
2000
86.9
284.7
137.1
60.9
153.2
129.4
75.6
% Change
1970-87
18.41
76.89
35.70
29.85
26.13
32.32
19.86
% Change
1970-2000
27.98
126.85
73.54
29.85
47.17
50.99
31.71
Population density change is best represented at the county level. The areas of greatest increase in
total population do not always correspond with the areas with the highest population density. Some
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas become stagnant with respect to population density.
Comparing 1980 data to the projected 2000 levels shows that density is increasing throughout
central Florida, in the counties surrounding Atlanta, along coastal South Carolina, and in North
Carolina in the central Piedmont area and around the city of Charlotte. In general, the counties with
the greatest sustained growth between 1980 and 2000 (projected) are those with moderate
population densities (between 50 and 500 persons per square mile). As noted before, air quality
problems have a strong correlation with areas of high population density and rapidly increasing
population growth. Continued growth in these areas and in similar counties will more than likely
aggravate air quality problems and increase the probability of ground water and surface water quality
problems.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-12
-------
TRENDS IN POPULATION 1970 TO 2000, INLAND STATES
In contrast to population trends in the Coastal states in Region 4, the Inland states are projected to
grow at a pace at or below the national average of 32 percent between 1970 and 2000, and
therefore are not facing the same degree of environmental pressure resulting from the burgeoning
population and development. The greatest growth in the inland states occurs between 1970 and
1980, with only modest growth occurring in the following decade and projected to 2000. In the
period 1990 to 2000, in fact, Kentucky is expected to suffer a net decrease in population, due in part
to decreasing demand for two of Kentucky's most significant commodities, tobacco and high sulfur
coal.
6,OOOfX
5,000
4,000
c
"c. 3,000
-------
Inland States' Population Density
(Population Per Square Mile)
Kentucky
Tennessee
Total US
Population Density (Pop/sq. mile) - Inland States
State
Kentucky
Tennessee
U.S. Total
1970
81.2
94.9
57.4
1980
92.3
111.6
64.0
1987
94.0
118.0
68.8
2000
94.1
128.0
75.6
% Change
1970-87
15.76
24.34
19.86
% Change
1970-2000
15.89
34.88
31.71
EMERGING TRENDS IN BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL PATTERNS
To structure a macro-level assessment of patterns of business activity in Region 4, businesses have
been broken into three broad categories: manufacturing (construction and manufacturing), services
(transportation, communication, public utilities, finance, insurance, real estate, recreation,
entertainment, and professional and related services), and trade (wholesale and retail). Agriculture
will be discussed separately due to the difficulties associated with assessing seasonal versus
permanent employment.
The pattern of non-farm employment in the Region varies from the national average, generally
balancing employment in manufacturing, services, and trade.
Employment by Non-Farm Business Sector, 1985
Area
U.S. Total
Region 4
Manufacturing
29.5%
33.5%
Services
39.9%
35.5%
Trade
27.7%
28.5%
Trend analysis is an important part of demographic analysis. The demographics of the southeastern
U.S. are changing quickly: rapid migration is occurring into Coastal states and into selected urban
areas throughout the eight states. The change in demographics has spurred changing patterns of
business activity and employment and, potentially, the nature of environmental pressures in Region
4. Increases in the service industry are notable. Preliminary data from the most recent census-
taking suggest that the trend continues through 1990. If the trend continues, those counties showing
significant increases in employment in service and trade sectors may preface a longer trend away
from manufacturing, a lessening of the environmental pressures imposed by the manufacturing
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-14
-------
industry, and a corresponding increase in pressure on landfills and other solid waste disposal
facilities as plastic and paper waste is generated by service and trade industries. The ability of EPA
to focus attention and action on pollution prevention can mitigate the aforementioned problems.
Agriculture and silviculture are major industries in the southeast: approximately ten percent of the
farm acreage and fifteen percent of the total national gross receipts from agriculture are controlled
by the eight Region 4 states. Unlike non-farm business sectors, the potential environmental pressure
applied by land use in agriculture is not meaningfully indicated by statistics on employment.
Indicators of potential environmental pressure are available as data on total cropland and use of
irrigation.
Land in Farms (thousands of acres)
tfl
a
o
."3
n
•o
c
ra
3
O
Alabama Flonda Georgia Mississipi N. Carolina S. Carolina Kentucky Tennessee
Coastal States Inland States
Both the number of farms and the total cropland have steadily declined in the Region and the entire
U.S. over the past decade. Commercially available timberland in seven of the eight states exceeds
total farm land and represents more than one quarter of the national total.
Trends In Agricultural Land Use and Commercial Timberland
State
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
Tennessee
U.S. Total
Number of Farms
(in thousands)
1982
36
57
86
31
55
103
53
91
2401
1987
37
48
70
26
49
99
44
80
2213
%
Change
2.78
-15.79
-18.60
-16.13
-10.91
-3.88
-16.98
-12.09
-7.83
Land in Farms
(thousand acres)
1982
12,800
14,000
11,100
6,000
1 1 ,800
14,500
14,500
12,500
1 ,027,795
1987
1 1 ,200
13,000
10,500
5,200
10,700
14,400
13,800
1 1 ,700
1 ,002,603
%
Change
-12.50
-7.14
-5.41
-13.33
-9.32
-0.69
-4.83
-6.40
-2.45
Timberland*
(thousand acres)
1987
15,238
23,384
18,358
12,179
21 ,659
1 1 ,909
16,674
12,840
483,072
' Land classified as commercial timberland includes both public and privately-held forest land capable of producing 20 cubic
feet per acre per year.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-15
-------
Since the distribution of agricultural land among the eight states varies geographically, it is more
useful to see the pattern of agricultural land use at the county level. The greatest concentration of
regioral cropland is located in the Mississippi Valley and in the southeastern plains in the Coastal
states. The decrease in agricultural land use in the four years preceding 1982 is reflected by the fact
that 514 of the 736 counties in Region 4 lost acreage devoted to agriculture, for a total of 70 percent
of the counties.
Taken alone, a decrease in the acreage devoted to agricultural production might imply a potential
reduction in pressure on the environment from a reduced rate of soil erosion and depletion and a
reduction in the total pesticide load. But the drop in acreage devoted to agriculture does not exist in
a vacuum. At the same time total cropland has been shrinking, the level of intensity of the farming
has been steadily increasing. One example of this is the emergence of confinement farming
practices for poultry and dairy production. Confinement farming is typified by housing hundreds to
thousands of animals in a minimum amount of space, producing high levels of animal waste. In
addition, agricultural land taken out of production is generally put into a more intensive land use and
thus cecreases its potential use as regional habitat for wildlife.
Many of the counties showing a decrease in cropland are at the same time experiencing a rapid
increase in population, presumably applying different environmental pressures to the land. For the
land remaining in agricultural production, in order to maintain or increase total crop yield, increased
pressures have been applied to the land and natural resources. For example, while the total
cropland acreage has been decreasing, the use of irrigation on remaining cropland has been
increasing. State agriculture departments also show an increased reliance on fertilizer applications
in the eight states and the second highest rate of pesticide application in the nation (behind the six
states of Region 5). Combining the increase in irrigation with an increasing use of fertilizers and
pesticides has resulted in a steadily increasing pressure on soil and ground water resources and
increased the risk from non-point source runoff of the toxic chemicals used in modern, high intensity
farming.
Taken together, the employment data on manufacturing, services, and trade along with the land use
data on agriculture and irrigation show two pictures. First, the counties which are heavily invested in
manufacturing or have a high percentage of cropland under irrigation change relatively little both in
terms of employment/land use and population. Second, the geographic regions in which
employment is more evenly divided among manufacturing, services, and trade industries, and in
which the land is less heavily invested in agriculture, have grown most heavily in population and
have r.creased employment in service industries relative to trade and especially manufacturing.
Reducing Future Environmental Risk
The Comparative Risk Evaluation provided a status report — a snapshot of the current
environmental situation — of environmental risk in the Southeast. Although demographic data do
not indicate the point sources of pollution, the smokestacks, the effluent pipes, and the landfills, the
data can show the patterns of living which lead to more or less of those large point sources as well
as multitudes of small sources, such as dry cleaners and gasoline service stations, which follow
population growth and are hard to control.
In surveying population trends, areas of environmental sensitivity, and already identified
environmental problem areas in Region 4, two inferences emerge. First, as demonstrated by the
location of NAAQS non-attainment areas, many of the Comparative Risk Evaluation problem areas
identified as "high risk" with respect to human health are located in geographic areas of high
population density. This may seem obvious, but it reinforces the conclusion that without close
monitoring and control, environmental problems naturally follow in population centers and grow as
density increases.
Second, with regard to ecological risk, many of the geographic areas of highest projected growth in
the next decade are also environmentally sensitive. A plot of the southeastern ecoregions overlaid
with projected high population growth rates indicates that new growth in many coastal and inland
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-16
-------
urban counties may severely stress natural environments. The prime example of habitat at risk is
coastal wetlands. Along the Atlantic coastline, throughout Florida, and in the Coastal Plain,
ecoregion population is projected to grow very rapidly. Around urban centers, population in counties
of both high and low density is increasing and spilling into surrounding open land. Without
supervision these areas of highest growth will degrade and follow the pattern of environmental
problems mentioned above. Many of the areas of highest growth lack the infrastructure necessary
to manage the demands of a rapidly expanding population and will therefore feel the negative effects
especially acutely.
One key for reducing future risk is to integrate the concept of sustainable development into the fabric
of our society. Environmental risk, regrettably too often, follows population growth. The assumption
underlying this discussion of demographic data as an environmental indicator is that increasing
population means increasing pressure on the environment through increased solid waste
generation, increased human waste disposal problems, increased air emissions from automobiles
and residential fuel use, and decreased undeveloped open land. EPA will reduce future risk by
targeting specific high risk stressors and protecting areas that are environmentally sensitive.
The Issues of the Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
On June 7 and 8, 1996, the eight secretaries and commissioners of the state environmental
agencies in Region 4 and the management of EPA Region 4 met at the Carter Presidential Center in
Atlanta. With the regional and state comparative risk studies as an informational basis, they began
work on this RESP with the development of a list of 10 environmental issues that they believed best
summarized the major environmental challenges facing the Region over the next 20 years. Those
issues are:
• Alteration and Loss of Ecosystems • Surface Water Quality
• Alteration and Loss of Coastal and Inland • Ground Water Quality
Wetlands • Water Resources
• Environmentally Damaged Lands • Air Quality
• Contaminants in the Environment • Healthy Communities
• Waste Management
The decision was made to leave the issues unranked; therefore, the order presented here reflects
no priority and no attempt should be made to associate the order of these issues with the prioritized
ranking of the regional and states comparative risk assessment studies presented above.
Over the past ten months the management and staff of the eight states and EPA have been meeting
to examine these issues to set goals and devise strategies for their resolution The result is this
RESP.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
A-17
-------
Section B
Guiding
Principles
-------
Guiding Principles:
Regional Environmental Strategic Plan (RESP)
The purpose of this Regional Environmental Strategic Plan (RESP) is to:
• Establish a cooperative and collaborative environmental planning process
between the states and EPA in Region 4,
• Provide strategic direction to the joint activities of the states and the Regional
Office in achieving regional environmental goals and objectives,
• Shift the focus of the EPA-State relationship from program accomplishments
to the achievement of explicit environmental results,
• Create the foundation for the negotiation of individual state agreements
based on the achievements of environmental results, and
• Prepare the Region and its states for participation in the new roles offered by
Performance Partnership Agreements and by opportunities for changes in
EPA oversight practices.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
B-1
-------
Section C
Vision Statement
-------
An Environmental
Vision for Region 4:
2015
/ \
/ \
/ \
The National Vision
The New Generation of Environmental Protection: EPd's Strategic Plan envisions a world in which:
All individuals and institutions value the environment and choose to act in a manner that ensures
achievement of sustainable environmental and economic goals.
The natural balance of all living things is no longer threatened and all individuals -- rich and poor,
young and old -- share in the benefits of a healthy environment.
This vision is expanded in the Proposed Environmental Goals for America with Benchmarks for Year 2005:
We envision a 21st century where healthy and economically secure people sustain -- and are
sustained by - a healthy environment. Every person breathes clean air, drinks clean water, eats
safe food, and lives, works and plays in clean, pleasant, and safe surroundings. Natural
processes carry on side-by-side with human activities and diverse natural systems support
economic development for years to come.
The Regional Vision
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the states of Region 4 accept this national vision and offer their
own vision, refined to reflect the special environmental values of the southeast.
Our Natural Areas
Region 4 will be rich in quality natural areas of wide physical and biological diversity. The most important
ecosystems will have been identified and afforded the special protection they require to flourish. Natural
habitats supporting secure populations of all native plants and animals exist throughout the Region. Special
value resources -- the wetlands of the rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries -- will be protected from further loss
and will be improving in quality.
Our People
The citizens of the southeast will lead environmentally safe and healthy lives in communities free of
environmental disease. The air they breathe and the water they drink will be clean. Whether our citizens live
in urban or rural settings, we will ensure that these environments fully meet the standards of environmental
quality we want for all of our citizens. None of our citizens will endure low quality environmental conditions
because of their income, race, or age. Our citizens will be our partners in environmental protection. They will
have an environmental ethic that allows them to recognize their personal role in preventing pollution and
protecting our environmental values and resources. We will provide them with the opportunities and the
support they need to participate in the protection of their environment.
Our Economy
The protection of our environment and the vitality of our economic system are mutually reinforcing. We will be
working cooperatively with the private sector to make them partners in maintaining our key environmental
values and we will -- through sound, scientifically-supported public policy -- jointly and flexibly set the allowable,
sustainable limits necessary to ensure environmental quality. Private industry will become a major partner in
solving environmental problems and will learn to minimize, reuse, and recycle their wastes to virtually eliminate
chemical releases or the need to dispose of hazardous wastes. There will be a rebirth of old economic areas
of the southeast -- an environmental redevelopment -- to convert environmental and economic liabilities into
assets for the future.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
C-1
-------
Section D
Strategy
Statement
-------
An Environmental
Strategy Statement
For Region 4:
2075
Since the creation of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency over two decades ago, we
have made tremendous progress in improving
the environmental quality of life in the United
States. This progress was achieved through the
implementation of large programs designed to
firmly regulate major sources of air and water
pollution and waste. The federal Clean Water
Act, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act
were comprehensive programs, focused to deal
directly with large, obvious, and clearly important
sources of pollution. This concentration on large
polluters has resulted in tremendous progress,
with marked improve-
ment in air and water
quality in most of our
more heavily polluted
areas. After 20 years
of such regulatory, or
"command and con-
trol" types of pro-
grams, much of the
pollution caused by
such sources is being
successfully man-
aged, and the opportunity to make further gains
by increased regulatory activities is being made
on the margin. While the continuance of
regulatory programs is an essential element in
protecting our environment, it is apparent to
most of our citizens that the environmental
values of our nation and our states remain
threatened and that our current activities are not
sufficient to provide the type and amount of
environmental protection our citizens demand.
