Goals and Indicators
Conference Proceedings
February 2-4,1994
Clarion Hotel New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana
Conducted by:
The Florida Center tor
Public Management,
Florida State University
In cooperation with and funding
provided by the
Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Measuring and Communicating Progress
ROCEEDINGS
CHARTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FUTURE FOR AMERICA
-------
^Proceedings of th
cI\ationaf Environmental
0oafe and cindicators
Conference
February 2-4, 1994
Clarion Hotel New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana
Conducted by:
The Florida Center for Public Management
The Florida State University
In Cooperation vith the
Office of Policy. Planning and Evaluation.
US. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
These Proceedings were compiled and prepared by:
Andrea M. Pable
Environmental Planner
Florida Center for Public Management
The Florida estate University
All questions and comments should be directed to her ah
Florida Center for Public Management
The Florida State University
118 North Woodward Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 323064Q25
Phone: (904) 481-6641
FAX: (904) 487-416?
Although the information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement
CX 822 589 - 01 - 0 to the Florida Center for Public Management, The Florida
State University, it may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no
official endorsement should be inferred.
These Proceedings printed on recycled paper.
-------
-------
cJafjTe of Contents
Page
I. Conference Overview 3
II. Presentations to the Plenary
Welcome and Overview 7
Host State Welcome 8
Keynote Address: The Future of Environmental Policy in America 9
How Does It All Fit? A State Perspective 13
Environmental Goals and Indicators at the Federal Level 14
The Nuts and Bolts of Environmental Indicators 15
Report from the Northeast Regional Conference 16
Report from the Southeast Regional Conference 17
Report from the Mid-America Regional Conference 18
Report from the Western Regional Conference 19
Summary of Homework 20
Luncheon Address: The Dutch Experience 22
III. Future Directions for EPA and the States 29
IV. Indicator Development Session - Candidate Indicator List 33
V. Voting Results 39
VI. Appendices
Appendix 1: Conference Agenda 49
ii
-------
Appendix 2: Speaker Biographies 53
Appendix 3: Comments on Candidate Indicators 59
Appendix 4: Instructions for Developing Indicators 77
Appendix 5: Indicator Survey 85
Appendix 6: Breakout Session Scrolls 95
Appendix 7: Summary of Homework 107
Appendix 8: Participant List 137
iii
-------
Conference Overview
w
-------
2
-------
Conference ^Proceedings
Introduction
The 1994 National Environmental Goals and Indicators Conference was held in New Orleans,
Louisiana, February 2-4, 1994. The conference was conducted by the Florida Center for Public
Management of the Florida State University under a cooperative agreement with the Environmental
Results Branch of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation.
The purpose of the National Conference was to provide a forum for representatives from all of the
states, several federal agencies, and the interested public to share information about environmental
indicator systems from their states, understand the role that indicators play in environmental
management, and identify indicators that would be consistent from state to state and across federal
agencies. This conference follows four regional environmental indicator conferences held in New
Jersey, Florida, Colorado and California. Recommendations from this national conference will be
used by EPA to provide a framework to help develop more consistent environmental indicator
systems at all levels of government.
Conference Overview
The format for the National Conference incorporated presentations to the plenary and small group
breakout session discussions to recommend the more useful, meaningful, or practical indicators.
There was also a preconference Pilot Roundtable meeting on issues and recommendations for
approaches to set national environmental goals.
Day 1: February 2
Following the welcome and opening remarks from Rick Sinding, Assistant Commissioner for
Policy and Planning, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, and Bill
Kucharski, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, participants listened to
presentations on how environmental indicators can be used at the state level from Tom Looby,
Director, Office of the Environment, Colorado Department of Health and at the federal level from
Bob Currie, Director of the Strategic Planning and Management Division, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency.
The final presentation to the plenary provided participants with an overview of how environmental
indicator systems can be developed and used. Gil Bergquist, from the Florida Center for Public
Management, used the Florida system as an illustration of some practical considerations in
developing and using an indicator system.
Day 2: February 3
On the morning of the second day, a panel of participants presented overviews of various regional
indicators programs in the U.S. Rick Sinding gave a summary of the northeast regional
3
-------
conference. Gil Bergquist summarized the southeast regional conference. Tim Mulholland, from
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, provided an overview of the Mid-America
regional conference. Finally, Steve Hanna, from the California Environmental Protection Agency,
summarized the western regional conference. Following these presentations, Jim Bernard,
Director, Natural Resource Planning, Maine State Planning Office, gave a summary of the
homework assignment on environmental indicators.
Upon receiving instructions for the indicator development sessions, participants broke into small
groups to develop a list of indicators for water quality, water quantity, indoor air, outdoor air, solid
waste, hazardous waste, land, and biota. After lunch, participants again broke into small groups to
complete their first task of identifying a candidate core of environmental indicators. The indicators
developed by each group were then assembled into the candidate indicator list which were then
voted on the next day. Upon completion of Task 1, each group then worked on their final tasks.
Task 2 entailed developing a brief, practical plan for collecting and aggregating the data. Task 3
involved developing the most effective means of displaying each of the selected indicators. The
final task consisted of identifying unresolved issues and recommendations for future directions.
The luncheon address on this day was given by Hans van Zijst, Counselor for Health and
Environment for the Royal Netherlands Embassy. Hans gave a presentation of the environmental
indicator program used by the Netherlands, and discussed the policy response, the implementation
challenge, and the different types of indicators and how they could be used.
Day 3: February 4
On the morning of the third day, a final plenary session occurred in which reports were given by
representatives of each of the issue groups. The conference participants then voted on the list of
candidate environmental indicators which were developed during the previous day. Bob Currie,
Director of the Strategic Planning and Management Division, EPA Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, then gave a presentation on future directions for EPA and the states for environmental
goals and indicators programs. During lunch participants grouped by regions and discussed the
use of indicators for their respective regions. The conference concluded with a short presentation
on what was said in the regional working lunch sessions and a brief discussion of plans for future
conferences.
The Proceedings
These proceedings include brief summaries of each plenary presentation, a summary of the
instructions to the small groups for the development indicators, and a list of each small group's
indicators as presented to the plenary. In addition, a summary of the individual recommendations
and comments on these indicators is also provided. Finally, the conclusion provides a list of the 69
candidate indicators that resulted from the voting and outlines major findings based on the analysis
done by the Florida Center for Public Management.
The appendix includes an outline of the conference program; the complete instructions to
conference participants for development of indicators in the small group sessions; the indicator
survey, a summary of the homework; breakout session results; comments on the 69 candidate
indicators; speaker biographies; and a list of the conference participants.
4
-------
^Presentations
to the ^plenary
W
-------
6
-------
c\Vefcome and Overview for tfie
-------
(Host §tate ^Wefcome
Speaker: Bill Kucharaki. Secretary. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Environmental indicators provide a new means of acquiring information about environmental
issues. This makes environmental indicators a very important and valuable tool. Presently, the
public finds out about environmental issues through a variety of sources that present the
information very subjectively. These sources of information include the media, local non-
governmental organizations, internal processes within agencies, and the legislature. This is no
longer acceptable and by adopting environmental indicator programs we can do better. We have
lost the public's trust in government and in order to rebuild that trust we must begin prioritizing.
There are many reasons why we should value environmental indicators, but how do we use them?
A very important way in which environmental indicators can be used is when requesting funding.
When asking for funding for a project, you need to be able to tell your legislature why you need it,
how you intend to use it, and how you will fix the problem with it. Environmental indicators can
be a very important communication tool in fulfilling this purpose. Environmental indicators can
also function as a progress report and let your agency know if your doing a good job or meeting the
goals of your program.
The next step in the process is deciding what we are going to do with environment indicators. Of
course, the answer is starting an environmental indicators program. When starting programs there
are several things that should be remembered. First, remember that comparative risk and
environmental indicators go together. Second, states need to listen to the people, EPA needs to
listen to the states, and Congress needs to the listen to EPA. Finally, we need to put specific
meaning to how we address issues.
8
-------
QFie future of Environmental
tPoficy in America
0hiS, 5Jext oj
-------
discussions or meetings among environmental managers deal directly with environmental conditions or
outcomes. Indeed, the types of outcomes most frequently discussed are concerned with whether the
number of actions taken is going up or down - not whether these actions are a making bigger
difference.
And, as we are beginning to see, traditional command and control programs are diminishing in value
over time as problems become more subtle and interconnected and as our approach to solving them
becomes more sophisticated.
Over the past twenty years, our approach has been purely reactive. This is not to say that our
"statutory approach" - based almost entirely on reactions to existing problems - has not given us
positive results. This is to say, however, that more complex and varied approaches to environmental
protection make conventional activity measures less useful if they're not integrated with outcome-
related measures.
This being the case, it occurs to me, as I'm sure it has to most of you, that we've come to that
proverbial fork in the road where we need to make some choices about the best direction to take. I
know that over the past year, the states have made some real strides in this area, particularly as a result
of the four regional conferences that have been held thus far. And I look forward with great
anticipation to learning the results of those conferences.
For purposes of this discussion here today, I want to very quickly provide the bases or, if you will, the
philosophical underpinnings that will guide this Administration's endeavors in the area of
environmental protection, particularly as they relate to the importance of environmental indicators.
« This Administration wants to base its decisions for environmental protection on the best science
and data that we have.
• We at EPA want to learn from the experience obtained at the state level - since states serve on the
front lines of environmental program management, and we cannot afford redundancy.
• Environmental indicators tie closely into a number of top EPA objectives - the foremost of which is
meeting environmental goals - but also into areas such as: Flexibility with Accountability;
Partnerships with States, localities and tribes; and, the Empowerment theme sounded so strongly in
the National Performance Review.
FLEXIBILITY REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY
In keeping with this empowerment theme, and again recognizing its prominence in the National
Performance Review, it is essential that EPA provide environmental managers with the tools, authority
and technical support needed to do their jobs. EPA's movement toward results orientation - and away
from simply mandating specific technologies - will further empower states by encouraging innovation.
And we want to encourage innovative solutions, but only if there is a good chance that the result will be
equal or greater environmental protection for the same cost.
We need to be able to ensure the public, as well as the Congress, that the net result of innovation,
flexibility or regular program approach will produce the desired environmental result.
The Agency will only endorse, and the tax-payer will only tolerate, programs which are designed to
10
-------
achieve clear, explainable environmental outcomes. Put simply, the extent to which EPA will allow
states flexibility will be based on the extent to which states can ensure best performance - in short -
accountability.
Recognizing that environmental conditions are complex and often "insensitive" to our attempts at
environmental management (i.e. droughts, floods, hurricanes), it is clear that longer-term environmental
measures alone cannot provide the best indications of program successes or failures. Activity data have
been, are and will continue to play an important role in the short-term measure of environmental
progress, particularly in terms of their vital role in enabling managers to link certain actions with
certain results, thereby enabling us to replicate, or avoid, these actions.
Additionally, activity measures enable us to measure the behavior of the regulated community. After
all, our laws, regulations, incentives and enforcement actions are directed at their behavior - not at the
environment directly.
However, since most of our existing regulatory system focuses only on our actions, and not the
environmental results of those actions, what is clear is that there is a need to achieve a balance between
measures of government activity, actions by the regulated community and environmental conditions
over time. One example of this "balance" that immediately comes to mind pertains to measures of
success in the business world, specifically, how to tell whether or not you're managing a "winning"
corporation.
Given this, it becomes clear that what is needed is a balance or, if you will, a more environmentally
holistic approach to program management. Once the successful integration of "outcome measures"
with "activity measures" is complete, it will enable us all - at federal, state and local levels - to explain
our objectives to those who hold us accountable in more meaningful terms, such as the relationships
between changes in air and water quality and the incidence of illness or death, rather than in terms
describing numbers of inspections or permits issued.
RELATIONSHIP TO ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES
In keeping with this Administration's commitment to improving the way government does business, and
thereby further improving environmental program management, a number of themes have been
identified as being essential for the success of these processes.
• Partnership. Although the term itself is not new to the lexicon of federal/state relations, it has
heretofore been something of an abstraction, something we just haven't been able to get our arms
completely around. Now, it is clear that there is a real opportunity to move forward to ensure that
true partnership no longer eludes our grasp. Essential to any successful partnership is a mutual
recognition of strengths and capabilities, with specific identification of things that are best done by
states, and those which are best left to EPA. To that end, the State Capacity Task Force has
recommended reforming the oversight process. Indeed, one of the prime features of the new system
is defining and measuring success in environmental terms, so that the program review process can
focus on the important issues (e.g. "is the environment cleaner or safer," rather than, "have we kept
all of our files straight?")
• Prevention. I'm sure that all of us in the field of environmental protection, whether our leanings are
in technical or policy areas, understand what this means. And because we do, we must use our
understanding of pollution prevention-related concepts as we begin to give greater emphasis to
11
-------
environmental indicators (e. g. what reductions in certain pollutant loadings will mean in terms of
illnesses or deaths prevented).
• Sustainable Development. Again, through our partnership, we must avail ourselves of ways to
integrate economy-strengthening activities and environmental protection so that they complement
and reinforce each other.
• Ecosystem Protection. Implicit here is the need for EPA to recognize this nation's geographic
diversity, and that no two states are identical in terms of environmental and resource conditions,
pressures and needs. Here again we recognize the need for flexibility with accountability. That is to
say, "as long as you (states) can ensure optimum performance, we're (EPA) willing to take a
chance on you".
CONCLUSION
In closing, I just want to quickly "punch" once again what the Administrator and I feel are the most
important themes relating to environmental indicators.
We, that is to say this administration, are, right now, making far-reaching choices in health, education,
technology and science - each of which can impact our environmental problem set and our ability to
respond to those problems. This being the case, now is the time to bring environmental goals and
measures to the forefront of our common agenda.
The fact is, there are problems. The fact is, change is hard. But, as I see it, our alternatives are
limited. We could maintain the status quo - and could continue to get together year after year,
rehashing the same problems in ad nauseam fashion. Or, we could charge ahead and try to improve
what we have - and yes - make some mistakes. As we work together to make the tough calls on which
data are best suited to given situations, we must first focus on improvement, not perfection.
We need a balance between environmental and activity measures.
We need to leam to anticipate problems better and propose innovative solutions that protect public
health and the environment without imposing excessive costs.
We need to be able to explain the basis, purpose and progress of our programs in more tangible, readily
understandable terms to maintain public understanding and support.
We need to ensure that the flexibility that EPA is willing to provide is accompanied by environmental
and institutional accountability. Again, flexibility with accountability...enough said.
And finally, even though our data may not meet all standards of perfection, it is imperative that you, as
technical experts, be a driving force to help us make decisions about which indicators should be used,
make us aware of any flaws or limitations in those data, and ensure that data directly pertaining to
environmental issues get a hearing in the larger context of environmental decision-making.
With that, I want to thank you again for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts, and would
also like to express our continued support for your efforts in this area. I understand that the balance of
this session will be devoted to Q and A, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you again.
**&&*¦
12
-------
fpfow ®oes
^gtate ^Perspective
Tom Looby, Director. Colorado Office of Environment
The State Capacity Task Force report resulted in several significant findings. The first is that
states are at risk of failing due to the onslaught of federal mandates. These mandates often come
without the needed flexibility to prioritize. There is also much prescription in the new legislation
due to mistrust. Second, the relationship between the states and EPA must change and develop into
more of a partnership if we are to eventually succeed. There were several recommendations from
the report regarding this: 1) a new policy framework is needed that defines partnership between
states and EPA, and 2) there is a need for constructive program review vs. the traditional oversight
approaches. Third, the success of the states and EPA is dependent on the capacity of states to
deliver programs. However, state capacity needs enhancement. It should become an every day
part of EPA's job. Furthermore, EPA needs to be a strategic planning agency rather than a micro-
manager in order to benefit the country's environment. There is also a need for joint goal setting
endeavors between states and regions and a need for state involvement with decision-making at the
federal level. However, there is currently no systematic approach for goal setting by states and
EPA. There should be joint goal and priority setting at the state, regional, and national levels.
Rather than "bean counting," real measures of environmental progress need to occur.
It is very important for the environmental management system to evolve to reflect society's needs
and concerns. Citizens want to know the status of environmental quality and it is important to
sustain the support of the American public for environmental programs. It is essential that we
enhance our ability to communicate with them about real progress in cleaning and protecting our
air, land, and water. They do not care about the number of RCRA inspections we did in '93, but
whether their air is clean and water safe. Furthermore, the competition for funding is fierce.
Significant demands for resources for prisons, schools, and health care are utilizing most state
funds. The legislatures are also looking more critically than ever at how funding is used. It is very
important to become efficient. Finally, it is inevitable to enhance tools used to prioritize
environmental endeavors. Tax payers expect us to be efficient with the use of taxpayer money.
"Bean counting" is out-of-date and no longer that relevant. Change will not occur unless we devise
a smarter system to use so the Congress feels that there are accountability measures. Let us not
miss this opportunity to devise a more useful and intelligent system to measure our environmental
progress in the U.S.
13
-------
(Environmental Goafs and (Environmental
cjicficators at the federal ^evef
Speaker: Dob Currie. Director. Strategic Planning and Management Division, Office
of Policy. Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental indicators are a means to an end — they enable us to answer the question, "How
will we measure environmental progress?" Environmental indicators are critical tools for:
identification of problems; measuring status and trends; geographic targeting; resource allocation;
communication; assessing strategy effectiveness; selecting between alternative strategies; and
setting environmental goals. There is a logical relationship between resources, what we do, and
what ultimately happens. Measuring our progress allows us to see that logical relationship. We
have spent a lot of time evaluating our activities and outputs, such as permits granted, through
quarterly reports and the like. Now we must focus on whether these activities really have
mattered — is change actually happening? We need "environmental thermometers."
EPA needs to set national measurable environmental goals, but we must gather data to use in
setting our goals. We know where we have been, but can we tell where we are going? Is it
possible to say what we want to achieve, and what strategies we will use to achieve it? And, as a
part of this process, can we also determine what is sustainable, and how that affects what must be
achieved? Once our goals and strategies are determined, the budget is developed based on what
we want to achieve. We must stop taking last year's budget and adding some small percentage to
it without some evaluation of whether the budgeted activities are actually making a difference
moving towards the goals that are set. EPA has begun to hold public meetings in each of the 10
regions to begin discussions on the range of environmental problems that need to be addressed.
States, industry, and non-govemmental organizations will be included in this process. To be
successful, this process needs to proceed at the regional and state level. During the second round,
measurable environmental goals will be discussed. Included in this discussion will be costs,
strategies, and agency involvement.
In looking at activity measures, we have gone along assuming that, if we write all the necessary
permits and put them in place, then protection will occur. However, we do not know for sure that
protection actually occurs. We need environmental indicators to make sure that strategies and
programs are working. We should not get rid of activity measures, but we must use both. As a
focus for discussions with Congress, state legislatures, and the public, environmental data can be
a strong tool for building consensus and direction and driving agency planning, and resource
targeting. The model must involve links between environmental planning, budget formulation,
program implementation, and environmental data at all levels.
14
-------
QRe q^its and ^ofts
of Environmental cjncficators
Speaker: Gil Beigquiat, Jr„ PhD„ Senior Management Consultant, Florida
Center for Public Management, Florida State University
Prior to beginning the indicator workgroup sessions, some discussion of the basics of indicator
development is appropriate. There are several terms that should be defined initially:
• A parameter is a property that is measured or observed.
• An indicator is a parameter, or a value derived from parameters, which points to/provides
information about/describes the state of a phenomenon/environment/area with a
significance extending beyond that directly associated with a parameter value.