It is becoming clear, therefore, that current
environmental laws do not support an
environmental policy that is dealing with the
totality of our current environmental problems.
By focusing on large and visible environmental
issues, we have created a national
environmental policy that is defined by a limited
set of issues that have a very public or political
context. The result is that important and
potentially more environmentally dangerous or
damaging issues whose effects are less
obvious, less political, or not as emotionally
charged receive disproportionately less attention
and financial support than they deserve.
Increasingly, this creates the potential for a
serious misallocation of public resources and
the distortion of environmental public policy.
This continued threat to our environmental
values is attributable to several factors. First,
even if each source of pollution or ecological
degradation is being more tightly regulated, the
total number of sources, particularly in a high
growth area, increases the total level of pollution
or degradation. Our
raw numbers are
starting to work against
us. Second, rapid
technological
advances often
outstrips the ability of
government to provide
adequate safe-guards
for new pollution
effects. Finally, much
of our current pollution
emanates from sources that are largely beyond
regulation and are personal rather than
institutional in nature. Much of our pollution
results from individual decisions that we all
make on a daily basis. The single greatest
source of water pollution today comes from
stormwater - the water that runs off of our
roads, parking lots, and farms. Individual
decisions that we make about how we treat our
parking and how we apply fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides, and other yard chemicals have major
impacts on the quality of our waters. Our indoor
air environments are consistently ranked as
having the highest risk to human health, yet they
are generally unsupported by programs and are
beyond regulation. The largest source of air
pollution is the automobile. How we maintain
our vehicles and the number of miles we drive
them contributes profoundly to air pollution.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
D-1
-------
The emphasis on command and control
programs tended to focus attention of specific
problems generally confined to specific media --
air, water and waste. In many cases,
compartmentalizing environmental issues has
increasingly limited our ability to deal with them
comprehensively and effectively. As the
interconnectedness of environmental issues has
become more obvious, the structure of current
environmental programs has received
increasingly stronger and more frequent
challenges.
It is clear that at both the national and the state
level we will need to begin making hard choices
concerning funding and the array of
environmental programs provided. Scarce
resources will demand that our selection of
environmental programs and our allocation of
resources accurately reflect the reality of
environmental needs if we are to be successful
in meeting future demands.
Further, the clarity of our mission did not
demand sophisticated planning and
management processes. The sources of
pollution were so large, so obvious and so
institutional and budgetary resources so
expandable, that good decision systems
supported by effective planning and information
systems were underutilized.
The mission largely followed the actions of
Congress who passed laws based upon the
most egregious environmental needs. Thus, our
way of doing business followed "problem-
specific" or "media-specific" approaches, based
upon environmental laws as they came into
being. In the past, this served as an efficient
way of dealing with environmental issues and
many areas of our environment improved as a
result.
Though much has been accomplished in
environmental and public health protection since
EPA's inception and the creation of state
environmental health agencies, the most difficult
problems remain. Such complex problems,
usually encountering pollution sources in several
media, require a comprehensive planning
approach to solving our remaining problems and
beginning to proactively protect our environment.
We must consciously move from the reactive,
"response mode" into a comprehensive,
proactive planning mode. This approach must
include all of our stakeholders: EPA, the states,
industry, environmental groups, and the public.
The focus on regulation tended to create an
adversarial relationship with the private sector,
making command and control types of programs
expensive, litigious and time consuming for both
the regulator and the regulated. Because of the
institutional character of regulatory types of
programs, the roles and opportunities for
citizens to participate in the protection of their
own environmental values were limited and
often confrontational.
Industry must have more opportunities to protect
the environment before pollution is created
through the use of pollution prevention and
industrial excellence programs and through the
information sharing promoted by EPA Region 4
and states. The public, too, will have greater
input in solving its own environmental problems
through the use of community-based
environmental protection (CBEP). CBEP
mobilizes state and EPA resources, the public
and industry of a community, to solve its own
environmental problems and to plan for future
environmental, human health, and wildlife
protection. EPA will increasingly rely on CBEP
and other voluntary activities to take us farther
toward comprehensive environmental protection
than our current regulations prescribe.
A Regional Strategy
Dealing with these circumstances will require some fundamental changes in the way environmental
agencies in Region 4 must approach their missions. This Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
identifies five major strategic changes that need to be made if EPA and states of Region 4 are to
successfully adapt to meet the environmental challenges of the next 20 years.
Strategy 1: The environment must be treated within an integrated and
more comprehensive framework. The recognition that environmental issues are highly
interconnected and increasingly more complex has raised questions concerning the appropriateness
of the categorical, media-based programs that presently dominate federal and state environmental
policy and activities. Dealing with environmental problems on a media basis can achieve important
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
D-2
-------
results, but important benefits can be lost. If a resource is being confronted by several different
problems, dealing with just one of them may not have enough impact to bring about a full solution.
Further, without viewing a resource in a systemic fashion, the impacts of a single medium activity
cannot be comprehended in terms of how it affects the broader system, which can sometimes be
negative.
As environmental issues are conceptualized in broader terms as opposed to individual issues, new
frameworks are being offered that are focused on taking a more integrated, more holistic, and more
systemic approach. Current approaches being developed include:
• ecosystem management,
• place-based management,
• community-based environmental protection,
• watershed management, and
• cross-media management.
Whether some, all or none of these frameworks are finally recognized and used, environmental
management will develop some sort of system-based management process to structure a broader
assessment of environmental issues.
Strategy 2: The role of the public in environmental protection must
become larger and more profound. New forms of public involvement in environmental
protection are evolving that can change the way the public participates in environmental policy.
Approximately half of the states have now completed comparative risk assessment studies that have,
in most cases, created significant opportunities for the public to directly participate in setting
environmental priorities, a new and promising role. Increasingly, important environmental issues are
arising that result from millions of individual, personal decisions (indoor air, stormwater, automobile-
based pollution discussed above) for which institutional solutions are difficult if not impossible. The
education of the citizen as an actor involved in solving one's own problems as an educated, aware,
good environmental citizen possessing a strong environmental ethic of stewardship is the goal for the
future. Groups of such individuals working at the community level have the potential to provide higher
levels of environmental protection, with organizational and technical assistance from EPA and the
states, than governmental programs could ever offer alone.
Strategy 3: The private sector needs to become a partner with government
in solving environmental problems. One of the artifacts of command and control
approaches is the development of an adversarial, confrontational, and litigious relationship between
government and the private sector. While the continuance of regulation as a strategy for
environmental protection will likely prevent the elimination of this negative association, a great many
opportunities exist or can be created to soften this conflict through regulatory reform and through the
creation of new, highly positive, collaborative, and cooperative relationships capable of making the
private sector an active partner of government in protecting the environment. The growing success of
pollution prevention initiatives provides a foundation for further growth in private sector activities in
dealing creatively with their own waste processes and provides a model for the development of other
approaches to involving private industry. Some other activities to be explored or continued are:
increasing our technical assistance and information sharing to industry, providing incentives,
involving industry early on in the rule-making process, and fostering participation in community-based
environmental protection projects. During the next 20 years environmental agencies and the private
sector need to define and implement new strategies that benefit both the environment and private
interests. Such approaches as performance permitting, compliance-based regulation, and market-
based incentives need to be reevaluated and used whenever feasible.
Strategy 4: The range of environmental strategies needs to be expanded to
deal with more diversified environmental issues and new types of clients.
EPA and its counterpart state agencies employ an increasingly wide range of environmental strategies
to accomplish its mission. However, the preponderance of their resources and attention are focused
on the management of monolithic regulatory programs and on restoration activities associated with
cleaning up polluted sites. While regulation and restoration will remain important, if not central, parts
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
D-3
-------
of any overall environmental program structure, their ability to resolve remaining environmental
problems is being questioned. Environmental protection during the next 20 years will need to add
fundamentally different approaches than in the past. Some strategies useful in dealing with this
changed setting might include:
• assisting in the financing of environmental solutions through partnering, developing new financing
mechanisms, and by reducing the impacts of unfunded mandates,
• providing technical assistance in the form of consulting, training, and monitoring to private
industry, community-based groups and private citizens,
• participating in the presentation of environmental education in a variety of forums to make our
citizens and their children good environmental partners,
• the greater use of acquisition and related techniques like mitigation banking to protect critical
resources,
• supporting key research and technology development to support the solution of priority
problems,
• building coalitions of private sector and community-based groups for partnering solutions to
environmental problems,
• increasing the scope and depth of monitoring activities to provide environmental information for
making sound, more holistic decisions and supporting the activities of community-based groups,
and
• designing and conducting serious, information-based, results-driven planning processes to
ensure better, more timely decisions, and the more effective use of resources.
Strategy 5: The tools and techniques employed for environmental
management need to be improved and more conscientiously employed. For
the past 25 years environment management may have been too easy; the problems were egregious
and obvious, the solutions fairly straightforward and the resources were available and expandable.
Under such circumstances the need to make tough management choices was not urgent. This has
been ralected in a number ways in the manner in which environmental organizations have managed
themsolves to include, among others:
• a tjeneral absence or weakness of strategic planning processes,
• the lack of a serious connection between planning and budgeting systems,
• a wsaknsss in monitoring or other information gathering processes that could be used to make
env.ronmental decisions, and
• a lack of systematic environmental analysis as the foundation of environmental policy.
Circurr stances have changed. Environmental issues are no longer quite so obvious or simple, the
solutions are not so direct, the problems and their sources are more diverse, and the financial
resources available to deal with environmental issues are static or shrinking. Dealing with more
complex and difficult circumstances will require better decisionmaking processes and tools and more
dedication to applying and using them.
At the center of this change in management process is a fundamental change in the nature of the
EPA-state relationship. The proposed Performance Partnership Agreement process is an important
first step in a changed relationship, a true partnership that is based more in environmental
perfornance than in prescriptive guidance. Support for this initiative or for other that will follow will
require:
• mora emphasis on the design and use of effective planning processes,
• a reliance on environmental indicators that are derived from better information which is, in turn,
derived from better data systems that focus on environmental, not programmatic, concerns,
• mora comprehensive, risk-based analyses of environmental problems and issues,
• th« use cf better evaluation tools to gauge our programmatic and environmental success, and
• the development of a results orientation to ensure that our decisions are based on achieving
environmental benefits.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
D-4
-------
Strategy 6: EPA, the states, and local governments need to develop a
stronger and more collaborative partnership to strengthen their joint
capacity to address environmental issues. Solving environmental problems is not the
responsibility of any single level of government. Federal, regional, state, and local governments all
have strengths that are needed if continuing progress is to be made. Environmental agencies at all
levels need to assess these strengths and negotiate a system of environmental protection that
establishes roles that complement and reinforce one another.
EPA has begun reforming its oversight of state-run programs by focusing on results instead of the
minutiae of state activities and by reducing oversight of states which are performing effectively.
Through a process of accountable devolution, responsibilities are being passed to states and localities
when national management is less effective and where the state has shown the commitment and
capacity to effectively perform. As EPA continues to delegate program responsibility to states and
decreases oversight of these state-administered programs, the agency will be free to redirect
resources to more productive activities. These activities should stress state and local capacity-
building and assistance functions and should include helping states address complex multi-state,
multi-media activities, establishing environmental training institutes, increased capacity to share
environmental information through improved monitoring and GIS applications, and specialized
knowledge of all major industries in the Region.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
D-5
-------
Section E
Issues, Goals,
and Strategies
-------
Regional Strategic Issue 1:
Alteration and Loss of
Ecosystems
An ecosystem is comprised of the biological community together with its physical environment. The
alteration and loss of ecosystems is important concern because as these systems become degraded the
overall environmental health of the Region will be impacted. This issue provides a broad view of the
relative health and present status of components of marine, estuarine, freshwater, and upland ecosystems
present in the Region. The primary concerns are habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss; loss of
terrestrial and aquatic species; effects of contaminants on ecosystems; and patterns of development and
balancing the future uses of public lands. Loss of terrestrial and aquatic species addresses the status of
plant and animal species populations, biodiversity, and the introduction of exotic species. The effects of
contaminants deals with the accumulation and deposition of toxics and sedimentation in lakes and streams.
This issue also addresses impacts resulting from the use and management of land resources, including the
impacts from the growth and development of cities, towns, suburbs, and urban areas; the impacts resulting
from sprawling land development patterns (including the lack of parks and reduction of greenspaces); the
use and creation of infrastructure; and forestry, mining, and agricultural practices.
Trends and Conditions
Ecosystems within Region 4
vary perhaps more widely
than any other region in the
nation. With systems that
range from mountainous
Appalachians to thousands
of miles of coastal areas
fronting the Atlantic Ocean
and the Gulf of Mexico, the Region includes
temperate, sub-tropical, and tropical
environments. Region 4 has 40% of the
continental U.S. coastlines and one of the
highest growth rates of any region of the
country. The greatest growth is occurring
largely in coastal areas, compounding the
Region's environmental challenges. The range
of premier ecosystems includes such diverse
systems as the Great Smoky Mountain Park, the
Everglades National Park, the Okefenokee
Swamp, and the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary.
The condition of ecosystems in EPA Region 4
varies widely depending on levels of human
development and associated land use activities,
pollution impacts, and introduction of exotic
plant and animal species. A major indicator of
the condition of ecosystems is the condition and
amount of natural upland, wetland, and marine
communities that are present in the Region.
Degradation of ecosystems can be caused by
alteration and loss of critical natural
communities that provide essential ecological
functions. Examples of some natural
communities that have been significantly altered
by human uses include bottomland hardwood
forests, longleaf pine forests, spruce-pine
forests, wetlands, and large free flowing rivers.
The amount of exotic plant and animal species
within the Region is also an indicator of the
condition of its ecosystems. Introduction of
exotic species into ecosystems can cause
declines in native species populations and
diversity within the Region. The number of
threatened and endangered species in the
Region and in individual states provides another
indicator of the condition of ecosystems. Many
species require very specific ecosystem and
habitat conditions. Rapid changes in conditions
caused by human development can degrade
ecosystem quality to the point that species'
survival is threatened.