« An index is a set of aggregated or weighted parameters or indicators.
Selection criteria are used to evaluate the quality of an indicator. The following is a list of the
criteria (please refer to the Conference Notebook for further discussion):
• national applicability • understandibility
• data consistency • availability
• data quality • trends
• importance • causality
• results • aggregation
A hierarchy of indicators also exists and it is how we measure environmental change. On the
administrative side there are two levels.
• Level 1 are actions made by EPA/state regulatory agencies.
• Level 2 are responses of the regulated community.
These levels continue to the environmental side where there are 4 additional consecutive levels.
• Level 3 are changes in discharge/emission quantities.
• Level 4 are changes in ambient conditions.
• Level 5 are changes in uptake and/or assimilation.
• Level 6 are direct changes in health, ecology, or other effects.
In addition to these levels there are levels of indicator usage. The bottom level is administrative
performance. This is followed by program performance and then environmental monitoring. The
next level is agency management and the final, top level is benchmarks.
There are also management related uses of environmental indicators that create multipurpose
systems. An indicator system can be used for agency evaluation and strategic planning, For
strategic planning, environmental indicators can be used for setting goals and objectives and also
for source data for conducting strategic analysis. Furthermore, it can be used as a basis for
measuriing and communicating progress (i.e. monitoring the results). Lastly, it can be used in
strategic planning for fundamental decisions concerning budgets. The third management related
use that environmental indicators can be used for is public information and public relations. The
final use is for environmental education. (For a summary of short-term indicators by
environmental issue, please refer to the Conference Notebook).
15
-------
(J^eport from the <]^ortfteast Regional
Conference on (Environmental (Indicators
Speaker: Dick Sinding. Assistant Commissioner, Nev Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy
The first regional environmental indicators conference was held in the northeast in March 1993.
After the national environmental indicators conference in Chicago, September 1992, the states
recognized that the federal and state agendas were distinctly different. The federal EPA saw the
national indicators project as part of their goal setting process. The states, on the other hand, were
looking for practical applications of specific indicators, some of which might come from national
movement.
There were thirteen states represented from Maine to Virginia, in addition to representatives from
EPA regions I, II, and III, business and industry, environmental groups, academia, and interested
citizens. We discussed what would make a good indicator and how indicators could be used or
misused. We also discussed how indicators relate to setting goals and priorities and whether they
should be applied as measures of agency performance.
We came to many conclusions including the recognition that there is a lot of science and politics
involved in this process. We also made some mistakes including:
• Spending too much time trying to find several cross-media indicators.
• Probably trying too hard to find regional indicators. Other than air/ozone, there aren't many.
• Seeking perfection and complete consensus, we soon realized we would have to forget it.
The lessons learned from the Northeast Conference are summarized below and are discussed more
thoroughly in the proceedings for that conference.
• There is no optimum number of indicators. It is possible to use too many (dilute the
importance) or too few (and inflate the importance).
» Indicators are much better measures of performance of environment than surrogates we have
been using.
• Presentation is very important. Many people will try to use indicators to prove many things.
Interpretation of data is more important than data itself.
• Initially, the public may not be very interested.
New Jersey hosted the regional conference for two reasons:
~ altruistic - to help EPA and other states apply real science to policy making and priority
setting.
~ selfish - New Jersey wanted to shift the environmental debate away from jobs vs.
environment toward a rational accounting of where we have spent our environmental resources
over the past 20 years and what it has bought us in terms of improved air, water, and land use.
16
-------
<3^eport ^rom the Qouthcast (J^egionoT
Conference on ^Environmental CBtcficators
Speaker: Gil Bei^quist, Jr„ PhD.. Senior Management Consultant, Florida
Center for Public Management, Florida State University
The 1993 Southeastern Environmental Indicators Conference was held in Tallahassee, Florida,
August 2 - 4, 1993. The purpose of the Southeastern Conference was to provide a forum for
representatives from states in EPA regions IV and VI (excluding New Mexico), and the interested
public to share information about environmental indicator systems in the southeast, understand the
role that indicators play in environmental management, and identify indicators that are appropriate
to include in a national indicator system.
The conclusions and recommendations from the Southeast Conference are summarized below and
are discussed more thoroughly in the proceedings for that conference.
• There is general consistency between the New Jersey and Florida regional conferences.
• There was a general lack of interest in regional indicators.
• There was an understatement of data gaps. Participants consistently developed and
recommended indicators for which no data is available.
• Most of the indicators regarded as useful are associated with existing federal programs. If an
environmental issue does not have ait established program, then solid, national indicators are
usually not available.
• There was support for developing indicator systems for major environmental policy issues (e.g.
pollution prevention, sustainable development, environmental equity).
• The overall quality of the indicators is low.
• Data gaps
~ The largest data gap area appeared to be in human health. People recognize how
important this issue is, but from a national perspective there is not any consistent data.
~ Another area lacking national data is water quantity, with the notable exception of the
USGS water withdrawal data..
~ Water quality is a major data gap area. There are many candidate indicators, but they tend
to be piecemeal, be of relatively low quality and lack the consistency required of national
indicators.
~ The use of land resources also reflects a serious data gap. The state and local focus on the
use and management of land resources makes national applications difficult
17
-------
Report ^rom the £A^id-y\merica
-------
Q^eport 0^rom the (Western "T^egionaf
Conference on (Environmental cjndicators
;aker: &teve Hanna, Ph.D„ California Environmental Protection Agency
The Western Regional Conference was held in Sacramento, California in January 1994.
Representatives from Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and
Washington attended, and most of them had little or no prior experience with the concepts of
environmental goals and indicators. Because this was the initial conference and most attendees had
little experience in the area, much of the conference was devoted to defining environmental
indicator concepts as opposed to the definition of specific indicators.
Four break-out sessions were held. The first session involved defining indicator criteria and
choosing five general indicators The second session examined the specific areas of sustainability,
special needs of small communities, linkages between environmental indicators and comparative
risk, and watershed planning. The third session was a discussion of data gaps and data
redundancy. The fourth session was related to the third and dealt with data collection, integration,
and the concept of communicating data about your data and its limitations (meta-data).
Four major results came from this conference:
• Enthusiasm for the environmental indicators process was generated, and the stage was set for
the next regional indicators conference.
• One main concern voiced was if this effort signified a real cultural change at US EPA or if
environmental indicators was only an academic exercise.
• Regional indicators were not explicitly defined, but there was general consensus that they were
valuable.
• Concern was consistently expressed about data quality, data gaps, and the necessity of
knowing and communicating about data.
19
-------
gummar^ of homework
Speaker: Jim Bernard, Director, Natural Resource Policy Division, Maine State
Planning Office
In planning for the National Environmental Goals and Indicators Conference, we sought to save
time at the meeting and jump-start your thinking about environmental indicators by asking each of
the supported state participants to complete a homework assignment. The purpose of the
assignment was to have each of the respondents review the indicators that had been suggested by
the Northeast and Southeastern Regional Environmental Indicators Conferences and then identify
in each of eight substantive environmental areas the top three candidate indicators. Unfortunately,
the Mid-America and Western Regional Environmental Indicators Conferences were held so
recently that their indicators could not be included in the homework exercise. I encourage you to
use the indicators suggested in those conferences in addition to those suggested by the respondents
to homework assignment in developing indicators today.
An option in the homework assignment was to also list any other indicators concerning that
substantive environmental category that the respondent believed was an indicator of merit. The
summary of the homework assignment starts on page 2-107 at the back of the second tab of your
notebooks.
We received 31 responses to the assignment with 27-28 responses to any single indicator. 58
indicators were suggested most often and are listed in the homework summary. These indicators
will serve as the basis for your work group sessions that follow this morning and continue this
afternoon. What was striking about the indicators that were suggested is that only ten of them are
direct indicators; the rest are indirect indicators or activity measures.
Let us talk for a few minutes about activity measures and direct and indirect environmental
indicators. If all of us understand how we measure environmental change in terms of indirect or
direct measures, we will be able to more accurately select a set of national environmental
indicators. Going back to Bob Currie's overhead "A Continuum of Information Available" that he
presented in yesterday's "How Does It All Fit?" session, you will see that activity measures, the
infamous "beans" we all count, are separate and distinct from environmental indicators. The
Chesapeake Bay Program "Hierarchy of Indicators" overhead that Gil Bergquist presented in
describing the "Nuts and Bolts of Environmental Indicators" breaks the continuum into six
different levels with some graphic examples of indirect and direct measures of environmental
change. I will leave this overhead up so that we can keep it in mind as we briefly review the
indicators that were suggested through the homework assignment.
The respondents were asked to rate the indicators generated in the regional conferences for their
national applicability, data consistency, data quality, importance, results (e.g. direct or indirect
environmental results), understandibility, availability, trends, causality, and aggregation.
20
-------
Let us run through the candidate indicators quickly and briefly go over what the respondents
thought in terms of national applicability, data consistency and quality:
• Water Quality. The candidate indicators are nationally applicable, the data is good, but not
consistent.
• Water Quantity. The candidate indicators are nationally applicable, the data is good and
consistent. This should be the easiest task of any of the work groups.
• Indoor Air Quality. Only 14 responses were received and the candidate indicators were
limited. For radon, it would be nationally applicable, the data is solid and consistent.
• Outdoor Air Quality. The candidate indicators are nationally applicable, but the data is not
good and is inconsistent.
• Solid Waste. The candidate indicators are nationally applicable, but the data is not good and
is inconsistent.
• Hazardous Waste. The candidate indicators are nationally applicable, the data is good and
consistent. However, the indicators proposed are all indirect measurements or activity
measures.
• Land. The candidate indicators are nationally applicable, the data is good and consistent.
• Biota. The candidate indicators are nationally applicable, but the data is not good and is
inconsistent.
I would like to thank Andrea Pable and Gil Bergquist of the Florida Center for Public Management
for compiling the respondents data base and the homework summary in your notebooks.
Last, I would encourage those of you who are supported state participants to complete Part I of the
Homework Assignment that covers what your state is doing to develop environmental goals and
indicators, state of the environment reports, and asks for program and policy contacts. I know we
are all interested in what we are doing to move forward. Thanks.
21
-------
•Environmental 0oafs and cjhdicators,
Qfie <2)utcfi (Experience
oJext ^rom 9jmcfieon y^cfdress)
Speaker Hans van Zijat, Counselor for Health and Environment, Royal Netherlands Embassy,
Washington, DC.
Since the mid-eighties the Netherlands has integrated its environmental policies in one single process, the
National Environmental Policy Plan. The first plan was issued in 1989, was called To Choose or to Lose'
and addressed the challenge of the Brundtland Commission on sustainable development. The second one
has just been issued, in December 1993, and is called 'Environment as the yardstick' (unofficial translation)
and addresses the challenges after four years of implementation of the first plan, as well as the vast
implications of Agenda 21.
This speech is not about the contents of these plans. The content will pop-up occasionally to illustrate my
remarks, but much more important to this conference is the procedure of its drafting, particularly the way
national goals are set and the way we measure performance on these goals by using indicators.
By the end of this address I want to have made one point absolutely clear: quantifying environmental goals
is essential for accountable political success. Someone once explained to me the difference in the use of the
word 'goal' versus the word target'. Goals are broad and abstract, targets are specific and concrete. With
my limited ability in English I am not in a position to argue for or against this difference, but if it is true, let
it be clear for the record that the Dutch experience is about targets'.
The Scientific Basis for Environmental Planning
The Netherlands Environmental Policy Plans (NEPPs) are rooted in science. The National Institute for
Public Health and Environmental Protection (RI~, after its Dutch abbreviation) was given the task to
design an ongoing process of monitoring and assessing the quality of the domestic and international
environment. They were asked to alternately report on a two-year basis on the prospective and retrospective
situation of the environment. In 1988 RJWh created a new department, drawing on their own human
resources, to be dedicated to this new task.
Their first report was prospective and was issued in 1988. It was called Concern for Tomorrow' and
sparked the much cited line from the Queen's Christmas speech: "The inconceivable becomes conceivable:
life itself is at stake"! This report backed away from the usual thinking about the environment along
statutory lines. The environment cannot be captured along those lines. RIB supplied decision makers with a
much broader assessment of the current status of the environment as well as of the future of its
development.
Although much of the monitoring was still based on actual measurement of the quality of water, air and
soil, the assessment talked about cross-cutting issues like dispersion of toxins throughout the environment,
about the role of acid precipitation of water, about accumulation of risk for humans as well as ecosystems.
22
-------
The study provided three scenarios for action, one for business as usual, one for increased action and one
for strong action. The government would opt for the latter.
RIVM presented its results in the form of major "themes", issues to be addressed with dedicated policies, instead of
using the single-media instruments available to the legislature. The themes are:
-Change of Climate -Acidification
-Eutrophication -Diffusion of toxins
-Disposal of waste -Disturbance
-Dehydration -Squandering.
"Concern of Tomorrow" also indicated that environmental problems are occurring on different scales of
magnitude, ranging from global to local problems. Every problem has its own dimensions and the solution
should be in balance with the scale of the problem. Unfortunately the scale of all problems tends to grow
and globalize, which makes it increasingly hard for small countries like the Netherlands to handle
environmental deterioration by domestic action only.
The Policy Response
On the basis of the scientific prospective assessment of the current situation and the forecasted future of the
environment the policy makers went to work. In 1989 they produced the first NEPP, a landmark document
because of its comprehensiveness, its integration of environmental policy with economic decision making
and its 25 year horizon for goals. I will focus on the latter.
NEPP-1 took the assessment of RIB and translated the grim forecast in quantitative goals for the year
2010. That year was chosen to reflect the 25-year time frame that the Brundtland Commission used for its
definition of one generation. The baseline for that 25-year period was 1985, the first year for which the
Netherlands had the figures right for all the themes. As I said before the government has chosen the
strongest scenario, although there was some political negotiating between the different cabinet secretaries
on some of the goals. The plan put the strong long-term goals forward and there was surprisingly little
debate on these overall goals in the subsequent political and societal debate.
For the short term, the first four years, intermediate goals were derived from the long-term goals and
policies were developed to meet these goals. The relation between these intermediate steps and the long-
term goals is flexible. The achievement of the long-term goals prevails, but the government does want to
see progress along the way. The flexibility is more or less left to the negotiations between the government
and the economic partners (or target groups' as they are called), when they discuss the contribution of
these partners to the solution of the environmental problems and particularly the time scale of actions. That
much of this implementation drives on voluntary action and self regulatory principles is crucial to the
Dutch approach, but irrelevant for today's focus on quantification.
The Implementation Challenge
The NEPP contains the goals for the short and long term. The fine details are in the numerous
implementation actions. The NEPP counts 220 of them, but in reality the number is much higher. All these
actions will have a perceived success over time. How did we measure that success?
Since the mid-eighties we started collecting and data basing information for this particular goal. A lot of the
data was already out there, but not necessarily in a format that is suitable for the measurement of the
23
-------
success of our policies. In a joint effort between the Department for the Environment, RlWh and the Dutch
Central Bureau of Statistics we collected the data to match our needs on the policy front. For the first time
data became relevant against the backdrop of quantified integrated national environmental goals. The data
were attributed to the themes (and later to the economic activities of the target groups) that stood central in
the NEPP-process.
We then had to think of a way to represent the data in a meaningful way. They would need to provide
information, particularly on the progress of implementation. The answer had to be found in a combination
of scientific justification, political simplicity and transparent calculation. The 1991 outcome was indeed
simple and charmed the Secretary of the Environment so much that he immediately ordered them to be
published in his upcoming 1992 report on the implementation of the plan. That was the breakthrough of
indicators in the Netherlands. Since then they have been sent to Parliament on an annual basis. They were
also used in the international arena and today they are internationally recognized as a leading example of
environmental indicators in the world. We are working with OECD and UN's Commission on sustainable
Development, among others to further the implementation of Chapter 40 of Agenda 21, which deals with
the issue of information and explicitly calls for the development of meaningful indicators of sustainability
The book in which the methodology of these indicators is explained, titled Environmental policy
performance indicators', was the #1 on our Embassy's bestseller list for 1993.
What Does the Indicator Look Like?
The theme indicator is simple It is a graph with time on the horizontal axis, the indicated measurement on
the vertical axis and one or more dots to indicate the goals for 2010 and intermediate target years. The only
thing that changes over the years is the line, hopefully it bends down to the 2010 goal.
In some of the graphs we introduced so-called "sustainability levels" This level supposedly points to the
level where the impact as measured on the vertical axis no longer adversely affects the environment. These
levels are not yet scientifically based; RTVM has argued it will need more time for study to come up with
justifiable levels. The few sustainability levels we have already shown in our publications, are based on
foreign studies, which were not screened for domestic applicability.
The target group indicators basically look the same, but here we include a line for the development of the
output of that particular target group, for example generated electrical power, or production value. We
have not yet decided on a single indicator for the environmental stress caused by an economic sector
Rather we show the lines for the themes to which this particular sector is a major contributor Because we
now include lines that depict different, non-comparable developments, we measure them as an index of their
baseline-level (1980).
Indicators: A Closer Look
First and most importantly, I have to remind you that this type of indicator only works because of the
quantified targets in the NEPP. If the goals would only read like "better air for our children" or "less waste
in our dumps", this type of indicator would not be particularly well suited. It is also important to
understand that the indicators are principally used for the assessment of the progress of our policies on a
limited set of issues and economic activities. Because they are depicted as a time-line they have some
aspects of early-warning, but they should not be seen as forecasting tools, because they were not developed
for that goal.
24
-------
Secondly, the indicators are made for and used for political purposes. It is extremely important to
remember this, because it allows a certain way of handling the scientific justification issue. If you want to
wait for a pure scientist to provide you with the scientific data, you'll find yourself waiting for a long time,
because the data will be provided with so many ifs and buts, that you will feel uncomfortable to use them.
The data we used in the Netherlands are well rooted in science, but since they are used for measuring
progress in the political arena, there is flexibility in choice.
Let me illustrate this with an example: For the indicator for Climate Change we use a weighted summation
of the Dutch annual discharge of C02, CH4, N2O and CFC's and Halons, expressed in C02 equivalents
and weighted on their absorption capacity. That definition of the indicator is a political choice, every single
element of that definition is a political choice. Still both politicians and scientists will argue that there is
some reality in the choice as well as some flaws. It is simplicity and transparency which account for the
choice. At the same time it must be clear that a once-made-choice has to be maintained over a period of
years to make comparisons over a longer period possible. The big lesson here is that quantification allows
accountability and that is of major importance when working with goals and indicators. Now: politicians
may not like that, but constituents do: they have the right to know how the money they spend really affects
their environment. Indicators tend to work as a school report. We were probably lucky to have a Secretary
of Environment that was courageous enough to allow the use of the indicators for parliamentary evaluation.
In the US-situation on the other hand the legislature could ask for these figures and create the statutory
mandate for the regular publication of indicators. Of course that would also require them to create the
mandate for goals!
A third remark on the closer look at the Dutch experience is about how we got started. This is best
described as a process of "learning by doing". In the development of indicators the emphasis is upon
methodological aspects of the indicators, for example the choice of substances and the weighing factors.
But equally important is the commitment of the relevant partners in the political, scientific and societal
arenas. As expressed earlier there must be this shared feeling of reality that the indicator is a fair
instrument of accounting for results.