Physical modification of terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems by human development activities is
the primary pressure on the quality of
ecosystems within the Region. Wide ranges of
upland, wetland, and aquatic disturbances occur
during industrial, commercial, residential,
agricultural, forestry, and mining activities. The
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-1
-------
principal pressure associated with development
activity is the removal of natural vegetative cover
and the alteration of land surfaces. The impacts
of these activities on ecosystems range from
fragmentation of ecosystems and habitat, to
simplilication of ecosystems through forest
management practices and agricultural
activities, to complete elimination of all natural
ecosystem functions from activities such as
dense urban development and mining. The
impacts of these pressures can cause loss of
ecological functions, reductions in plant and
animai diversity, degradation and loss of soil
structure, and eutrophication of water bodies.
Trendii for the alteration of ecosystems are not
readily available for all natural community types;
however, information is available for some types
from state Heritage programs, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and
private conservation organizations such as the
Nature Conservancy.
The in Induction and spread of exotic species in
the Region is also a critical pressure on
ecosystem conditions. As exotic plant and
animal species are introduced into ecosystems,
they :an out-compete native species and
chango natural ecosystem functions. The
uncontrolled growth of exotic species can have
long-term consequences for ecosystems by
displacing native species, destroying food
sources, and affecting water quality. The spread
of exotic species can cause serious ecological
damage to ecosystems that in some instances is
irreparable.
that land use changes may have. Monitoring at
all levels is necessary because changes in land
use can have different impacts on different
geographic scales. For example, the loss of
1,000 acres of forest may seem insignificant at
the regional level while in a certain community
the change could have a substantial impact on a
local ecosystem.
Understanding the reasons for changes in land
use patterns is important in developing
strategies for future land management. Several
social and economic changes during the past 25
years have influenced the rate at which land is
converted to urban uses. Changes in
population, the economy, and expansion of
infrastructure have significantly contributed to
changes in land conversion rates. Primary
factors driving land conversion rates were the
increase in population, expansion of urban
areas, improvements in rural transportation, and
the beginning of the interstate highway system.
Rapid growth in many areas of the country
during the 1970s accelerated the degradation of
ecosystem conditions caused by development
and the condition of the environment as a whole.
If a healthy natural environment is necessary to
maintain human health and welfare, then
preserving the ecological integrity of the
environment should be a primary focus in land
management decisions. Preserving the
Region's ecological resources will depend on
land management strategies and the ability to
control impacts caused by land development.
States
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Land Use/Land Cover Types
Forest
63%
33%
58%
40%
52%
47%
55%
43%
Agriculture
21%
29%
22%
43%
32%
24%
21%
37%
Urban
6%
12%
8%
6%
4%
11%
9%
8%
Water Area
3%
9%
3%
3%
3%
8%
4%
3%
The distribution of land use in the Region is
constantly changing. Monitoring long-term land
use trends helps to evaluate the pressures
development places on land resources. Though
the net change in acreage of land use may be
slight for any single year, changes in land use
patterns over time can have significant
implications for preservation of the ecological
integrity of natural lands. Land use patterns
should be monitored at the regional, state, and
local levels in order to detect significant impacts
One of the major issues for land management
efforts in Region 4 has been the tremendous
population growth since the 1970s. The percent
increase in population for each state in Region 4
from 1980 to 1990 is shown in the following
table. The percentage of the population residing
in coastal areas is projected to increase from the
1990 level of 35.2% to 37.1% by the year 2010.
The Region's population is projected to grow to
over 50 million residents by the late 1990s, from
just over 45 million in 1990. Region 4 is
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-2
-------
currently witnessing some of the negative
environmental effects of this growth and
increased economic activity.
States
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Percent Increase in
Population
1980-1990
3.8%
32.7%
18.6%
0.7%
2.1%
12.7%
11.7%
6.2%
Much of this growth is taking place in major
urban centers and in the Region's coastal areas.
Population density in Region 4 for 1990 was
approximately 120.8 persons per square mile of
land area, and density is projected to increase to
150.7 persons per square mile by the year 2010.
The expansion of development to support this
population growth and human activity has
caused a shift from environmentally beneficial
uses of land to less desirable uses that alter or
destroy the ecological functions of these lands.
In addition, the environmentally beneficial uses
of land that is not developed or altered can
suffer when adjacent land is changed in such a
way as to isolate or degrade habitat or
ecological function. Sensitive coastal and inland
ecosystems will be subject to increasing
pressure as this growth continues.
Strategies have been undertaken by both
governmental bodies and private entities to
address the issue of ecosystem alteration and
loss. One method that has been employed is to
purchase sensitive or critical lands to protect
them from development or alteration. This
strategy has been used by federal, state, and
local governments as well as by private
conservation groups. Other strategies that
address this issue have focused around land
use planning activities and laws developed by
federal, state, and local governments.
At the federal level, the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act are
all legislative mandates that require
consideration of ecosystem impacts. NEPA
requires that the environmental impacts of all
federal projects, including ecosystems impacts,
must be reviewed and alternatives to reduce the
impacts must be developed. Section 404 is
used to protect wetland ecosystems and
preserve associated ecosystem functions. The
Threatened and Endangered Species Act
requires protection of critical habitats that
support populations of endangered and
threatened species.
Some states have similar environmental policy
acts that require, in much the same manner as
NEPA, the review of potential environmental and
ecosystem impacts created by state government
projects. Among the states of the Region 4,
Florida is particularly active in ecosystem-based
environmental protection. Responding to
legislative direction, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection has completed a
process involving over 300 public and private
stakeholders to design and implement the
reorientation of the agency to provide
ecosystem-based environmental protection.
Pilot projects involving seven Florida
ecosystems are presently underway.
The principal method used to protect
ecologically important lands from these
pressures is through conservation efforts by
federal, state, and local governments. The most
visible protected lands are state and national
forests and parks. Region 4 includes
approximately 845,000 acres of state parks and
7,000,000 acres of national forest lands. Each
state park and forest program protects
ecologically important lands. In addition to these
two programs, there are numerous other land
conservation and protection programs in each
state such as Florida's Conservation and
Recreation Lands Program and Tennessee's
State Natural Areas Program. The combination
of federal, state, and non-governmental
conservation programs in each state serves as
the primary method for protecting ecologically
significant lands in the Region.
No single federal or state agency has the sole
responsibility for management of public lands in
the Region. State fish and wildlife agencies
have the primary responsibility for managing fish
and wildlife habitat on state owned waters and
lands. Federal land management agencies such
as the Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and others are
responsible for managing fish and wildlife
habitat on federally owned lands and may assist
states in the management of habitats on other
lands. Some agencies, such as the Natural
Resources Conservation Service and the
Cooperative Extension Service, also provide
technical assistance, information, and education
on fish and wildlife management to private land
owners and land users.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-3
-------
Governmental regulation of land development
activities also plays a significant role in land
management in Region 4. There is a wide
diversity of state land use planning initiatives
throughout the Region. Examples of this
diversity are illustrated by the approaches of
Kentucky and Florida. Kentucky's approach has
been to allow the choice to engage in local
planning to be decided on a community-by-
community basis. According to a 1987 survey
conducted by the Kentucky Legislative Research
Commission, 53 of the state's 120 counties have
established planning commissions and 61 cities
have established independent city planning
commissions. On the other hand, Florida's
approach has been to legislatively mandate
each municipal government to develop a
comprehensive plan. It is based on a top down
management system with basic planning
requirements set by the state legislature and
overseen by the Florida Department of
Community Affairs. Local government
comprehensive plans must meet the
requirements laid out in planning legislation.
It is important to note that throughout the
Region, the majority of the authority over land
use and zoning decisions rests in the hands of
local governments. This leaves the power to
protect environmental resources through
directing the patterns of development with local
governments. Many local governments
implement their own ordinances and projects
such as greenways and conservation zones that
protect local environmental resources and
ecosystems.
In addition to state and local planning mandates
and regulations, the federal government also
has regulations to control the environmental
impacts caused by federal projects. For
instance, legislation was enacted in the 1980s to
ensure that actions by the federal government
do not encourage poor choices in land use
decisions. The Farmland Protection Policy Act,
included in the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981
and amended in the Food Security Act of 1985,
requires federal agencies to consider the effects
their programs will have on prime farmlands.
The conservation provisions of the 1985 act are
designed to ensure that the USDA commodity
programs do not subsidize unwise changes in
land use. Program benefits will be denied to
producers who drain wetlands or remove the
plant cover from grass or forest land to plant
agricultural commodities.
The actions and approaches taken by each level
of government in part dictate the impact that
future growth will have on ecologically important
lands. Continual and consistent evaluation of
land use changes throughout the Region will
enhance efforts to coordinate land management
strategies between different levels of
government. As urban growth continues,
coordination of different land management
efforts will direct development in a way that
reduces the harmful impacts to the environment
and will help achieve land management goals in
the Region.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-4
-------
Regional Goals
Prospective Goal: By 2015, increase by 25 percent, based on
1995 acreage, the acreage of ecologically unique, threatened,
and/or important habitats in protection or being managed
specifically for their environmental integrity.1
(Data Under Development)
Goal: By 2005, 45 percent of all threatened and endangered
animal species with declining populations in 1995 will have
stable or improving populations.2
Number of Federally Listed Animal Species
With Declining Populations
140
20 -
1992 1995 2000 2005
Year
The data to support this goal are not currently available for each state in the Region. The data to support
this indicator will include all lands currently owned and managed through federal, state, local, and non-
governmental programs and organizations for the purpose of protection or conservation of ecologically
significant lands. U.S. EPA Region 4 is currently developing a comprehensive database of these lands.
Though complete or partial information is available for several states, this information is not available for all
states in the Region.
2 The data to support this goal are provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1992 Report to
Congress: Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program, and preliminary data from the 1995
Report. The data are available in hard copy format for each state. Supplementary data for these and other
years can be obtained from state environmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations such as the
Nature Conservancy's Natural Heritage programs.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-5
-------
Goal: By 2005, 45 percent of all threatened and endangered
plant species with declining populations in 1995 will have stable
or improving populations.3
Number of Federally Listed Plant Species
With Declining Populations
1992
1995
2000
2005
Year
Indicators
Acres of ecologically unique, threatened, or important habitats in protected or managed status
through federal, state, local government, and private programs
Forest land area by acre and type
Change in land cover types
Number of federally listed threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species with stable or
increasing populations
Population of commercially/recreationally harvested fish species
Invasive exotic plant and animal species
Strategies
1. Define and identify all major ecosystems of regional concern.
2. Identify all ecologically unique, threatened, or important habitats.
3. Implement cooperative, collaborative, goal-driven, results-based planning for all ecosystems
of regional concern.
4. Develop monitoring and indicator systems capable of measuring the status and trends
associated with each ecosystem of regional concern.
3 See footnote #2.
4 Numbering of strategies does not imply any order of significance or priority.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-6
-------
5. Develop a regional strategy for coordinating sound land management practices for
conservation and preservation among and between the Region, the states, other federal
agencies, community groups, and private landowners.
6. Develop management structures and process in the Region to support ecosystem protection.
7. Develop standards for sustainability for each ecosystem of regional concern.
8. Include the private sector in land management planning and programs.
9. Coordinate land management planning with economic development and transportation
planning.
10. Develop a process for including local governments and community-based groups in regional
land management.
11. Facilitate interstate planning to protect ecosystems located in several states.
12. Develop, prioritize, and implement a research agenda dealing with the key needs of each
ecosystem of regional concern.
13. Increase the coordination between groups or agencies that are responsible for corridor
planning efforts in the Region.
14. Develop methodologies to assess the cumulative and secondary effects on ecosystems from
the alteration and loss of critical natural lands.
15. Provide organizational and technical support to community-based environmental protection
projects.
16. Develop a regional GIS system to monitor changes in land cover.
17. Provide incentives for private landowners to preserve critical and important plant and animal
species.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-7
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-8
-------
Regional Strategic Issue 2:
Alteration and Loss of
Wetlands
A wetland ecosystem can be defined as a water-dependent biological community together with its physical
environment. Wetland systems provide essential habitat to many indigenous plant and animal species.
Wetlands also serve many important functions to humans: they moderate the effects of floods, improve
water quality, and have aesthetic value. This issue addresses the alteration and loss of coastal and inland
wetlands including the filling, draining, and drowning of wetlands along with the mitigation of wetland losses
through restoration and construction of wetlands.
Trends and Conditions
There are two primary
sources of data on wetland
acreage for the Southeast,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Wet-
lands Inventory (NWI)
covering the mid 1970's to
the mid 1980's and the
Natural Resource Conservation Service's
National Resource Inventory (NRI) for the period
from the mid 1980's to the early 1990's. Though
the two reports have different methodologies
and report different results, they are both
important data sources to
consider because they
cover two separate time
periods.
Percentage of 1992 Wetland
Acreage in Region 4
by Type of System
The Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) reported that there were just over 43
million.acres of wetlands in Region 4 in 1982.
There was a general decrease in the acreage of
wetlands in Region 4 on non-federal lands from
43,065,900 acres in 1982 to 42,654,800 acres in
1992. The total wetland acreage decrease was
approximately one percent -- 411,100 acres -- of
the Region's wetlands. The overwhelming
majority of this loss was the 517,000 decline in
acres of palustrine wetlands. The major sources
of loss were the alteration of wetlands through
agricultural activities and urban development.
These decreases are
Palustrine
74%
Based on wetland status
and trends data collected
by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), in
the mid 1980's there were
approximately 37 million
acres of coastal and
inland wetlands in the
eight Region 4 states,
comprising more than
35% of all the wetlands in
the 48 contiguous United
States. This represented a net loss of roughly
1.86 million acres of wetlands between the mid-
1970s and the mid-1980s in Region 4.
Wetlands covered approximately 16% of the
Southeast's landscape.
part of a continuing
trend in wetlands loss
in Region 4 though the
rate of loss appears to
have slowed since the
mid 1970s.
Estuarine
8%
In some cases,
alteration involves
changing from one
wetland type to
another, such as from
a bottomland hard-
wood system to a
planted pine system.
This can cause the
loss of some of the wetland's functions (i.e.,
habitat), though a portion of the functions may
remain. In other alterations, wetlands are filled,
inundated, or otherwise altered to such an
extent that few, if any, original wetland functions
Riverine
5%
Lacustrine
10%
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-9
-------
remair. Their is a strong movement toward
evaluating wetland quality as well as total
acreac;e at the national level. Measuring
wetland loss and conversion based on wetland
quality as opposed to acreage provides
important information on the ability of existing
wetlands to provide necessary natural functions
such as flood abatement and habitat. Some low
quality wetlands do not provide as many of
these :iaturai functions as high quality wetlands
and thus their protection is less of a priority than
the protection of wetlands that provide more
natura functions. Future focus should and likely
will be on measuring the quality of wetlands as
well as total acreage.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
gives EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Ne.tional Marine Fisheries Service, and the
Fish and Wildlife Service the primary authority to
address wetlands losses. However, other CWA
provisions, particularly Section 401, as well as
individual state wetland regulations can be an
effective state tool to address wetland issues.
Other actions that are being taken or that should
be expanded include improved coordination
between the states, U.S. EPA, the Army Corps
of Engineers, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. This cooperation could be
used in many areas to improve the permitting
system, for both individual and general permits,
and improve the resource protection that is
provided through the current system. In
addition, federal assistance should continue to
be available to help those Region 4 states that
have their own programs to regulate wetland
loss. This would help states expand on their
own ability to protect wetlands.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-10
-------
Regional Goals
Goal: From 1995 forward, there will be no overall net loss of
the remaining wetlands base in the Region, and by 2005, there
will be a net increase in the quantity of the wetlands base in the
Region by a minimum of 50,000 acres per year for a five-year
period.1'2
Change in Wetland Acreage in Region 4
43,100
^ 43,000
(A
= 42,900
(A
O 42,800
« 42,700
O)
8 42,600
O
< 42,500
42,400
1982
1987
1992
1995
2000
2005
Year
Indicators
Acreage of wetlands identified through the National Wetlands Inventory
Acreage of wetlands identified through the National Resources Inventory
Acreage of wetlands lost, created, or restored through federally permitted activities
1 The data to support this goal are available for each state at 5-year intervals beginning with 1982 in hard
copy in the 1992 Summary Report National Resources Inventory (NRI) and on CD-ROM. The data can be
obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (National
Resources Inventory Section), P.O. Box 2890, Washington, D.C. 20013, or at (202) 720-5420. The NRI
data were chosen over NWI based primarily on the frequency of data collection. Each set of data is
considered statistically valid and the NRI data is collected once every five years while the NWI data is
collected only once each ten years which limits its usefulness in monitoring the short-term changes in
wetland coverage and condition.
2 Wetland quality is another measure that should be included in any goal or indicator on the condition of
wetlands throughout the Region. At this time, comprehensive data on wetland quality or function rankings
of wetlands in Region 4 do not exist. Development or collection of this type of data should be a priority in
future efforts at both the Regional and state levels. When this information becomes available, it should be
included as an indicator and an assessment of current trends and conditions should be made to determine
which, if any, wetland quality goals should be established for Region 4.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-11
-------
Strategies'
1. Develop and implement Wetlands Comprehensive Plans at the watershed, ecosystem, state,
arc! regional levels.
2. Trask wetland losses and gains by basin and by identified ecosystem.
3. UJIG the Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID) program as a proactive planning process.
4. Ujie the State Wetlands Grant Program as the foundation for building state capacity in
wotlands protection.
5. Irrplement wetlands education and training programs to provide wetlands education to the
general public, and the educational community.
6. Provide specialized education and training in wetlands protection to state agencies, local
governments, the agriculture, forestry, and development sectors, and community-based
environmental protection groups.
7. Incorporate pollution prevention into wetland protection activities.
8. Plan and conduct place-based wetland restoration activities.
9. Promote mitigation planning and mitigation banking in the Region.
10. Increase the use of the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grant Program as a funding source for
wetland restoration projects.
11. Develop improved techniques for wetlands restoration and creation.
12. Distribute wetlands information to state land use planning officials.
13. Increase coordination between entities who are responsible for planning and corridor efforts.
14. Obtain access to the Regulatory Analysis and Management System to better track wetland
losses and gains through regulatory activities.
15. St"eamline process between the COE and the EPA regarding 404 permits and enforcement.
3 Numbering of strategies does hot imply any order of significance or priority.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-12
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-13
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-14
-------
Regional Strategic Issue 3:
Environmentally Damaged
Lands
Natural systems can become degraded due to human alteration or use. Humans cause environmental
damage to land when resources are used, extracted, or altered. This issue is concerned with the physical
and chemical damage caused to land. The issue of physically damaged lands comprises natural lands
altered through the effects of human activities such as mining, channelization, damaged stream segments,
and industrial activities. Chemically damaged lands focuses on deposition of toxics, radiation, nutrients,
pathogens, and metals from hazardous waste disposal, agricultural practices, and other human uses of
land. Chemical contamination can occur via permitted or accidental releases of hazardous substances;
how these contaminants are introduced into the environment and how they are removed is a primary focus
of this issue.
Trends and Conditions
Human use and alteration
of lands can cause de-
gradation to the ecological
functions of natural sys-
tems. The environmental
damage to lands occurs
during resource use,
extraction, and alteration.
This issue addresses the concerns of physical
and chemical damage caused to natural
systems by human activities.
The issue of physically damaged lands deals
primarily with natural lands altered through
mining and industrial activities. These activities
disturb ecosystems in part through the clearing
of lands, which destroys the natural vegetation
and habitats for many types of wildlife. In
addition, exposed soil and wastes are subject to
erosion by wind and water and can pollute the
atmosphere and nearby waters. Acids, silt, and
toxic compounds resulting from mining or
industrial activities can be washed away by
stormwater runoff into nearby surface waters or
leached into ground waters. Particles of dust
and toxic metals may also be blown from these
sites into the atmosphere. Pollution prevention
practices control a portion of these impacts to
natural systems but, overall, the disturbance of
sites can cause great stress on natural systems
and can impair their functions.
Chemically damaged lands focuses on the
deposition and accumulation of toxics,
radioactive materials, nutrients, pathogens, and
metals from hazardous waste disposal,
agricultural practices, and other human
activities. Land becomes contaminated in a
number of different ways. In Region 4:
• There are 5,981 sites in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Inventory System (CERCLIS).
These include sites that have been or are
being investigated for possible contam-
ination as well as sites that have been
otherwise addressed by the remedial and
removal programs. Of this number, more
than 3,400 have been assigned to the No
Further (federal) Action category.
• There are 173 sites in the Region, including
19 federal facilities, having a severe enough
problem to qualify them for the National
Priorities List (NPL). The contamination is
severe enough to warrant further action
under the federal Superfund program.
• There are 29,843 small quantity generators
and 5,011 large quantity generators of
hazardous waste.
• There are 837 Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities subject to
Corrective Action. This means these
existing facilities are required to take
remedial cleanup action for past disposal
practices.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-15
-------
• There are 745 treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. These facilities treat
rutzardous waste currently generated or
waste material from remediation efforts.
The basic cause of the environmental problems
at NPL and Corrective Action sites was the
improper disposal of hazardous wastes. Sites
vary in size and causes of contamination.
Remediation is both expensive and time
consuming, and absolute restoration of the site
may not occur. A Superfund site is designated
as "construction complete" when all physical
work (e.g., excavation, removal of contam-
ination, installation of a treatment facility) has
been completed at that site. Once long-term
response activities (i.e., performance standards)
have been met, the site can be removed from
the National Priorities List.
Hazardous waste releases can impact surface
waters, ground water, land, and air. The
impacts vary from site to site, although most
sites involve contaminated ground water and
many sites potentially impact citizens who live
nearby. There is no one typical site that could
be used as a benchmark. The number of
Corrective Action sites and NPL sites has
increased over the years, although the rate of
increase has slowed over the last several years
due primarily to changes in national listing
policy.
In order to prevent the need for future cleanup,
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities are heavily regulated. The
primary legislative acts that address hazardous
waste remediation and regulation are the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The regulations require generated
hazardous waste to be handled in a safe
manner. To address past improper disposal, the
Corrective Action program and the NPL program
are used for existing operating facilities for
abandoned sites or sites where the owner is
unknown. To date, 49 NPL sites have reached
the stage called construction completed and
over 177 Corrective Action sites have completed
stabilization measures. Due to technical, legal,
and financial issues, remediation projects take
considerable time to complete. Each project
requires a substantial study phase, and nearly
all NPL sites involve public controversy.
Use, transportation, and/or storage of chemicals
can result in the occurrence of accidental
spillage, release, and environmental
contamination. Since individual states create
their own legislation regarding how chemical
emergencies are to be managed, responses
differ from state to state. The federal
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act of 1986 reiterated state responsibility
for response activity and required that states
establish emergency planning committees and
contingency plans that prepare states to
respond to chemical emergencies.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-16
-------
Regional Goals
Goal: By 2005, 78% of the 5,981 abandoned hazardous waste sites
in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Inventory System (CERCLIS) in EPA Region 4 in 1995 will be
cleaned up or have construction completed.1
1995 CERCLIS Sites Cleaned Up or
With Construction Completed
6,000
5,000
4,000
(/) 3,000
2,000
1,000
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Year
2001
2003
2005
Goal: By 2005, 78% of the 173 abandoned hazardous waste sites on
the National Priorities List (NPL) in EPA Region 4 in 1995 will be
cleaned up or have construction completed.2
1995 NPL Sites Cleaned Up
or With Construction Completed
175
150
125
M
2 100
55
* 75
1991
1993 1995 1997 1999
Year
2001
2003
2005
1 The data to support this goal are provided by the U.S. EPA Region 4, Office of Waste, 345 Courtland
Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, or at (404) 347-3555. The data are collected annually for the sites cleaned
up through federally funded projects and are available in hard copy format.
2 The data to support this goal are provided by the U.S. EPA Region 4, Office of Waste, 345 Courtland
Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, or at (404) 347-3555. The data are collected annually for the sites cleaned
up through federally funded projects and are available in hard copy format.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-17
-------
Indicators
• Number and status of NPL sites
• Number and status of CERCLIS sites
• Acreage of lands altered through mining activity
Strategies
1. Complete the assessment of Superfund sites.
2. Initiate and complete construction at Superfund sites.
3. Involve and educate citizens located in areas or communities near Superfund or other
remediation sites.
4. Develop a joint EPA/state strategy for dealing with remediation needs of CERCLIS sites not
qualifying for Superfund response.
5. Implement Corrective Action measures at RCRA facilities.
6. Return former military base lands to public/private ownership.
' Numbering of strategies does not imply any order of significance or priority.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-18
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-19
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-20
-------
Regional Strategic Issue 4:
Contaminants in the
Environment
This issue addresses existing ambient concentrations of pollutants in the environment, including the
permitted and accidental releases of hazardous contaminants and the effects that they have. The focus of
this issue is on releases or depositions of contaminants. The primary concerns regarding these two sub-
issues are TRI releases, chemical releases, bioaccumulation of contaminants, cumulative and interactive
effects of contaminants, pesticide use, and atmospheric deposition.
Trends and Conditions
The pathways by which
contaminants enter the
environment are dependent
on the type of pollutant and
the method of disposal.
Sources of contamination
include releases or emis-
sions of gases to the air,
chemicals which are spilled,
landfilled, or injected into the
earth, and waste which is discharged into water
bodies from point and nonpoint sources such as
treatment plants and accidental spills. The
cumulative effects of these contaminants impact
the food chain, air supply, drinking water, and
entire ecosystems.
Air pollution from various sources impacts the
environment through the atmospheric deposition
of chemicals such as nitrogen oxides, mercury
vapor, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In
ambient concentrations, nitrogen oxides can
contribute to the formation of acid rain while
mercury and PCBs can be deposited into
watersheds and subsequently accumulated in
fish. The accidental release of similar air
pollutants can ultimately cause serious injury or
death to those who come into contact with them.
Pollutants emitted into the atmosphere can
travel various distances and be deposited to
ecosystems far removed from their original
source.
Among other emissions, a number of air
pollutants are required to be regularly reported
to the EPA through the Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI). A facility must report to the Toxic Release
Inventory if it conducts manufacturing operations
within Standard Industrial Classification primary
codes 20 through 39, has the equivalent of 10 or
more full-time employees, and manufactures or
processes more than 25,000 pounds or
otherwise uses more than 10,000 pounds of any
listed chemical during the calendar year. For
1993, TRI reporting was required for 316
chemicals and 20 chemical categories. In that
same year, reported air releases were part of
718 million pounds of listed toxic chemicals
released to air, surface water, land, and
underground injection wells. Additionally, 896
million pounds were transferred to off-site
locations for recycling, energy recovery, publicly
owned waste treatment services (POWTS),
private treatment, and disposal.
Studies have shown that atmospheric deposition
of gases has been a contributing factor in the
degradation of water quality and associated
adverse human health and ecological effects.
Section 112(m) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990, the Great Waters Program,
requires the evaluation of atmospheric
deposition of air pollutants into coastal waters,
among other water bodies. All of the pollutants
targeted by the Great Waters report (cadmium,
chlordane, DDT/DDE, dieldrin, HCB or HCH,
lindane, lead, mercury, PCBs, polycyclic organic
matter, TCDF, TCDD, toxaphene, nitrogen
compounds) are of concern because of their
persistence in the environment, tendency to
bioaccumulate, and potential toxicity to humans
and the environment.
Contaminants in the water arrive not only by air,
but also by storm water discharges and point
and nonpoint sources. These contaminants bio-
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-21
-------
accumulate in the flesh of species which eat,
breathe, and/or live in aquatic conditions.
Consequences have included shellfish bed
closures, periodic fish kills, and the poisoning of
birds which consume fish tainted with toxic
chemicals. In some cases, the impacts of
contaminants released into water have included
human fatalities as well.
The composition and volume of waste and
incidences of contamination have increased
over time along with increases in population and
industrialization. Different categories and
toxicities of wastes, such as hazardous waste,
solid waste, and medical waste, must be dealt
with on a regular basis. Even wastes that are
properly managed have the potential to impact
the environment because of accidental spills,
leaks, or explosions. Contamination of the
grounc results from improper disposal of these
wastes, indiscreet dumping, or the application of
pesticides. In 1993, the EPA listed 450 wastes
as hazardous. An estimated 300 to 700 million
tons o* hazardous waste are produced annually
and must be recycled, treated, incinerated,
stored, or disposed. Storage and disposal
methods usually require the use of land (above
or below the ground). For example, the disposal
of hazardous waste into a landfill or through
deep-well injection must be done in a manner
that does not result in waste leaching through
the landfill, contaminating nearby soil or
infiltrating drinking water sources. Regular
monitoring of underground injection wells is now
required by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The use of pesticides to combat vermin and
insects and to produce larger and healthier
crops has also taken its toll on the environment.
Pesticides used on the ground have affected
wildlife through direct exposure and by
contamination of their food supplies.
Contaminated soils impact species that live in
those soils and indirectly impact the animals that
feed on those species. Residues from
pesticides used in agricultural operations have
also been found in water-supply wells. The
federal statute regulating pesticides is called
FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act). FIFRA regulates the sale and
distribution of pesticides and mandates that
chemical manufacturers conduct a cost/benefit
analysis that shows new pesticides will not
cause "unreasonable and adverse effects on the
environment."