Once the choice is made for a certain type of indicator, the annual update is a management problem of
itself. The involved parties must be structurally equipped to produce the annual figures in a consequent
way. The overall responsibility in the Netherlands for this task lies within the Department for the
Environment, while the data are supplied by the Bureau of Statistics and the National Institute for Public
Health and Environment Protection. These three organizations have a written agreement dealing with their
respective roles, rights and duties. This agreement ensures the timely update of the current approved set of
indicators.
In the meantime a small project group continues to work on the further developments of the indicator work
as well as on any disputes or problems that could occur in the annual update process. If an indicator
applies to an issue which is also under the responsibility of another department, that department also has to
agree. Although this will require some debate, we have not encountered too much problems, only delays.
A final remark concerns the one-sidedness of our approach. These indicators basically look at the pollution
side of the environment. They do not take the natural resource situation into account. For the Netherlands
that is not surprising, since most of the natural resources are shipped in from abroad and the indicator work
25
-------
was developed from the pollution abatement perspective. In the near future we will take a closer look at the
depletion of natural resources by our economic activities. Our own application of national resource
accounting will be developed. For the USA, looking at both sides of the equation would make sense from
the very beginning, because first of all the American perception of the environment is much more linked to
the availability and use of natural resources like forests, freshwater and natural parks. Secondly, the USA
uses much more domestic resources than we do. Thirdly, among other things my address ought to tell you
what we did wrong, so you can profit from our experiences.
Lessons for the USA
Let us focus on that some more. What can the USA learn from the Dutch experience? Let me answer that
question in the form of criteria for the USA goals and indicators program:
1. Accountability pays! Quantification of policy goals makes policymaking clearer, more transparent and
allows for the attribution of problem-and-solution shares to economic (read: polluting) actors.
2. Find the right balance between scientific justification on the one hand and political simplicity and
transparent calculation on the other hand. Science will never provide unconditional answers to the
political questions about results, but policy indicators require a simplified and reproducible answer.
3. Seek for consensus among the policy makers and the affected. This will benefit the acceptance of the
chosen indicator and its outcome.
4. In making the choice for a type of indicator, bear in mind what you are using it for. The Dutch
indicators are indicating progress in the implementation of policies and can therefore function as an
early warning system. They are not predicting the future.
What Is Ahead?
Although we are currently among the front-runners in the world of policy indicators, we can not afford to
sit still. We are moving forward in our own development. Our ultimate goal with the development of
indicators is to account for the flow of materials through our production and consumption systems. This
presumes life cycle management of sinks and sources, targets for all resources and methods of monitoring
our situation. Sustainability will ultimately mean that we draw from earth's resources in a replenishable
way. We have a long way to go before we will be able to develop an indicator to indicate how we are doing
from that perspective.
26
-------
future
-------
28
-------
future C[)irections for
arid the Qtates
bob Currie, Director, Strategic Planning and Management Division, Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency
I have several personal observations to discuss. I appreciate the work that everyone has
contributed to and I commend everyone for their effort. I hope the states will become active
partners with EPA in developing a profile for the country on the state of the environment and where
it is going in the next year. This conference is a beginning to the environmental indicators process.
My second observation is that this challenge will not be easy and there is a definite lack of
information on the quality of the environment. Even though there is always a need for additional
funding, I believe that with existing money we could focus people's attention on priorities and
trends in an environmental context and we can buy a whole lot more environmental protection. I
have never met a parade started by the public that a congressperson would not get in front of. If
we get information out there, we can sharpen the focus on getting environmental results.
One of the things that I hope come out of this meeting is that the status quo is going to change. We
have some very creative indicators that have been put on the table. Some of them will be difficult
to deal with while others will be easy. I think we now have a mechanism to deal with it and I am
very excited about the challenge that faces us all. We hope to take the information coming out of
this meeting and push forward to continue to develop consensus on a core set of indicators for this
country. These indicators will provide a venue to work with my federal colleagues in other
agencies regarding how we can better work together. And I hope this also takes place with the
states. Not only do the feds need to work better together, but so do the states.
Where do you think collectively we ought to be in 5 to 10 years? The following are responses from
the participants:
• Fewer boxes - stick with water quality, land and biota. There is major overlap and it needs
more integration
• Need to talk about a national strategic plan and move away from discussion on indicators
• analysis of indicator trends
• what does it mean and where should we set priorities?
• need to use information to set the priorities
• need to have a panel address the issues that we have not dealt with
• Move toward consensus
• Need to have economics tied in so we can assess the actual cost of environmental damage
• Need to develop social core indicators and economic indicators
• Need public feedback
29
-------
• EPA could be a vehicle to produce a National Green Plan and decide what indicators could be
used for such a plan
• Need North American indicators
• Need to incorporate public involvement. Establish a structure to accommodate this
• Priority for nonpoint sources and nonpoint solutions. Need to make connection between
people's behavior and environmental damage
• Political acceptability - how do politicians and policy experts view indicators and how would
they use them
• Also focus on regional indicators and problems. Need to communicate all problems: local,
state, regional, and national
• Jobs are an important issue for indicators on the local level to be successful. Need to broaden
indicator issues, include more than just environmental issues.
• Need to include tribal governments more in future conferences
• Need to go beyond setting goals - "Healthy People 2000" is a good model
• Role for federal government:
• act as information clearing house
• establish information network
• hold conferences
• establish internet mailbox called "indicators"
There, is a steering committee working on setting up a computer network so states can
communicate with each other and retrieve information. E-mail capabilities would be tied into this
system. I will make the commitment to get the indicator list into the system and begin to find the
data that will make them real. Other things are going to be included in this mailbox: what the
goals are, what is going on with the round table, what indicators have been used, and what are the
states doing. There is a definite need for electronic communication. Everyone needs to talk to
people about the environmental indicators and to get the debates going on which ones need to be
used and what they are telling us. When you go back to your respective states, make a
commitment to talk to at least 2 people about the environmental indicators program. EPA will try
to find data for the proposed indicators. This will be placed into the internet system. The goal for
next year is for each state to develop an environmental "report card". For the next national
conference, make a commitment to present your report and we will continue to improve and use
environmental indicators for decision making.
30
-------
indicator ^evefopment
gessions
,5®?,
-------
32
-------
Candidate (Indicator ^ist
The candidate indicator list was developed by the conference participants during the indicator
development sessions. Participants were assigned to one of eight workgroups based, to the highest
degree possible, upon their choice. Each group was to identify a list of candidate core
environmental indicators. Based upon a list of possible indicators for their issue, the indicator lists
from the regional conferences, and the participants knowledge, the group developed a list of the
best 8-10 environmental indicators that are suitable from a state, regional, and national perspective
with regard to their issue. The candidate core environmental indicator lists for each of the eight
groups were then presented to the conference participants for voting.
WATER QUALITY:
OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS OF WATER QUALITY
1. Bodies of water supporting beneficial uses (rivers, streams, lakes, aquifers, wetlands, non-
coastal waters). This composite environmental indicator would include the following
detailed information:
• Biological information which should be tied to ecoregions;
• Chemical information compared to standards
• Stream habitat and riparian conditions
• Fish consumption and health advisories
The above four include spatial and temporal designs supporting status and trends.
2. Community metrics (aquatic measures, structure and function of biological communities,
including feeding times and opportunistic species).
3. The States 305 (b) Report to Congress for Designated Use Attainment can be used, but
must be upgraded with standard methods and practices, quality assurances, and
consistency across all the states.
SURFACE WATER
4. Non-point surface indicators index (e.g., roads, population, soil and land use/land cover).
5. Water quality index.
6. Number of stream miles declared unsafe for fishing.
7. Shellfish closures measured in acres/days that are contamination related.
8. Contaminants in species as indicators of surface water quality (bioaccumulation,
biomagnification).
9. Number of exceedances of surface water quality standards, criteria levels of biological,
chemical, parameters, and standards.
GROUND WATER
10. Volume of ground water reserves not meeting drinking water criteria.
11. Concentrations of pesticides, nitrates, toxins, pathogens, etc. found in the ground water.
DRINKING WATER
12. Concentration of chemicals and pesticides/absolute water quality including pathogens.
13. Population served by systems with maximum contaminant level violations.
14. £ Days systems in compliance X population
Total days operating X population
33
-------
15.
Disease outbreaks from water supplies (total number of incidences).
WATER QUANTITY:
16. Number of restricted water days (public water supplies).
17. Total precipitation.
18. Number of aquifers in which the withdrawal exceeds the recharge.
19. Total ground water and surface water withdrawals by use, including loss.
20. Per capita ground water and surface water withdrawals by use, including loss.
21. Number of times surface water bodies exceed safe yield.
22. Number of exceedances of critical flow (safe yield to be established).
INDOOR AIR:
23. Cases of sickness caused by indoor air quality, e.g., asthma, carbon monoxide exposure
(medical experts needed to finalize sub-indicators).
24. Percent of smoke-free environments versus total environments.
25 Percent of individuals that work in buildings that meet or exceed current ASHRAE
standards.
26. Percent of individuals that live in residences that meet current ASHRAE standards.
27. Usage of ofF-gassing products and materials per capita.
28. Standards and enforcement.
29. Dust mite index (type and amount of measurable organisms in the air that cause
respiratory problems).
30. Percent of buildings that exceeds acceptable radon standards.
31. . Worker right to know (chemicals and toxins that people work with).
32. Health care cost and productivity loss or time (tied to "cases of sickness" caused by
indoor air quality, e.g., asthma, carbon monoxide exposure).
33. Building stock characteristics (construction materials used, use of building, building
characteristics).
34. Emission density zoning (environmental equity, e.g. locating industry near low-income
housing).
OUTDOOR AIR:
35. Respiratory cases per year per 100,000 related to poor air quality.
36. Number of ambient air quality exceedances, criteria pollutants.
37. Total emissions with trends: on-road vehicles, off road vehicles, area sources, point
sources.
38. Population of non-attainment areas.
39. Toxic Release Inventory by Standard Industrial Classification Code with trends.
40. Average ozone levels (median during ozone season).
41. Visibility (Class I areas, sulfate particle concentrations).
AOLD WA&Tk
42. Amounts/percent of solid waste disposed of by methods of disposal/management, e.g.,
landfill, incineration, recycling, composting, waste to energy.
43. Amount of municipal solid waste generated per capita.
44. Composition of municipal solid waste stream by percent (effects of recycling, change
over time).
34
-------
45. Projected amount/years to capacity for landfills by waste type.
46. Number of landfills contaminating ground water and surface water.
47. Tons of air emission from solid waste management facilities by disposal method.
48. Amount of recyclables collected compared to the amount of recycled materials used in
the production of new products.
49. Industrial waste generated by Standard Industrial Classification Code.
UAZAQDOU& WASTE:
50. Hazardous waste generation (parameters: facility focus as opposed to household
generation, facility profile, identify largest generators, geographic location, type of
economic good being produced, worker exposure and prevention, toxic use reduction,
media shifts).
51. Contaminated sites (parameters: site characteristics, volume of waste remaining
uncontrolled, site profile, exposure pathways, future land use of site, health risks of site).
52. Hazardous waste management (parameters: facility profile, waste types and volumes,
management process, permit and enforcement history).
LAND:
53. Percent of changed land uses.
54. Percent in census tracts greater than X density.
55. Ecoregion assessment, e.g., instream, biological, and riparian area habitat assessment.
56. Percentage of developed land occurring in previously developed land versus previously
undeveloped land.
57. Annual soil loss.
58. Area and perimeter ratio (i.e., land fragmentation).
59. Amount of underdeveloped (i.e., national, state) land as percentage of total land.
60. Changes in impervious surface area.
61. Acres of wetlands/critical habitat purchased or managed for conservation.
62. Acres of land successfully returned to its natural state.
BIOTA:
63. Land use/management changes over time, including wetlands and other aquatic
systems.
64. Variability/diversity in populations, communities, ecosystems, genetic variability with
populations.
65. Population trends of selected species, including keystone species, listed, threatened, and
endangered species.
66. Intact ecosystems functions, e.g., natural, fire, and flood regimes; nutrient cycling.
67. Proportion of non-native biota.
68. Biota tissue concentration for key contaminants.
69. Amount and condition of terrestrials and aquatic habitat types.
35
-------
36
-------
Noting Q^esufts
4S&
-------
38
-------
footing Results
The candidate indicators developed by each of the eight indicator development workgroups were
consolidated into a single list of 69 candidate indicators and presented to the plenary for final
voting on February 4, 1994. Each conference participant was asked to evaluate each candidate
indicator with regard to its potential for inclusion in a national system of core environmental
indicators. The following 5-point scale was used as the basis for the voting:
1 = Strongly 2 = Support 3 = Neutral 4 = Do Not 5 = Strongly
Support Support Do Not
Respondents were also asked to identify the type of organization they represented and the type of
position they held in that organization. The following classifications were requested:
Figure 1 summarizes the voting of the plenary for all indicators by presenting the frequency
distribution, mean and standard deviation for each indicator. The indicators are ranked according
to their means within each of the eight issue groups. The lower the mean value, the more support
an indicator received in the voting.
Figure 2 summarizes the means and relative rankings for all indicators within each of the eight
issue groups for all respondents, for state respondents, federal respondents, and for agency
leadership, program management and technical staff respondents.
In addition, Pearson's r correlation coefficients were computed using the means for all respondents
and each of the 5 organizational and positional respondents listed in the previous paragraph both
for all respondents and all indicators and for each of the 5 organizational and positional
respondents for each of the 8 issue groups. The correlations were, as expected, very high and
precluded any sensitive statistical analysis.
Examination of these two figures and the correlations allows the following observations:
• There is general support for the indicators. Of the 69 indicators, 12 were strongly supported
with a mean score of less than 2.0, an indication of considerable strength (see Box 1). Only 5
of the 69 indicators did not receive much support, receiving scores of 3.00 or better. This
indicates that there were more negative votes than positive (see Box 2). The remaining 52
indicators received general support.
Support
Organization
State Participant - funded
State Participant -non funded
All federal agencies
Tribes
Local Government
Non Profit
Private
Position
Policy Leadership (Agency Head or Deputy)
Policy Staff (Staff of Agency Head)
Program Managers (Run Major
Environmental Program)
Technical Staff
Others
39
-------
• As a group, the individual indicators in the Indoor Air group received weaker support than in
the other groups. Indicators for Water Quality, Outdoor Air, Solid Waste and Biota were the
most supported.
• Analysis of the correlations showed tendencies for strong overall agreement with the rankings
among all respondents across all issue groups. There was some tendency for state respondents
to more closely support the final ranking than federal respondents and there was some tendency
for agency leadership and their staff to agree with the rankings than did the program managers
and the technical staff.
Box 1
Indicators with Scores of 2.0 or Less
1. Bodies of water supporting beneficial uses.
2. Contaminants in species as indicators of surface water quality
3. Concentrations of pesticides, nitrates, toxins, pathogens found in the ground water
4. Number of aquifers in which the withdrawal exceeds the recharge.
5. Percent of buildings that exceed acceptable radon standards.
6. Number of ambient air quality exceedances, criteria pollutants.
7. Amounts and percents of solid waste disposed of by methods of disposal/management.
8. Amount of solid waste generated per capita.
9. Composition of municipal solid waste stream by percent.
10. Annual soil loss.
11. Population trends of selected species including keystone species, listed, threatened, and
endangered species.
12. Biota tissue concentrations for key contaminants.
Box 2
Indicators with Scores of 3.0 or Higher
1. Total precipitation.
2. Building stock characteristics.
3. "Critter Index"
4. Workers right-to-know.
5. Standards and enforcement.
40
-------
FIGURE 1
Preliminary Voting Results: Ranked By Mean Within Groups
National Environmental Goals and Indicators Conference
Rank
Indicator Title
Frequency
Mean
St Dev.
Strongly Support
(1)
Support (2)
Neutral (3)
Do Not Support (4)
Strongly Not
Support (5)
Water Quality
1
Bodies of Water Supporting Beneficial Uses
62
39
11
5
4
176
101
2
Contaminants in Species as Indicators of Surface Water Quality (Bioaccumulation, Biomagmfication)
SO
42
22
6
2
1 92
097
3
Concentrations of Pesticides, Nitrates, Toxins, Pathogens Found in the Ground Water
44
SI
19
7
1
1.93
0.91
4
Number of Excecdances of Surface Water Quality Standards, Criteria Levels of Biological and Chemical Standards
38
51
22
8
2
2 05
096
5
Population Served by Systems with Maximum Contaminant Level Violations
35
53
26
4
4
209
096
6
Concentration of Chemicals and Pesticides/Absolute Water Quality Including Pathogens
39
46
23
8
4
2 10
1 04
7
Number of Stream Miles Declared Unsafe for Fishing
34
53
22
12
1
2 12
0.96
8
Designated Use Attainment
30
58
23
5
4
2 13
0 95
9
Water Quality Index
38
43
28
11
2
215
102
10
Community Metrics (Aquatic Measures, Structure and Function, of Biological Communities)
36
43
23
12
6
224
1 14
11
Disease Outbreaks From Water Supplies (Total Incidences)
38
44
18
13
9
2.27
122
12
Shellfish Closures Measured in Acres/Days That Are Contamination Related
32
41
33
12
3
2 28
104
13
Volume of Ground Water Reserves Not Meeting Drinking Water Criteria
28
43
35
10
3
2.30
100
14
Non-Point Surface Water Index (Roads, Population. Soil and Land Use/Land Cover)
31
43
26
12
6
2.31
1 12
IS
Compliance Rate of Drinking Water Facilities as a Function of Population Affected
28
37
28
14
13
2.56
1 27
Water Quantity
1
Number of Aquifers in Which the Withdrawal Exceeds the Recharge
68
37
11
5
1
1.64
0 87
2
Per Capita Ground Water and Surface Water Withdrawals by Use, Including Loss
32
56
24
6
3
2.11
094
3
Number of Restricted Water Days (Public Water Supplies)
31
54
21
9
6
221
107
4
Total Ground Water and Surfae Water Withdrawals by Use, Including Loss
28
54
24
10
4
2.23
101
5
Number of Exceedances of Critical Low Flow ( Safe Yield Yet to be Established)
27
44
27
17
5
241
1 11
6
Number of Times Water Bodies Exceed Safe Yield
24
41
33
17
6
250
1 11
7
Total Precipitation
11
28
38
28
15
3 07
1.16
Indoor Air
1
Percent of Buildings That Exceed Acceptable Radon Standards
43
52
13
6
3
192
096
2
Cases of Sickness Caused by Indoor Air Quality (Asthma, Carbon Monoxide Exposure, etc )
34
42
19
17
5
2 29
1.16
3
Percent of Individuals That Work in Buildings That Meet or Exceed Current ASHRAE Standards
21
48
35
10
4
2.39
099
4
Percent of Smoke Free Environments
26
37
29
16
11
2 57
123
5
Health Care Cost and Productivity Loss of Time (Tied to "Cases of Sickness Caused by Indoor Air Quality)
21
43
24
18
12
2.64
1 23
6
Percent of Individuals That Live in Residences That Meet Current ASHRAE Standards
12
43
41
14
6
2 65
100
7
Usage of Off-Gassing Products and Materials Per Capita
9
44
36
18
9
2.78
1 06
8
Emission Density Zoning
21
26
38
20
12
2 79
122
9
Building Slock Characteristics
10
24
41
33
8
3.04
1 06
10
"Critter Index" (Dust Mite Index, Type and Amount of Organisms in the Air Causing Respiratory Problems)
9
32
33
25
17
3 08
1 18
11
Workers Right to Know
14
21
34
24
22
3 17
1 28
12
Standards and Enforcement
10
19
35
34
18
3.27
1 17
The quality of ihe data docs not support the precision of the means as displayed Means should be used for relative rankings only.