Regional Goals
Goal: By 2005, reduce by 50% from 1993 levels the toxic
chemicals released from industrial facilities.1
Total TRI Releases in Region 4
1,000
900
800
700
= 60°
5. 500
(A
O
in
•o
o
&
400
300
200
100
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993 1995
Year
1997
1999
2001
2003 2005
1 The data used to support this goal can be obtained from the 1993 Toxics Release Inventory Public Data
Release. The data are available in hard copy format or on CD-ROM for the years 1987 to 1993. These data
can be obtained from the Title ill Implementation Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 345
Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, or at (404) 347-3555.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-22
-------
Goal: By 2005, the number of accidental releases of hazardous
chemicals potentially harmful to humans, animals, and
vegetation will be reduced by 25% from 1995 levels.2
Total Number of Accidental Releases of Hazardous
Chemicals in Region 4
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
~5
OC 1,500
•5
tt 1,000
500
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995 1997
Year
1999
2001
2003
2005
Indicators
Toxic releases by medium
Accidental releases of hazardous chemicals potentially harmful to humans, wildlife, and
ecosystems
Pesticide residues found in raw agricultural products
Accumulation of toxic substances in the environment
Strategies
1. Identify pollutants of regional concern.
2. Identify communities and sensitive ecosystems that have been subjected to high
concentrations of chemical releases or where accumulation of toxics may adversely impact
public health or the environment.
3. Implement monitoring to determine the extent and concentration of pollutants of regional
concern or accumulation of pollutants in communities identified as being of regional concern.
4. Identify sources of pollutants of concern or impacting communities of regional concern.
The data used to support this goal can be obtained from the Emergency Response Notification Database.
The data are available for the years 1987-1995. These data can be obtained by contacting the ERNS
Manager at the Emergency Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 5202G,
401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460 or at (202) 260-2342.
3 Numbering of strategies does not imply any order of significance or priority.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-23
-------
5. Develop strategies to reduce the release of pollutants of concern or chemicals in communities
of regional concern.
6. Develop measures to determine levels of contaminants which would not pose an
unacceptable risk to public health or the environment within communities of regional concern.
7. Implement pollution prevention incentives at industrial facilities to reduce the amount of
pollutants discharged.
8. Require and enforce Best Management Practices (BMPs) plans at industrial and municipal
• facilities.
9. Complete a pilot indicator-driven, comparative risk-based strategic plan with an industry.
10. Dovelop and incorporate environmental stewardship and other innovative strategies into
pesticide management programs, involving the appropriate stakeholders in the process.
11. Dovelop qualitative measures of success which recognize behavioral changes in the
regulated community.
12. Establish enhanced education and awareness programs and activities related to pesticide
use.
13. Establish mechanisms to reward voluntary prevention efforts and to incorporate pollution
prevention techniques, such as pesticide alternatives, into pesticide programs and activities.
14. Establish incentives for innovation in education through supplemental environmental projects
identified in enforcement negotiations.
15. Provide technical assistance to state and local agencies for emergency
pravention/preparedness/planning efforts; provide technical assistance to state agencies and
businesses regarding techniques to minimize their generation of waste.
16. Support interagency coordination for accidental release incidents reported to state emergency
response commissions and local emergency planning committees.
17. Investigate the cause of accidents to identify means for prevention of future accidental
releases.
18. Provide emergency preparedness first response training and simulation exercises, including
EPA and OSHA standards, for state and local government employees and the public, for
shelter-in-place and evacuation activities.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-24
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-25
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-26
-------
Regional Strategic Issue 5:
Waste Management
Waste management addresses the municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, and hazardous waste and"
materials generated from residential, commercial, governmental, or institutional establishments that are
collected, processed, and disposed of through a public or private waste management service. This issue
deals with the effects on the ecology and on human health from wastes that are improperly managed.
Contaminants that are of concern include radioactive materials, pathogens, toxics, nutrients, and metals.
Trends and Conditions
Two principal con-
cerns of waste
management are the
generation and man-
agement of municipal
solid waste and
hazardous waste mat-
erials. Municipal solid
waste is garbage and trash (generated by
households, schools, offices, and similar
facilities) and sewage sludge (generated by
publicly and privately owned wastewater
treatment facilities). Hazardous waste is
primarily waste that meets the legal definition of
hazardous and must be managed in accordance
with federal regulations.
The major problems associated with this issue
include:
• addressing citizen concerns pertaining to
old landfills,
• the operation of existing landfills,
• the siting problems associated with locating
new landfills,
• hazardous waste generation,
• addressing citizen concerns pertaining to
use of sewage sludge as a soil
amendment,
• the siting problems associated with locating
sewage sludge land application and
disposal sites, and
• addressing local and state government
concerns regarding the interstate or inter-
regional transport of sewage sludge.
Historically the primary means of solid waste
disposal has been through landfills, both public
and private. Within the last decade some areas
have begun to turn to alternative disposal
options such as reuse, recycling, and
incineration. Use of these alternative options
has resulted in a significant reduction in the
percentage of waste disposed of in landfills.
The principal reason communities have turned
to these other options is government-mandated
goals to reduce the amount of waste disposed in
landfills.
There are presently 491 operating municipal
solid waste landfills in Region 4. In 1990 there
were 914. The decrease is primarily due to the
many landfills not able or willing to meet the
federal criteria for landfill sites. All states in
Region 4 have adopted the criteria.
Recycling and incineration have had a
significant impact on reducing the waste sent to
landfills. In 1990 there were 235 curbside
recycling programs in place; by 1994, there were
920 programs in place.
All states in Region 4 have adopted EPA
national criteria for solid waste reduction in their
state programs. EPA's efforts in the area of
municipal solid waste are focused on
encouraging and promoting recycling and reuse
programs, leaving states to actually regulate
solid waste landfills.
From 1988 to 1994 there was an overall
increase of approximately 59 percent in the total
tonnage of municipal solid waste generated for
the eight states in EPA Region 4. The total
tonnage of waste recycled or composted for the
Region increased from 2,380,000 tons in 1988
to 13,082,000 tons in 1994; this was an increase
of approximately 450 percent. The total tonnage
of waste incinerated experienced an overall
increase of approximately 25 percent from 1988
to 1994. Although recycling, composting, and
incineration have experienced increases in the
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-27
-------
tonnace of waste processed at those facilities,
the tonnage of landfilled waste has also
increased by approximately 35 percent.
The primary methods of disposal of sewage
sludge have been placement in landfills,
application to agricultural lands, and
incineration. Due to 1) increasing costs of
landfill disposal. 2) a decreasing number of
landfills that meet federal criteria for landfill
sites, and 3) the elimination of the ocean
disposa: of sewage sludge in the Northeast, the
Region is facing increasing pressures to find
safe uses of this necessary by-product of
wastewater treatment.
compliance, and enforcement of sewage sludge
use or disposal practices; 2) encouraging the
states to pursue federal sewage sludge program
authorization; 3) encouraging states to adopt
regulations similar to EPA's national sewage
sludge standards; and 4) encouraging and
promoting sewage sludge reuse programs.
Hazardous waste is of particular concern to the
southeast Region as it requires special
management due to the serious threat it poses
to human health and the environment. In
accordance with 40 CFR 262.41 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
businesses which generate over 2,200 pounds
Municipal Solid Waste Generated (in tons)
Year
1988
1939
1990
1991
1992
1993
1934
Tons of Solid
Waste
Generated
39,160,000
45,000,000
47,400,000
47,500,000
55,238,000
55,642,000
62,175,000
Tons of Waste
Recycled
(percent)
2,380,000 (6%)
1,172,000 (2%)
4,139,000 (9%)
6,289,000 (13%)
8,783,000 (16%)
10,779,000 (19%)
13,082,000 (21%)
Tons of Waste
Incinerated
(percent)
5,392,000 (14%)
4,385,000 (10%)
4,895,000 (10%)
4,502,000 (10%)
6,086,000 (11%)
5,877,000 (11%)
6,758,000 (11%)
Tons of Waste
Landfilled
(percent)
31,388,000(80%)
39,443,000 (88%)
38,366,000 (81%)
36,709,000 (77%)
40,369,000 (73%)
38,986,000 (70%)
42,335,000 (68%)
There are approximately 2,700 National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitted facilities in Region 4 that
produce sewage sludge. In addition, the Region
has a significant number of non-NPDES public
and private wastewater treatment facilities that
treat domestic sewage. There are significant
amounts of available agricultural lands within the
Regior that are economically accessible to
major municipalities outside of the Region. The
combination of the above factors has added
increasing pressures within the Region to
effectively manage the safe use or disposal of
sewage sludge.
Currently, no state in Region 4 is authorized to
manage the federal sewage sludge program.
EPA's efforts in the area of sewage sludge
manage.Tient are focused on 1) permitting,
of hazardous waste must report information
regarding their waste generation and
management activities to state environmental
agencies and the U.S. EPA.
As shown in the following chart, the tonnage of
hazardous waste generated in the eight
southeastern states decreased significantly from
1985 to 1993. The overall tonnage of hazardous
waste generated decreased nearly 81 percent
during that period. The largest amount was in
1985, with 28,864,072 tons of hazardous waste
generated.
Future increases in the quality and quantity of
data collected will allow the Region to continue
to examine the progress of waste reduction as a
waste management tool.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-28
-------
Hazardous Waste Generated by States In Region 4
(Tons per Year)
State
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Total
1985
7,406,169
833,653
2,783,149
7,661,906
2,507,466
1 ,285,340
5,300,808
1,085,581
28,864,072
1987
3,049,028
518,645
2,948,917
5,850,529
1 ,296,270
928,424
4,850,200
884,182
20,326,195
1989
403,701
41 1 ,832
2,615,210
149,612
717,291
586,338
106,224
1,827,000
6,817,208
1991
559,823
508,839
757,885
487,622
1 ,463,460
281,849
604,456
1 ,697,402
6,361,336
1993
779,645
213,888
921 ,076
397,488
1,882,053
447,718
310,399
607,541
5,559,808
Regional Goals
Goal: By 2005, the generation of municipal waste per capita
will be reduced to the level of 4.3 pounds per day.1
Generation of Municipal Solid Waste Per Capita Per Day
1990
1994
1998
Year
2002
2005
1 The data to support this indicator were provided by BioCycle. The survey tracks data from 50 states and
the District of Columbia. The bulk of the figures comes from state agencies and represents the best data
available.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-29
-------
Goa3: By 2005, 30% of the municipal waste that is generated
will be recycled.2
Percentage of Municipal Solid Waste Recycled in Region 4
40%
30%
2S%
20%
IMfc
10%
£% !•
0%
1988
1991
1994
1997
Year
2000
2003
2005
Goc : By 2005, hazardous waste generation will be reduced by
25% from the 1993 levels of hazardous waste generated.3
Hazardous Waste Generated in Region 4
30
C
'985
1987 1989 1991 1993
Year
1995
2000
2005
The data to support this indicator were provided by BioCycle. The survey tracks data from 50 states and
the District of Columbia. The bulk of the figures comes from state agencies and represents the best data
available
3 The data to support this goal were provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste, as part of their biennial report, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report. States report
information biennially to EPA. The data are available in hard copy format.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-30
-------
Indicators
• Generation of municipal solid waste - tons generated, landfilled, incinerated, recycled
• Radioactive waste generated
• Volume of hazardous waste generated, recycled, and reused
• Volume of industrial solid waste generated, recycled, and reused
Strategies'
1. Support the development of new technologies that reduce waste or eliminate the generation
of waste.
2. Reduce the amount of hazardous waste being incinerated.
3. Implement pollution prevention strategies at every opportunity.
4. Support the development of new technologies that provide improved strategies for
remediating waste.
5. Promote source reduction activities through education, program support, and technical
assistance.
6. Provide compliance assistance through inspections that highlight alternative treatment or
source reduction activities.
7. Assess recycling markets and provide assistance to increase capacity.
8. Assist in the development of effective infrastructure for the collection, processing, and
marketing of recyclables.
9. Increase awareness and purchase of recycled-content products.
10. Examine economies of scale in monitoring efforts.
11. Target large industrial firms for recycling.
12. Examine landfill monitoring processes for opportunities to reduce costs.
13. Study the methods used for the transport of wastes.
4 Numbering of strategies does not imply any order of significance or priority.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-31
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
' May 1996
E-32
-------
Regional Strategic Issue 6:
Surface Water Quality
This issue addresses the quality of surface waters as it affects human health, ecology, and quality of life. It
includes all freshwater lakes, rivers, streams, springs, and waters from estuaries and marine systems. In
addition, this issue addresses the impacts to surface water quality from domestic wastes,
industrial/hazardous wastes, solid wastes, atmospheric deposition, contaminated soils and sediments,
nonpoint sources of pollution, and soil erosion.
Trends and Conditions
Surface water
resources in EPA
Region 4 include a
rich and diverse
group of rivers, lakes,
and estuaries that
provide significant
ecological, aesthetic,
and economic value
to all states within the
Region. The waters are essential for providing
the habitat needed to support aquatic life and
wildlife. They also provide water for drinking,
recreation, agriculture, food, industry, and power
generation. The main threats to the basic
functions provided by water resources in Region
4 are pollution from human activities and habitat
destruction.
During the years of 1993 and 1994, the Region
4 states reported in their 305(b) water quality
reports that the water quality conditions of
approximately 27% of streams, 72% of lakes
and 89% of estuaries were assessed. Of the
waterbodies assessed, approximately 62% of
the rivers, 65% of the lakes, and 73% of the
estuaries fully supported designated uses as
established by the individual states. These
designated uses typically include drinking water
supply, recreation, support of fish and other
aquatic life, and support of wildlife. While water
quality improvements have occurred in some
areas due to improved treatment of point source
discharges, water quality conditions in other
areas have declined. These declines are due to
a variety of human impacts.
At the present time a major source of stress on
surface water resources comes from land use
changes associated with increases in human
population and societal demands on water
resources. The primary sources of stressors on
surface water quality can be separated into two
categories: point sources and nonpoint sources.
These sources of water pollution may contribute
to increased loadings of sediment, nutrients,
metals, pathogens, toxic substances, and
airborne pollutants as well as to habitat
destruction.
There are three principal sources of point source
water pollution: municipal wastewater
discharges, industrial wastewater discharges,
and storm water discharges from municipal and
industrial activities. Municipal wastewater is
generated by households, public buildings,
commercial establishments, and some industries
that discharge into municipal sewer systems.