-------
FIGURE 1
Outdoor Air
1
Number of Ambient Air Quality Exceedances, Criteria Pollutants
48
61
11
2
0
1 73
069
2
Respiratory Cases Per Year Per 100,000 Related to Poor Air Quality
49
42
15
10
7
206
1.17
3
Total Emissions with Trends On-Road Vehicles, Off-Road Vehicles, Area Sources, Point Sources
38
43
34
5
1
2 07
091
4
Population of Non-Attainment Area
38
48
25
6
3
2 07
0 98
5
Average Ozone Levels (Median During Ozone Season)
31
57
24
6
3
2 12
0 93
6
Toxic Release Inventory by Standard Industrial Classification Code with Trends
31
57
19
9
5
2 17
1 03
7
Visibility (Class 1 Areas, Sulfate Particle Concentrations)
25
54
29
4
7
2 28
1 02
Solid Waste
I
Amounts and Percent of Solid Waste Disposed of by Methods of Disposal/Management
63
45
9
2
1
1 61
077
2
Amount of Solid Waste Generated Per Capita
52
51
12
7
1
1 81
0 89
3
Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Stream by Percent
42
58
15
8
0
1 91
0 85
4
Project Amount/Years to Capacity for Landfills by Waste Type
34
45
29
11
1
2 17
0 97
5
Number of Landfills Contaminating Ground Water and Surface Water
32
48
25
9
4
2 19
1 03
6
Tons of Air Emissions from Solid Waste Management Facilities by Disposal Method
26
49
27
13
4
2 33
1 04
7
Amount of Recyclables Collected Compared lo the Amount of Recycled Materials Used in New Products
26
44
26
20
6
248
1 14
8
Industrial Waste Generated by Standard Industrial Classification Code
21
44
27
22
5
2 55
1 11
Hazardous Waste
1
Hazardous Waste Generation (See Indicator List for Detail)
38
43
25
3
8
2 15
1 12
2
Contaminated Sites (See Indicator List for Detail)
31
37
31
8
8
2 35
1 16
3
Hazardous Waste Management (See Indicator List for Detail)
21
28
39
13
13
273
122
Land
1
Annual Soil Loss
49
57
12
2
3
1 80
0 87
2
Ecoregion Assessment (Instrcam, Biological, and Riparian Habitat Assessment)
35
48
27
10
3
2 17
1.01
3
Acres of Wetlands/Critical Habitat Purchased or Managed for Conservation
36
51
16
13
5
2 17
1.10
4
Percentage of Developed Land Occurring in Previously Developed Land Versus Previously Undeveloped Land
30
49
25
10
S
2,25
1.06
5
Amount of Underdeveloped Land (State and National) as a Percentage of Total Land
32
47
18
13
8
231
1.18
6
Percent of Changed Land Uses
25
48
29
14
4
2 37
104
7
Change in Impervious Surface
20
50
32
11
6
244
104
8
Area and Perimeter Ratio (Land Fragmentation)
23
43
36
11
6
2 45
106
9
Percent in Census Tracks Greater than X Density
10
35
43
21
10
2 88
107
10
Acres of Land Successfully Returned to Its Natural Slate
24
41
26
21
8
2 57
1 19
Biota
1
Population Trends of Selected Species, Including Keystone Species, Listed, Threatened, and Endangered Species
56
53
5
3
3
1 70
0 87
2
Biota Tissue Concentration for Key Contaminants
40
52
20
7
1
1 97
090
3
Land Use/Management Changes Over Time, Including Wetlands and Other Aquatic Systems
38
53
20
6
2
200
092
4
Vanability/Divenity in Populations, Communities, Ecosystems, Genetic Variability within Populations
40
42
22
9
4
2 10
1.07
5
Amount and Condition of Terrestrials and Aquatic Habitat Types
35
50
19
10
3
2 11
1 02
6
Proportion of Non-Native Biota
21
55
31
7
6
2 35
1.00
7
Intact Ecosystem Functions (Natural, Fire, and Flood Regimes, Nutrient Cycling)
29
40
28
11
9
241
1 18
The quality of the data docs not support the precision of the means as displayed Means shouJd be used for relative rankings only
-------
FIGURE 2
Voting Results: Means Ranked Within Groups
National Environmental Goals and Indicators Conference
Item
Indicator Title
Means ( Ranks Within Groups in Parentheses
All
State
Federal
Agency
Program
Technical
Respondents
Respondents
Respondents
Leadership
Leadership
Staff
Water Quality
i
Bodies of Water Supporting Beneficial Uses
1 76
1 75 (1)
163 (1)
1.83 (1)
1.58 (1)
1.61 (1)
2
Contaminants in Species as Indicators of Surface Water Quality (Bioaccumulation, Biomagnification)
1 92
2 01 (2)
177(3)
1.93 (3 5)
1.95 (6)
1 89 (2)
3
Concentrations of Pesticides, Nitrates, Toxins, Pathogens Found in the Ground Water
1 93
2 03 (3)
175 (2)
1 93 (3.5)
184 (3)
2.14 (5)
4
Number of Exceedances of Surface Water Quality Standards, Criteria Levels of Biological and Chemical Standards
2 05
2 06 (4)
2.15 (12)
2 07 (6 5)
1.79 (2)
2 22 (10
5
Population Served by Systems with Maximum Contaminant Level Violations
209
2 13 (8)
2.02 (6 5)
191 (2)
2.11 (8 5)
218 (6 5)
6
Concentration of Chemicals and Pesticides/Absolute Water Quality Including Pathogens
2 10
2 10 (5)
2.10 (9 5)
2 14 (8)
205 (7)
2.19 (8)
7
Number of Stream Miles Declared Unsafe for Fishing
2 12
2 12 (6 5)
2 07 (8)
2 07 (6 5)
1.89 (4 5)
118 (6 5)
8
Designated Use Attainment
2 13
2 15(9)
2 10 (9 5)
2 16 (9)
2 26 (12 5)
1.96 (4)
9
Water Quality Index
2 IS
2 12 (6 5)
2 25 (13)
2 05 (5)
2 42 (14)
2 36 (12)
10
Community Metrics (Aquatic Measures, Structure and Function, of Biological Communities)
224
2 29 (11)
1 97 (4)
2 36 (13)
2 11 (8 5)
1 93 (3)
11
Disease Outbreaks From Water Supplies (Total Incidences)
2 27
241 (12)
2 00 (5)
2 28 (12)
2 21 (10 5)
2 39 (13)
12
Shellfish Closures Measured in Acres/Days That Are Contamination Related
2 28
244 (13)
2 02 (6 5)
2 26 (11)
2 21 (10 5)
2 46 (14)
13
Volume of Ground Water Reserves Not Meeting Drinking Water Criteria
230
2 28 (10)
2 27 (14)
218 (10)
2 63 (15)
232 (11)
14
Non-Point Surface Water Index (Roads, Population, Soil and Land Use/Land Cover)
2 31
2 46 (14)
2 13 (11)
2 41 (14)
2 26 (12 5)
2 21 (9)
Water Quantity
16
Number of Aquifers in Which the Withdrawal Exceeds the Recharge
1 64
161 (1)
167 (1)
1 55 (1)
1 58 (1)
1 93 (1)
17
Per Capita Ground Water and Surface Water Withdrawals by Use, Including Loss
2 11
2 10 (2)
2 05 (2)
2 12 (3)
2 00 (2)
211 (2)
16
Number of Restricted Water Days (Public Water Supplies)
2 21
2 28 (4)
2 22 (3)
2 11 (2)
2 16 (3.5)
243 (5 5)
19
Total Ground Water and Surface Water Withdrawals by Use, Including Loss
223
2 18 (3)
2 38 (5 5)
2 34 (4)
2 16 (3 5)
2 25 (3)
20
Number of Exceedances of Critical Low Flow ( Safe Yield Yet to be Established)
2 41
2 42 (5)
2 32 (4)
2 39 (5)
2 21 (5)
243 (5 5)
21
Number of Times Water Bodies Exceed Safe Yield
2 SO
2 53 (6)
2 38 (5.5)
2 53 (6)
2 47 (6)
2.36(4)
22
Total Precipitation
307
3 06 (7)
3 3 (7)
3.13 (7)
2 84 (7)
3.21 (7)
Indoor Air
23
Percent of Buildings That Exceed Acceptable Radon Standards
1 92
205 (1)
1 65 (1)
2 05 (1)
2.11 (2)
1 59 (1)
24
Cases of Sickness Caused by Indoor Air Quality (Asthma, Carbon Monoxide Exposure, etc )
2.29
2 44 (2)
2 05 (2)
2 57 (3)
2 22 (3)
1.93 (2)
25
Percent of Individuals That Work in Buildings That Meet or Exceed Current ASHRAE Standards
2 39
2 50 (3)
2 25 (3 5)
2 42 (2)
206 (1)
2 32 (4)
26
Percent of Smoke Free Environments
2 57
2 65 (4)
2 45 (6)
2.65 (4)
2 72 (5 5)
2 25 (3)
27
Health Care Cost and Productivity Loss of Time (Tied to "Cases of Sickness Caused by Indoor Air Quality)
264
2 89 (7)
2.25 (3 5)
2 69 (5)
2 83 (8)
2 52 (7)
28
Percent of Individuals That Live in Residences That Meet Current ASHRAE Standards
2 65
2 75 (5)
2 55 (7)
2 83 (6)
2 44 (4)
243 (5)
29
Usage of Off-Gassing Products and Materials Per Capita
2.78
2 81 (6)
2 85 (10)
2 87 (7)
2 78 (7)
2 85 (9)
30
Emission Density Zoning
279
3 08 (8)
2 35 (5)
2 98 (8)
2 72 (5 5)
244 (6)
31
Building Stock Characteristics
304
3.28 (9)
2 70 (9)
3 15 (9)
3 00 (10)
2 93 (10)
32
'Critter Index" (Dust Mite Index, Type and Amount of Organisms in the Air Causing Respiratory Problems
308
3 33 (10)
2 63 (8)
3 39 (12)
2 94 (9)
270 (8)
33
Workers Right to Know
3 17
3 35 (1 1)
3 07 (12)
3 26 (10)
3 33 (12)
3.15 (11)
34
Standards and Enforcement
3 27
3 45 (12)
3 00 (11)
3.31 (11)
3 17 (11)
3 15 (12)
-------
FIGURE 2
Outdoor Air
33
Number of Ambient Air Quality Exceedances, Criteria Pollutants
1 73
178 (1)
166 (1)
172 (1)
1 95 (2 5)
171 (1)
36
Respiratory Cases Per Year Per 100.000 Related to Poor Air Quality