The primary impacts on water quality from
municipal wastewater are from the amounts of
toxics, nutrients, and organic matter discharged
into waterbodies. Though municipal wastewater
is treated to reduce the impacts on receiving
waters, the level of treatment varies greatly and
is not always sufficient to reduce these impacts
to acceptable levels. Inadequately disinfected
municipal wastewater can result in increased
levels of pathogens in receiving waters.
Water use in industry varies with the type of
industry. Water uses include processing raw
materials or food, controlling air pollution and, to
a minor degree, cooling or cleaning machinery.
The primary pollutants associated with industrial
wastewater are acids, detergents, oil and
grease, heavy metals, halogenated solvents,
toxics, organic matter, and suspended solids.
The primary impacts of industrial, as well as
municipal, wastewater are on aquatic
organisms. Chemicals and heavy metals can
accumulate and cause an acute or chronic effect
on organisms in the receiving waters.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-33
-------
Secondary treatment is required for municipal
wastevrater, industry must meet technology-
based limits, and both are subject to all
applicable water quality standards. The overall
impacts of wastewater discharges have been
significant in the past, but new and improved
treatment technologies and regulations have
substantially reduced the impacts from point
source discharges.
Urban runoff and industrial-related storm water
discharged through conveyances, such as
separate storm sewer systems, are point
sources under the Clean Water Act and are,
therefore, subject to the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Storm water discharges from these
urbanised areas and from industrial and
commeircial activities can contain high levels of
contarr inants, such as sediment, suspended
solids, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens,
toxics, oxygen-demanding substances, and
floatab.es. In urban areas, the cumulative effect
of widespread development changes natural
drainage patterns, causing much higher peak
flows and reduced dry-weather base flows in
urban streams and wetlands. Increased peak
flows can cause severe hydrologic modifications
such a!> stream bank erosion, stream bed scour,
flooding, channelization, and alteration and/or
elimination of habitat. Industrial and commercial
operations, generally located in urban areas,
can bo significant sources of storm water
contamination because of the nature of the
activities conducted and the materials stored
outdoors.
Across the Region, EPA estimates that nonpoint
source.s account for over 65% of the total
amount of pollutants reaching rivers, lakes, and
estuarioc. Categories of nonpoint source
pollution are agriculture, silviculture,
construction, urban runoff, resource extraction,
land disposal including onsite disposal systems,
hydrologic and habitat modification, and other
sources including atmospheric deposition,
leaking storage tanks, spills, in-place
contaminants, and natural sources. Sediment is
the single largest nonpoint source pollutant.
Other pollutants include nutrients (in excessive
amounts), pesticides, organic matter, petroleum
products, heavy metals, salts, fecal coliform and
other bacteria, and oxygen-demanding
materials. Impacts from some categories of
nonpoint source pollution appear to be following
an increasing trend in many areas of Region 4.
Point and nonpoint discharges arise primarily
from hi man actions such as land development,
highway construction, agricultural production,
industrial activities, and other uses to support
human needs. Without proper controls to limit
discharges from developed lands, severe
pollution can occur from these sources. In
addition, destruction of riparian zones and
aquatic habitat from various land uses also
severely affects the ability of natural processes
to mitigate the impacts of pollutants found in
storm water run-off. Atmospheric deposition of
pollutants generated through air emissions
(primarily from automobile and industrial
sources) is also a significant contributor to
pollutant loadings. Atmospheric deposition is a
primary factor in the acidification of waterbodies
due to acid rain and a major source of excessive
nutrient loadings to surface waters.
The major strategies to control point source
discharges are required under the Clean Water
Act and procedures for implementing these
strategies are developed and undertaken by
states with assistance from federal agencies,
local governments, industry, and concerned
citizen groups. Federal agencies such as the
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Defense,
and Department of Energy are responsible for
control of pollutants from sources on lands
under federal management. The primary
legislative authority associated with water quality
comes from the federal Clean Water Act, state
clean water, erosion control, or other acts, and
local ordinances.
Acceptable levels of point source stressors are
established by in-stream standards for pollutants
and controlled by issuance of NPDES permits
that do not allow pollutants to be discharged in
excess of water quality standards and
technology-based standards, and based on the
assimilative capacity of the receiving waters.
Some accidental spills and releases are
controlled by municipal and industrial permitees,
with required actions outlined in spill prevention
and control plans developed by the individual
facilities. However, some accidental spills reach
water-bodies and can cause severe localized
environmental damage.
Point and nonpoint source pollution from land
use activities is controlled by the proper
implementation of best management practices
(BMPs) to control pollutants that result from
these activities. Implementation of these BMPs
is controlled by state and local ordinances, with
voluntary compliance encouraged in some
instances.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-34
-------
The measures taken to control sources of both
point and nonpoint discharges (but primarily
point sources) have led to significant
improvements in the prevention of degradation
of surface waters, and overall water quality is
improving. Though past efforts have resulted in
improved water quality conditions within Region
4 over the last twenty years, additional
strategies will be
needed to continue
this improvement so
that eventually all
waters fully support
their designated
uses. I
I
Erosion and result- e
ing sedimentation
are major problems
associated with
many types of land
use. Two primary
examples are eros-
ion from unprotected construction sites and
agricultural lands. Soil erosion in urban areas is
a serious problem in Georgia, particularly from
construction sites without adequate erosion
control measures. Such sites may contribute up
to 400 tons of sediment per acre. Erosion
caused by agricultural activities is not as great a
problem and does not provide a sediment yield
per acre as high as construction sites, but the
cumulative effects of eroding agricultural lands
do have considerable impacts on lands
Estimated Average Sheet and Rill
Erosion Rate on Nonfederal Lands
throughout the Region. Mississippi's erosion
concerns focus primarily on cropland erosion,
and conservation treatments to protect lands
from erosion are needed for 65% of all
pastureland and 58% of forest lands. Kentucky
is particularly concerned with erosion from lands
that have been strip-mined or used as quarries,
pits, and road construction sites; the erosion
rates are as high as
72.2 tons per acre
per year for these
sites.
[Q Cropland Erosion • Pastufeland Erosion D Rangetond Erosion [
Land users and all
levels of government
are cooperating to
reduce erosion. In
Alabama, research is
being conducted to
determine soil loss
and management
requirements for
minimum tillage sys-
tems on erodible lands. Fertility requirements of
eroded lands are also being studied. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture has developed a
system for indexing the sensitivity of soil to
erosion damage; this erosion index (El) system
indicates the need for erosion control more
precisely than other systems of classifying soil
erosion hazards.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-35
-------
Regional Goals
Gocii: By 2005, increase the percentage of river miles fully
supporting designated uses by 10% over 1994 levels.1
Percentage of River Miles Fully Supporting Designated Uses
S.0%
f.0%
/0%
« eo%
v>
0%
1992
1994
2000
2005
Year
GOciil: By 2005, increase the percentage of lake acres fully
supporting designated uses by 10% over 1994 levels.2
Percentage of Lake Acres Fully Supporting Designated Uses
90%
P) tiO%
I
r,
w
1
a, ao%
o%
1992
1994
2000
2005
Year
Water quality data for each state are available in the 305(b) reports prepared by each state's
environmental agency and submitted to U.S. EPA. Copies of each state report are available from the
individual states. For information, contact David Melgaard, Division of Water, EPA Region 4, 345 Courtland
Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, or at (404) 347-2126 ext. 6590.
See footnote #1.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-36
-------
Goal: By 2005, increase the percentage of estuary acres fully
supporting designated uses by 10% over 1994 levels.3
Percentage of Estuary Acres
Fully Supporting Designated Uses
90%
80%
70%
60%
8.
2 50%
0)
O 40%
0)
0. 30% •
20% !•
10%
0%
1992
1994
2000
2005
Year
Goal: By 2005, the annual rate of soil eroded from agricultural
croplands will be reduced 20% from 1992 levels.4
Tons of Soil Eroded From Croplands in Region 4
1982
2005
3 See footnote #1.
4 The data are provided by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
National Resources Inventory Division. The data are collected every five years and are available in both
hard copy and CD ROM formats.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-37
-------
Indicators
• Porcentage of miles or acres of streams, lakes, and estuaries not meeting designated use
• Trophic status of lakes
• In lax of biotic integrity
• Eicsion rates on non-federal land
• Eiosion rates from agricultural cropland
• Point source loadings (pounds per year) to surface waters
Strategies5
1. Expand the coverage of the Region's water quality monitoring system.
2. Improve the efficiency of using existing monitoring data.
3. Develop new techniques to better assess biological/ecological trends and conditions.
4. Improve 305(b) consistency among states.
5. Piioritize the causes of waterbodies' failure to meet designated use standards and develop
strategies to deal with each cause.
6. Use monitoring data to make environmental and program decisions.
7. Establish effective GIS capabilities for Region 4 and the states.
8. Establish effective monitoring methods, data sharing, and coordination of resource
expenditures among states, agencies, and others involved in monitoring.
9. Ins'ease the amount of biological monitoring in the states.
10. Identify successful models of nonpoint source pollution mitigation and share the information
with the other states in the Region.
11. Provide organizational and technical support for the community-based environmental
protection approach to water quality protection.
12. Use closed-loop industrial wastewater processes.
13. Incorporate pollution prevention into water quality protection programs and activities.
14. Use sound science in environmental decision-making and priority setting.
15. Identify needed environmental indicators of water quality and set baseline values for each.
5 Numbering of strategies does not imply any order of significance or priority.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-38
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-39
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-40
-------
Regional Strategic Issue 7:
Ground Water Quality
This issue addresses the quality of ground water as it affects human health, ecology, and quality of life.
The primary concerns related to the quality of the ground water resource are the effects from numerous
contaminants such as petroleum compounds, other organic compounds, nitrates, organic pesticides,
metals, and bacteria. These contaminants are introduced into ground water from sources such as
underground storage tanks, pesticide and fertilizer applications, landfills, septic tanks, above ground
storage tanks, surface impoundments, and shallow injection wells.
Trends and Conditions
Ground water sup-
plies over half of
the nation's pop-
ulation with drinking
water. Over 90% of
rural America relies
on ground water as
its source of drinking water. In general, the
southeastern states mirror these numbers; the
notable exceptions are Florida and Mississippi,
where over 90% of each state's total population
relies on ground water for its drinking water.
Other important ground water uses include
agricultural, commercial, and industrial applicat-
ions. The ecological importance of ground water
in providing streamflow to surface waters and in
supporting habitat needs must also be
recognized.
Since contamination of ground water typically
occurs in localized areas, it is difficult to make
broad statements concerning ground water
quality conditions. Many locations within each
state have shown ground water quality
degradation that constrains the use of ground
water, but these instances are localized and
typically do not affect large regional ground
water resources. In a number of coastal areas,
overpumping of ground water has led to
saltwater intrusion, which can result in
unacceptable levels of salinity in local ground
water supplies.
When asked to rank categories of contaminant
sources for the 1994 305(b) report, the states
responded with assignment of high, medium,
low, and unspecified priority. Those categories
of contaminant sources that received rankings of
high or medium priority are as follows (in
alphabetical order):
above ground storage tanks,
fertilizer applications,
landfills,
pesticide applications,
septic tanks,
shallow injection wells,
surface impoundments, and
underground storage tanks.
The states were also asked to rank ground
water contaminants for the 1994 305(b) report.
The following ground water contaminants were
found to be of the highest concern:
petroleum compounds,
other organic compounds,
nitrates,
organic pesticides,
metals, and
bacteria.
State environmental agencies receive funding
from EPA under Section 106 of the Clean Water
Act in support of their state ground water
protection programs. These state programs
address a variety of issues, concerns, and
activities including the development of
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection
Programs (CSGWPPs). CSGWPPs are
intended to be a framework for states to
coordinate and set priorities for all ground water-
related activities in each state. CSGWPPs are
to be customized to meet the needs and vision
of each state, should emphasize the need to
prevent ground water contamination, and should
build upon the principles of state/EPA
partnerships in protecting ground water.
The Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) was
established by the Safe Drinking Water Act
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-41
-------
Amendments of 1986. The Act requires states
to devslop programs to protect the areas around
public water supply wells from contamination.
WHPF' efforts are funded by EPA primarily
through the 106 Ground Water Protection
Progr£;m Grants. Numerous small grants to
local governments have also been made in
support of local program development and
implementation. Currently, seven Region 4
states have had their wellhead protection
programs approved by EPA.
Other activities supported by the 106 Ground
Water Protection Program Grant include the
development of ground water standards, regulat-
ions, and classification systems; monitoring
networks; permitting programs; response
actions; the development of management
systems; review and technical support to other
programs; outreach and education; and ground
water resource investigations and mapping.
Other environmental statutes dealing with
Superfund sites, hazardous waste sites,
underground storage tanks, pesticides, and
underground injection control have established
ground water-related programs that also address
ground water protection and remediation
concerns.
Regional Goals
Goal: By 2005, confirmed annual releases from underground
storage tanks will be 80% lower than in 1995.1'2
350,000
300,000
** 250,000
0)
.O
E
200,000
150,000
100,000
50.000
Confirmed Annual Releases from
Underground Storage Tanks in Region 4
1992
1993
1994 1995
Year
2000
2005
1 DatE. .0 support this goal are available from the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks database. The data
are available in hard copy format and are reported quarterly for each state. For information, contact John
Mason, Division of Water, EPA Region 4, 345 Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, of at (404) 347-
3866.
2 Grojnd water quality is difficult to measure and quantify. Other than for very site-specific conditions,
nume'ic goals and true environmental indicators do not currently exist that reflect ambient environmental
conditions for ground water resources. Programmatic goals such as the UST goals and indicators are
being used as surrogate measures until more appropriate indicators for ground water resources can be
developed.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-42
-------
Goal: By 2005, the number of cleaned up underground storage
tank contamination sites will be 85% higher than in 1995.3
Total Number of Underground Storage Tank Contamination
Sites Cleaned Up in Region 4
300,000
250,000
(0
a
55 200,000
a
D
•o 150,000
Q)
-------
8. Develop sufficient authorities and capabilities to be approved by EPA for states to operate
their LIST program in lieu of the federal program.
9. Upgrade or replace tanks to meet new LIST standards by the 1998 deadline.
10. Implement the National Class V DIG Strategy through the efforts of the Region 4 Class V
Team through the efforts of Region 4 states as supported by the UIC Grant Program.
11. Develop and implement state and local wellhead protection activities by providing technical
and financial assistance.
12. Link ground water-related activities with other environmental initiatives such as the
Community Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) approach, Watershed Protection
Planning, etc.
13. Implement the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in mapping ground water
resource areas and delineated wellhead protection areas, and encourage the use of this
information by ground water-related programs in setting priorities.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-44
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-45
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-46
-------
Regional Strategic Issue 8:
Water Resources
This issue addresses the impacts to human health, ecology, and quality of life resulting from the depletion
of fresh water supplies. Water quantity considers the water supply and management of both surface and
ground water resources. The primary concerns of this issue are overdraft and minimum flows and levels.
The sub-issue of overdraft deals with the impacts on wetlands and surface waters from ground water
overdraft as well as issues of saltwater intrusion, depletion, and competing uses. Minimum flows and levels
deals with concerns of depletion, competing uses, and effects on aquatic communities.
Trends and Conditions
The available water supoly
for the Region 4 area is
controlled by a combination
of geography, geology,
hydrology, and yearly precip-
itation. The rapidly increas-
ing population growth in the
southeast region of the
United States has con-
strained the availability of water resources in
some areas to supply human needs as well as
to maintain aquatic ecosystems. Population
centers dependent on the headwaters of
watersheds are vying for river flows, and in
some areas available surface water quantities
are not adequate for all uses. The current
negotiations between Georgia, Florida and
Alabama over allocation of the Chatanoochee
River water is a prime example of a situation
where potential overuse of a resource by
competing uses can occur, and decisions on
proper use of the limited quantity must be
carefully made to satisfy all demands. In some
coastal areas, cities that depend on aquifers are
looking for solutions to saltwater intrusion and
overuse of aquifers. Also, in other areas
communities are depending on limited ground
water supplies and are seeking new sources of
potable water to meet increasing demands.
Municipalities are having to find ways to
conserve and reuse supplies, develop water use
strategies to reduce the need for new
infrastructure, and develop new expensive
supplies.
The primary stressors associated with this issue
are related to increased human populations and
societal demands on the resource. Increased
industrial and agricultural demand for water are
also related to increasing human needs. The
trend for increased water use is prevalent in
most of the Region 4 area. Several areas have
taken steps to reduce per capita consumption of
water by developing water use strategies and
less consumptive technologies aimed at
conserving the resource, while other areas are
expending capital to build new water supply
reservoirs and infrastructure to meet new
demands.
The development and maintenance of water
supplies are primarily under state and local
jurisdiction and control. Maintenance of surface
water flows adequate for protection of aquatic
life is controlled by state and federal pollution
control acts. Water conservation and control
strategies are often developed by individual
municipalities, counties, or regional commis-
sions with the overall goals of reducing per
capita consumption rates in critical areas and
developing conservation and reuse programs.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-47
-------
Regional Goals
Goai: By 2005, per capita use of water will be reduced by 10%
from the 1990 level of 156 gallons per day.1
Public Supply and Domestic Self-Supplied
Withdrawals per Capita in Region 4
170
50
1930
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Indicators
• Water withdrawals by sector
« Average water use per person
• Agricultural water use per acre of agricultural lands
Strategies2
1. Assess the amount of water withdrawn for different uses and develop strategies for
minimizing the use of water.
2. F'romote the development of wastewater reuse programs.
3. Support education programs for water conservation.
4. Siupport efforts to improve the efficiency of water conservation technologies.
5. Facilitate the exchange of information between states.
6. Identify areas where the use of water is damaging future water supplies and ecological
functioning.
1 The data used to support this goal are available from U.S. Geological Survey reports that estimate the use
of wfitar in the United States. These data are collected every five years and are available in hard copy
format from the USGS, Federal Center, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225.
2 Numbering of strategies does not imply any order of significance or priority.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-48
-------
7. Involve private industry in the process of reducing water use for their sectors.
8. Establish safe flows and levels for all rivers and streams of regional significance and develop
strategies to ensure their maintenance.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-49
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-50
-------
Regional Strategic Issue 9:
Air Quality
The issue of air quality is concerned with the air outdoors and the upper atmosphere. It addresses the
effects of criteria pollutants, toxics, and stratospheric ozone depletion. It includes effects on air quality from
auto, industrial, and biohazardous emissions. The sub-issue of criteria pollutants deals with the six criteria
pollutants (particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,
lead, and carbon monoxide), acid rain, mobile sources, and non-attainment areas. Toxics addresses
mobile sources and TRI releases.
Trends and Conditions
Air pollution, as
identified by exceed-
ances of the National
Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS),
can cause sickness,
especially in the
elderly and the very
young, and damage
to the environment
and to property. The accidental release of some
air pollutants can cause serious injury or death.
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), six criteria
air pollutants are monitored throughout the
Region by state and local agencies: particulate
matter less than ten micrometers in diameter
(PM,0) (276 sites), ozone (175 sites), sulfur
dioxide (63 sites), nitrogen dioxide (42 sites),
lead (99 sites) and carbon monoxide (86 sites).
Over half of these monitors have been collecting
data for over ten years. All areas in Region 4
are meeting the NAAQS for three (carbon
monoxide, PMio, and nitrogen dioxide) of the six
criteria pollutants.
Certain areas have been identified as
"nonattainment" for one or more of the criteria air
pollutants. These areas have been designated
nonattainment in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA. States are required to
develop state implementation plans (SIPs) which
describe each state's plan to bring its
nonattainment areas back into attainment.
These SIPs are the compilation of state
regulations which have been approved by the
EPA and are therefore federally enforceable.
Pursuant to the 1990 amendments to the Clean
Air Act, there were a total of 33 NAAQS
nonattainment designations relating to criteria
pollutants. Currently, only six of the areas
continue to record violations. The Region had
nineteen ozone NAAQS non-attainment areas,
pursuant to the 1990 amendments; since that
time, fifteen areas are experiencing attainment
and twelve areas have been redesignated to
attainment status. The Region had six sulfur
dioxide NAAQS nonattainment areas at the time
of the 1990 amendments, and since that time
two areas have been redesignated to attainment
status and two areas are pending redesignation.
The Region had four carbon monoxide NAAQS
nonattainment areas pursuant to the 1990
amendments; all four areas have since been
redesignated to attainment status. The Region
had five lead NAAQS nonattainment areas
pursuant to the 1990 amendments; since that
time, three of the five lead nonattainment areas
are monitoring attainment and one area has
been redesignated to attainment status.
The following chart displays the number of areas
that have exceeded NAAQS and the numbers of
people residing in those areas:
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Number of
Areas Violating
NAAQS
23
15
10
7
5
8
Population in
Areas Violating
NAAQS
15,167,302
8,532,049
5,607,809
4,589,756
3,480,401
5,341,100
A limited amount of ambient hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) data has been collected in some
urban areas over the past several years. These
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-51
-------
data are not sufficient to describe trends in
ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants.
Although there is some variation, since 1990
there has been a downward trend in emissions
of criteria pollutants or their precursors from
mobilo sources and from stationary sources
such as utilities and the auto manufacturing
industry. In ozone nonattainment and
maintenance areas, the emissions of ozone
precursors (volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and Ttrogen oxides (NOX)) have remained
constant or decreased due to the regulatory
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas.
Title III of the CAA addresses requirements for
both major and non-major sources of air
polluton for HAPs. The Act requires EPA to
issue standards over a ten-year period in order
to regulate emissions of 189 toxic air pollutants
from various industries and other sources. Once
a source becomes subject to a certain EPA-
issued HAPs rule, the source will also be
required to submit applications for the approval
of new construction and reconstruction and to
undertake performance testing, monitoring,
record keeping, and reporting.
For 'i093, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
reported that 502 million pounds of TRI
chemicals were released to the air (stack and
fugitive emissions). This reflects a decrease of
70 nvllion pounds as compared with 1988.
Some of tha 189 HAPs listed in the CAA are not
included in the TRI. However, as recently as
November 22, 1994, nine of these were added
as part of the expansion of TRI. The remaining
HAPs have not been added because of, among
othe • reasons, their low production quantities.
Title V of the CAA addresses the permitting of
majcr stationary sources and certain other
sources of both criteria and non-criteria
pollutants. The permit program will ensure that
all cf a source's obligations with respect to its
pollutants will be contained in one permit
document, and that the source will file periodic
reports identifying the extent to which it has
complied with its obligations. Both these
requirements enhance the ability of federal and
stat« agencies to evaluate air quality.
Substances reaching the upper atmosphere can
havo adverse impacts on global air quality,
largely through destructive effects on ozone and
the subsequent depletion of the stratospheric
ozone layer. The main group of ozone-depleting
chemicals is organic halogen compounds.
Chlorine, fluorine, and bromine are the primary
halogen constituents of these substances. In
terms of effects on stratospheric ozone, the
chemicals of major significance in this class are
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and methyl bromide.
CFCs have been widely used as refrigerants,
propellants, solvents, and in synthetic foams;
methyl bromide is a common agricultural
fumigant and an end product of certain types of
combustion. Because these compounds are
chemically stable, they can survive for years,
reaching the troposphere and, ultimately, the
stratosphere. Ultraviolet radiation from sunlight
causes decomposition of these chemicals,
resulting in the release of chlorine and bromine
atoms. These halogens are highly reactive,
have a high chemical affinity for ozone
molecules, and can remain in the stratosphere
for a long time. For each chlorine or bromine
atom that reaches the stratospheric ozone layer,
thousands of molecules of ozone may be
destroyed. The amount of stratospheric ozone
is inversely correlated with the amount of
ultraviolet (UV) radiation that reaches the
surface of the Earth: the less ozone there is, the
more that UV radiation reaches the planet.
Increased UV radiation can negatively impact
human health as well as the health of aquatic
and other land organisms. In addition, the
stratospheric ozone layer is important because it
is an influence on global warming and cooling.
In 1987, the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer was approved,
and well over one hundred countries currently
participate in the Protocol. This international
effort has resulted in the creation of time-based
objectives for countries to ultimately end
production and use of eight major organic
halogens. In addition, the phaseout of CFCs
and other ozone-depleting chemicals was
addressed in the 1990 amendments to the
Clean Air Act. Under the Montreal Protocol,
CFC production in developed countries was
scheduled to stop by the end of 1995 and, at the
present time, developing countries are
scheduled to phase out CFCs by 2010. The
production of methyl bromide by developed
countries is scheduled to be reduced by 25
percent by 2001 and by 100 percent by 2010.
Because halogens can remain in the
stratosphere for a very long time (the lifespan is
thought to be around 100 years), even complete
and immediate cessation of the use of these
chemicals would not result in termination of
halogen-induced ozone depletion until around
the year 2100.
EPA-StatQ Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-52
-------
Regional Goals
Goal: By 2005, the population of Region 4 will live in areas that
do not violate National Ambient Air Quality Standards.1
Population Living in Nonattainment Areas in Region 4
S 2
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Year
1998
2001
2003
2005
Goal: By 2005, reduce TRI emissions to air by 50% from 1993
levels.2
Total TRI Releases to Air in Region 4
V)
•o
c
o
Q.
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
1989
1991
1992
1993
1995 1997
Year
1999
2001
2003
2005
1 The data to support this goal are provided by the U.S. EPA, Region 4 Air Division as part of their NAAQS
program. The data are available annually for each state and may be obtained in hard copy format at no
cost from U.S. EPA Region 4, Pesticides and Toxics Branch, 345 Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30365,
or at (404) 347-1033.
2 The data to support this goal are provided by the U.S. EPA in the 1993 Toxics Release Inventory Public
Data Release. The data are available on CD-ROM for the years 1987 to 1993 or in hard copy format for the
same period. These data can be obtained from the Title III Implementation Unit, U.S. EPA Region 4, 345
Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, or at (404) 347-3555.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-53
-------
Indicators
Number of nonattainment areas in Region 4
Toxic Release Inventory releases to air
Carbon monoxide emissions and exceedances
Nitrogen dioxide emissions and exceedances
Sulfur dioxide emissions and exceedances
PMio emissions and exceedances
Lead emissions and exceedances
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources
Exceedances of the ambient standard for ozone
Numbers of people living in areas where exceedances of the ambient standard for all criteria
pollutants occur
Strategies
1. develop cooperative strategies to ensure that attainment status is maintained.
2. Reduce emissions through pollution prevention measures.
3. I Joe strategies such as pollution prevention to involve the private sector in efforts to reduce air
pollution.
4. Improve and expand the ability to monitor air toxics and target strategies to respond to areas
with high risk.
5. [Develop and support community-based environmental protection efforts.
6. Conduct research into unique regional ozone strategies.
7. Promote the management of CFCs in the Region.
8. Expand and improve provision of technical assistance to communities on Title V.
3 Numbering of strategies does not imply any order of significance or priority.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-54
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-55
-------
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-56
-------
Regional Strategic Issue 10:
Healthy Communities
The environment is composed of living organisms and the non-living media that surround them. Because of
the numerous and complex interactions between organisms and their environment, separation of entities
into categories of "living things" and "environmenf is, for the most part, an artificial concept. How humans
affect their surroundings largely determines how the environment affects humans; just as people can
degrade the health of the environment, a contaminated environment can adversely impact human health.
This issue focuses on some of the major toxics that adversely influence human health and the environment
via their introduction into the various environmental media (i.e., water, air. land) and through exposure to
toxic substances in the home and workplace.
Trends and Conditions
Living organisms come
into contact with toxic
substances via air,
water, soil, and direct
exposure. Routes
whereby toxics are
introduced into living
things include inhal-
ation, ingestion, and
direct absorption through the skin.
Between 1985 and 1991, the National
Governors' Association (NGA), under a
cooperative agreement with the U.S. Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), conducted biennial surveys to identify
contaminated sites that were closed or restricted
to the public. The compilation of these Toxic
Site Surveys (TSSs) displays information on
sites that have restrictions for ground water, land
area, surface water, and other sites (i.e., waste
ponds/lagoons and buildings). The five
contaminants most frequently found in the states
of EPA Region 4 are shown in the chart that
follows for 1991, the last year in which the
survey was conducted.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are
commonly found in the air (e.g., via gasoline
vapors), ground and surface water sources, and
indoor air. In addition to the fact that some
VOCs are carcinogenic, various VOCs can
cause eye irritation and visual disorders,
respiratory irritation, fatigue, impaired memory,
and other disorders. Benzene is a VOC which is
frequently found in contaminated ground0water
and in other contaminated sites; it is a
constituent of petroleum products and is a
commonly used industrial solvent. Benzene is a
confirmed human carcinogen; routes of human
exposure include ingestion, inhalation, and
absorption through contact with skin. VOCs also
contribute to the formation of photooxidant smog
(ozone), and exposure to ozone can impair lung
function in healthy people and can seriously
endanger people with existing respiratory
problems (e.g., asthmatics). Ozone is extremely
reactive, promoting free-radical oxidation that
leads to cell aging, cell death, DNA damage,
and mutagenesis.
Humans may come into contact with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a group of
209 fat-soluble chemicals, through the ingestion
of fish, meat, eggs, milk, and other substances
in which these chemicals have bioaccumulated.
PCBs are no longer manufactured in the United
States, and although they are carcinogenic, they
appear to pose little threat to human health in
concentrations typically found in the
environment. Occupational exposure, however,
has been associated with the occurrence of
chloracne, a disfiguring skin disorder. Some
types of electrical equipment still contain PCBs.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-57
-------
Most Frequently Found Contaminants in Region 4 States in 1991
All Sites
contaminant
benzene
gasoline
pesticides
EDB
FCBs. VOCs
# of sites
41
28
27
26
21
Ground Water Wells Only
contaminant
EDB
benzene
pesticides
fertilizers
solvents
# of wells
2,308
2,224
2,212
2,012
1,667
EDB = ethylene dibromide
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
Fertilizar-contaminated water can cause
elevated levels of nitrates and other chemicals.
Ingestion of nitrate-contaminated well water can
result in an acute blood condition called
methemoglobinemia, to which newborns are
particularly susceptible. In addition, long-term
exposure lo nitrates may contribute to the
development of cancer in children and adults,
since "nitrates can react with other chemicals to
form nitrosamines, which are known animal
carcinogens.
The effects of long-term exposure to low levels
of pesticide residues in food and water are
unknown. Adequate toxicological data are
available for only about 100 of the 600 active
pesticide ingredients currently found in the
United States. High levels of occupational
exposure to pesticides have resulted in
symptoms of acute intoxication, ranging from
nausea or muscle tremors to coma and
sometimes death. Ethylene dibromide (EDB) is
a grain fumigant and is also a component of
some anti-knock gasolines. Acute exposure to
EDB causes severe skin irritation, and EDB
inhalation can result in pulmonary lesions;
prolonged contact may injure the liver and
kidnoys. EDB is strongly suspected to be
carcinogenic. The U.S. has no national
dataiaase for the reporting of acute pesticide
poisoning.
In addition to the above-referenced toxics of
regional significance, there are many other toxic
substances that are ubiquitous in the
envit'cnment and which can negatively impact
human health. Following is a discussion of
somi9 of these chemicals including some of their
impe.cts on indoor air and drinking water.
Mercury is a metallic element that is found in
soma pesticides and which can enter surface
waters through atmospheric deposition. When
converted to organic methyl mercury by aquatic
microorganisms, this toxic progressively
bioaccumulates through the food chain. Being
at the top of the food chain, humans can ingest
high levels of mercury when contaminated fish
are consumed. In humans, organic mercury is
neurotoxic, can damage kidneys, and is
teratogenic. Inorganic mercury, largely in the
form of mercury vapor, can also adversely affect
human health. Before August 1990, when the
EPA banned mercury additives from indoor
paint, latex paint manufacturers frequently
added mercury compounds to preserve paint
from the growth of microorganisms. Walls that
were painted with these products are sources of
mercury vapor, since mercury can vaporize and
be released into the air, resulting in high indoor
air levels of mercury. Inorganic mercury fumes
can cause tremors and irritability in humans.
Lead is a heavy metal that is emitted into the
atmosphere primarily via industrial activities,
combustion of solid waste, and energy
production. Lead is deposited onto soil and into
water, and because lead is very stable, it does
not degrade. Although lead was banned from
general use in automobile gasoline around
1980, lead from gasoline burned before then
persists in the environment. Human exposure to
lead primarily results from inhalation and
ingestion. Lead water pipes, lead soldering
used in water pipes, and lead-based paint are
significant sources of ingestible lead. Other
sources of lead poisoning include exposure to
the homes of persons involved in an occupation
or hobby that uses lead and who carry lead dust
or particles home on clothing or other materials;
fumes and dust from lead-related industrial
sources; food that is stored or served in
containers made with lead (for example, ceramic
food or beverage containers coated with leaded
glazes); and folk remedies that contain lead (for
example, azarcon, greta, kohl, and surma).
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-58
-------
The term "lead poisoning" in children no longer
has a specific definition. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention have defined a
blood-lead level "of concern" for children at any
level at or above 10 micrograms per deciliter
(ug/dL). Follow-up of individual children is
recommended when their blood-lead levels
reach 15 ug/dL or more. In children, a level of
over 70 ug/dL is considered a medical
emergency. The health effects of lead include
central nervous system damage ranging from
cognitive deficits to brain damage, kidney
impairment, anemia, increased blood pressure,
and many other medical manifestations. Central
nervous system effects may be irreversible.
Children are much more vulnerable to lead
poisoning than adults. Lead enters children's
bodies primarily through hand-to-mouth activities
such as playing in dust and soil that contains
lead and then putting their fingers in their mouth;
eating flaking paint chips from deteriorated lead-
based paint; and chewing on easily accessible
surfaces coated with lead-based paint. The
human body has no need for and makes no
• beneficial use of even the smallest amounts of
lead. In addition, since lead accumulates in
bones, blood-lead levels may not be indicative of
past lead exposure.
The main treatment for lead poisoning is to stop
the exposure. Removing the lead from a
person's environment helps to ensure a decline
in blood-lead levels. In some cases,
medications are used to lower blood-lead levels.
The longer a person is exposed to lead, the
greater the likelihood that damage to the
person's health will result. Distillation and
reverse osmosis are two effective means of
treating water to remove lead. Any house or
apartment built before 1978 may contain lead-
based paint. Also, any other painted surface
such as toys and furniture may contain lead-
based paint. Paint in poor condition - chipping
or peeling - poses the greatest health hazard. A
person can temporarily reduce lead hazards by
taking actions such as repairing damaged
painted surfaces, repainting, and planting grass
to cover soil with high lead levels. These interim
controls will minimize the risk of exposure to
lead. To permanently remove lead hazards, a
person should hire a lead abatement contractor.
Abatement (or permanent hazard elimination)
methods include removing, sealing, or enclosing
lead-based paint with special materials.
The air we breathe indoors often contains
combustion gases, radon, chemicals, and
biological contaminants, any of which may
cause illness if present in sufficient quantities.
Many signs and symptoms are non-specific,
making differential diagnosis a challenge and
"Sick Building Syndrome" a recognized problem.
Because most people spend 90% of their time
indoors, exposures may be significant.
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a
preventable health risk. EPA estimates that
approximately 3,000 American non-smokers die
each year from lung cancer caused by
secondhand smoke. An estimated 150,000 to
300,000 children under 18 months of age get
pneumonia or bronchitis from breathing
secondhand smoke. It is also a risk factor for
asthma in children.
Other combustion gases typically are the result
of malfunctioning combustion appliances or are
from motor vehicle emissions. The most deadly,
carbon monoxide, is an asphyxiant, causing
fatigue, dizziness, and nausea at lower
exposure levels and death at higher levels.
Chemical indoor air contaminants include
formaldehyde, which is used to make wood
products; pesticides; household products,
including paints and cleaning products; and
office materials, such as correction fluid. EPA is
working with groups of product manufacturers to
encourage substitution of lower-emitting
products, where feasible, across an entire
industry.
Biological contaminants are found everywhere.
Sources include indoor air, human occupants,
animal occupants, and water reservoirs where
fungi and bacteria grow. They may cause
infections (e.g., Legionnaire's Disease or
tuberculosis) and hypersensitivity diseases (e.g.,
allergies or humidifier fever).
"Sick Building Syndrome" (SBS) is a diagnosis
that there is an unspecified cause of problems in
a building. Typically, people have non-specific
symptoms while in the building and feel better
out of the building. Measurements of
contaminants typically fail to demonstrate a
cause. SBS is often solved by taking multiple
steps to improve indoor air quality.
Psychological factors may also be of
significance. EPA has no regulatory authority
over "sick buildings" or any other buildings, as a
general rule.
Asbestos is a generic term describing a variety
of naturally-occurring fibrous mineral silicates
found in certain types of rocks. Asbestos is a
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-59
-------
known human carcinogen that, after a long
latency period following inhalation of high levels
of asbestos fibers, can lead to an increased risk
of lung cancer; mesothelioma (a cancer of the
lining of the chest and the abdominal cavity);
and asbestosis (a serious, chronic, non-
cancerous respiratory disease in which inhaled
asbestos fibers aggravate lung tissues, which
causes them to scar). The risk of lung cancer
and mesothelioma from worker exposure
increases with the number of fibers inhaled. The
risk of lung cancer from inhaling asbestos fibers
is also greater in smokers. People who get
asbestosis have generally been exposed to high
levels, of asbestos for a long time. It is thought
that most people who live or work in buildings
that contain asbestos materials are at little risk
of advorse health effects from these substances.
And, although asbestos is also present in some
cement drinking water pipes, a U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services study concluded
that increased risk of gastrointestinal cancer is
unlikoly from this source.
Radcn is a radioactive element formed naturally
in th3 soil. Since radon is a gas, it migrates
through the soil and is typically drawn into
build ngs by low air pressures typically found in
the lowest floor. Radon can also be brought into
a bu Iding in well water and be released to the
air as the water is used. Once in a building,
radon mixes with the interior air and continues to
decay to other radioactive elements. When
theso "radon progeny" are inhaled, they can
lodg« in the pulmonary system and expose the
tissues to radiation.
Radon and its decay products are known human
carcinogens which greatly increase an
individual's risk of lung cancer. Radon and
indoor air quality issues have been identified in
several comparative risk studies as the greatest
threats to human health that EPA must face.
Human studies have led to lifetime risk
estimates of 1/100 to 1/1000 at EPA's action
level for indoor radon concentrations: Radon is
the second leading cause of lung cancer in the
United States. It is easy and inexpensive to
reduce the likelihood of a radon problem at the
time a structure is built; mitigating radon levels in
existing buildings is reliable and simple.
While the United States has one of the safest
drinking water supplies in the world, all of the
water that we drink may not always be free from
contamination. For example, from October 1992
through September 1993, 11% of people served
by community water systems in the U.S. (about
25 million people) were provided water that did
not meet all drinking water standards. Eleven
percent is too high, even though this number
was lower than in previous years. Region 4's
goal is to have more people with access to water
meeting all federal standards. The progress
made toward meeting the Region 4 Goals for
Safe Drinking Water will let everyone know how
well EPA and its state partners are doing the
job.
Recorded violations of drinking water health
standards have increased significantly since
implementation of major new regulations under
the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.
One source of drinking water contamination is
lead from pipes and solder. Federal regulation
currently addresses this contamination threat
through testing and corrosion control. Other
regulations address acute microbiological
contamination, chronic chemical contamination,
and treatment to prevent viruses. Acute
contamination is currently given the highest
priority nationwide.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-60
-------
Regional Goals
Prospective Goal: From 1995, 95 percent of the population In
Region 4 served by community water systems will meet all
health requirements..1
Percentage of Population Served by Community Water
Systems Meeting all Health Requirements in Region 4
100
95
90
85
80
75
1992
1993
1994
1995
2000
2005
Year
Goal: By the year 2005, the number of children exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke will be reduced by 50% compared
to 1994.2
Percentage of Households with Children
Under the Age of Six that Allow Smoking
100%
0)
(fl
3
O
X
80%
60%
O
g, 40%
S
g 20%
o% ---
1994
1997
2000
Year
2003
2005
' The data to support this goal were provided by the U.S. EPA Region 4, Office of Water, 345 Courtland
Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, or at (404) 347-3555. The data were obtained from the state data in EPA's
Safe Drinking Water Information System, 1995. The data for 1995 may be revised in the future because
not all water systems completed the required monitoring. The compliance status of those systems could
not be assessed from the data reported and will be updated when the data are available.
2 The data to support this goal were obtained from the report Radon Risk Communication and Results
Study, commissioned by the Council of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD). The report was
provided in hard copy by the U.S. EPA Office of Radiation, 345 Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, or
at (404) 347-3907.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-61
-------
Goal: By 2005, 40% of the 867,000 homes in Region 4 with
radon levels exceeding 4pCi/L in 1993 will have been mitigated.3
Number of Homes in Region 4 with
Radon Levels Exceeding 4pCi/L
900.000
800.000 .-.-.".•-•:-- --..-.-.
700,000 t -""••- ;
-------
6. Incorporate lead-based paint maintenance and hazard control standards into housing codes
and health regulations.
7. Ensure follow-up housing interventions, protecting families with children with elevated blood-
lead levels from improper retaliation, and identify priority areas for prevention efforts.
8. Establish state and local lead-based paint program infrastructure development through
passage of state and local legislation and regulations.
9. Maintain direct federal training, education, and outreach for lead-based paint program issues.
10. Develop public education processes pertaining to indoor air quality.
11. Significantly increase the number of homes tested for radon.
12. Implement and expand activities to mitigate radon levels in homes.
13. Identify the areas of greatest risk from radon for early attention.
14. Develop/refine state strategies by continually sharing results of different approaches states
and EPA have tried in radon testing programs.
15. Use a voluntary approach that incorporates incentives and regulation in the development of
radon programs.
16. Prevent future radon problems by adopting/promoting EPA's radon resistant residential
building codes.
17. Use EPA Radon Proficiency Programs which identify qualified testing and mitigation
contractors.
18. Develop performance partnership grants and identify new resources for use in radon
programs.
19. Develop new radon-resistant building codes.
20. Provide radon education for specific groups (i.e., public, real estate agents and
commissioners, lending industry, legislators, homebuilders, code officials, and community-
based groups).
21. Educate regarding good building maintenance practices to reduce growth of fungi, Legionella,
allergens, and other microbes which affect indoor air quality.
22. Prevent pollution in the home or workplace through the use of lower-emitting building and
consumer products.
23. Reduce the health risks of secondhand smoke by information dissemination and public
outreach on the hazards of environmental tobacco smoke.
24. Prevent pollution by reducing combustion gases through improved maintenance and
ventilation of combustion appliances.
25. Develop state-specific, action plans for indoor air quality, identifying the greatest sources of
risk within each state.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-63
-------
26. Maintain communication among states and EPA concerning new program materials,
research, and project results.
27. F:orm partnerships with other governmental and non-profit organizations to efficiently distribute
resources for specific projects.
28. Continue a voluntary approach to reducing the public health threats posed by indoor air
pollution, incorporating incentives and regulations where appropriate.
29. Support training of occupational groups to help ensure better indoor air quality for the public.
30. Identify new funding resources for indoor air quality activities.
31. Provide compliance assistance to public water systems on drinking water regulations.
32. Conduct strategic enforcement on public water systems.
EPA-State Regional Environmental Strategic Plan
May 1996
E-64
------- |