206
2 26 (6)
1.78 (2)
2 1 0 (3)
1 95 (2 5)
2 17 (6)
37
Total Emissions with Trends On-Road Vehicles, Off-Road Vehicles, Area Sources, Point Sources
2 07
2 09 (2)
2 00 (4)
2 17 (6)
1 89 (1)
2 11 (4)
38
Population of Non-Attainment Area
2 07
2.13 (3)
1 95 (3)
1 98 (2)
2 17 (4)
2 07 (3)
39
Average Ozone Levels (Median During Ozone Season)
2 12
2 15 (4)
2 02 (5)
2 16 (5)
2 26 (6)
1 86 (2)
40
Toxic Release Inventory by Standard Industrial Classification Code with Trends
2.17
2 16 (5)
2 22 (6)
2 11 (4)
2 21 (5)
2 21 (7)
41
Visibility (Class I Areas, Sulfate Particle Concentrations)
2 28
2 34 (7)
2 24 (7)
2 23 (7)
247 (7)
2 15 (5)
Solid Waste
42
Amounts and Percent of Solid Waste Disposed of by Methods of Disposal/Management
161
157 (1)
167 (1)
160 (1)
1 95 (1)
161 (1)
43
Amount of Solid Waste Generated Per Capita
1 81
1 77 (2)
1 85 (4)
174 (2)
2 16 (3)
1 83 (2)
44
Number of Landfills Contaminating Ground Water and Surface Water
1 91
2.00 (3)
1.73 (2)
1 90 (3)
2 05 (2)
1 97 (3)
4$
Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Stream by Percent
2 17
2 28 (4)
1 83 (3)
2 16 (4)
2 42 (6)
2 00 (4)
46
Amount of Recyclables Collected Compared to the Amount of Recycled Materials Used in New Products
2 19
2 36 (5)
1 93 (5)
2 20 (5)
2 37 (4 5)
2 11 (5)
47
Industrial Waste Generated by Standard Industrial Classification Code
2 33
2 51 (6)
2 05 (6)
2 36 (6)
2 37 (4 5)
2 41 (6)
48
Tons of Air Emissions from Solid Waste Management Facilities by Disposal Method
248
2 65 (7)
2.12 (7)
2 66 (8)
2 53 (7)
2 32 (7)
49
Project Amount/Years to Capacity for Landfills by Waste Type
2 55
2 71 (8)
2.34 (8)
2 59 (7)
2 68 (8)
2 45 (8)
Hazardous Waste
50
Hazardous Waste Generation ( See Indicator List for Detail)
2 15
208 (1)
2 15 (1)
2.18 (1)
2 35 (1)
197 (1)
51
Contaminated Sites (See Indicator List for Detail)
2 35
2 30 (2)
2 32 (2)
2 20 (2)
2.76 (2)
2 43 (2)
52
hazardous Waste Management (See Indicator List for Detail)
273
2 71 (3)
2 60 (3)
2 63 (3)
2 94 (3)
2 64 (3)
Land
53
Annua] Soil Lou
1 80
1 81 (1)
193 (1)
1 84 (1)
1 95 (1)
1 93 (1)
54
Ecoregion Assessment (Instream, Biological, and Ripanan Habitat Assessment)
2 17
2 25 (4)
2.1 0 (2)
2.23 )3)
2 22 (3)
2 21 (3)
55
Acres of Wetlands/Critical Habitat Purchased or Managed for Conservation
2 17
2 24 (3)
2 25 (5)
2.07 (2)
2 17 (2)
2 66 (8)
56
Percentage of Developed Land Occurring in Previously Developed Land Versus Previously Undeveloped Land
225
230 (5)
2 15 (3 5)
2 31 (4)
2.33 (4.5)
2.19 (2)
57
Amount of Underdeveloped Land (State and National) as a Percentage of Total Land
2 31
2 47 (6)
2 15 (3 5)
2 43 (5)
2 33 (4.5)
242 (7)
58
Percent of Changed Land Uses
2 37
2 21 (2)
2 59 (9)
2.48 (6)
2 37 (6)
2 36 (5 5)
59
Change in Impervious Surface
244
2 48 (7)
2 38 (7)
2 49 (7)
2 56 (10)
2 33 (4)
60
Area and Perimeter Ratio (Land Fragmentation)
2 45
2 61 (8)
2 30 (6)
2 63 (8)
2 44 (7)
2.36 (5 5)
61
Acres of Land Successfully Returned to Its Natural State
2 57
2 77 (9)
2 45 (8)
2 67 (9)
2 5 0 (8 5)
2 81 (9)
62
Percent in Census Tracks Greater than X Density
2 88
2 88 (10)
2 92 (10)
3 05 (10)
2.50 (8 5)
3.00 (10)
BioU
63
Population Trends of Selected Species, Including Keystone Species, Listed, Threatened, and Endangered Species
1.70
163 (1)
177 (2)
I 59 (1)
1.79 (2)
179(1)
64
Biota Tissue Concentration for Key Contaminants
1.97
2 12 (4)
171 (1)
2 11 (3)
161 (1)
2 00 (3)
65
Land Use/Management Changes Over Time, Including Wetlands and Other Aquatic Systems
200
2.06 (2)
1 85 (3)
209 (2)
2.11 (4)
1 86 (2)
66
Variability/Diversity in Populations, Communities, Ecosystems, Genetic Variability within Populations
2 10
2 07 (3)
2 08 (5)
2 19 (4)
1 95 (3)
2 04 (4)
67
Amount and Condition of Terrestrials and Aquatic Habitat Types
2 11
2 17 (5)
2 05 (4)
2 21 (5)
2 22 (5)
219 (5)
68
Proportion of Non-Native Biota
2 35
2 44 (6)
2 31 (7)
2 54 (6)
2 37 (6)
2 32 (6 5)
69
Intact Ecosystem Functions (Natural, Fire, and Flood Regimes, Nutnent Cycling)
241
2 64 (7)
2 18 (6)
2.62 (7)
2 58 (7)
2 32 (6.5)
-------
ytopendices
-------
46
-------
Appendix i:
(Conference Agenda
M',
-------
48
-------
Sc/ieduler/4tr/4'^C€utce
All sessions will be held in Grand Ballroom Salon B (2nd floor), unless otherwise noted
r
orts and Wrap-Up
2:00
Conference Adiournment
49
-------
50
-------
Appendix 2:
gpealcer (JJiograpfiies
,w.
-------
52
-------
gpeaker ^iograpRies
Gilbert T. Bergquist, Jr., Ph.D.
Dr. Bergquist currently is a Senior Management Consultant with the Florida Center for Public
Management at Florida State University and is responsible for oversight of a comparative risk
assessment study with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. He is also responsible
for strategic planning activities with a variety of clients. A veteran employee of the State of
Florida, Dr. Bergquist has worked in various positions with the Department of Environmental
Regulation and the Department of Community Affairs.
Dr. Bergquist received both his Masters and Doctorate in Government from Florida State
University and participated in the Joint Seminar of Slavic and East European Studies in
Yugoslavia.
James R. Bernard
Jim R. Bernard is Director of the Natural Resources Policy Division of the Maine State Planning
Office. Mr. Bernard serves as Coordinator for the Land for Maine's Future Board, Maine's $35
million land acquisition bond program, overseeing all aspects of the program, including fund
disbursement and Board policy. As Director of the Maine Land and Water Council, Maine's
cabinet council on the environment, from October 1987 to July 1989, Mr. Bernard coordinated the
development of state policy issues such as wetlands, ground water, hydropower licensing, natural
resources data management, and development of a state geographic information system.
Prior to coming to Maine, Mr. Bernard served as Assistant Director and Chief Planner for the
Michigan Great Lakes and Water Resources Planning Commission and was the Natural Resources
Management Specialist for the Great Lakes Commission. Mr. Bernard also has been an
environmental coordinator for a grassroots community organization, a cultural resources and
natural history interpreter for Mesa Verde National Park, and a consultant on grant writing,
household hazardous waste and wildland management.
Robert S. Currie '
Robert Currie is the Director of the Strategic Planning and Management Division of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C. and has served in that position since 1989.
He is responsible for the planning and management functions at EPA.
His prior experience includes serving as the Chief of the Accountability Systems Branch at EPA
and directing the Geographic Risk Assessment Group. He also served as the Deputy Director of the
Peace Corp in Micronesia and various other positions and locations with the Peace Corp over a 12
year period.
Mr. Currie has a B.S. in Physical Science from California University and has completed graduate
work in Chemistry and Physics. He is also a graduate of the Federal Executive Institute.
53
-------
Larry K. Gross, Ph.D.
Larry K. Gross is Director of the Florida Center for Public Management, Institute of Science and
Public Affairs, Florida State University. In this capacity he is responsible for the full range of
management and leadership activities that include visioning, setting current and future policies, and
developing the resources to implement the vision(s) and policies to improve the leadership and
management of individuals in state and local government.
As a Senior Management Consultant, he has extensive organizational and management experience
with public agencies in Florida. Larry conducts organizational development activities to create a
partnership between clients and consultant to best utilize human resources based upon: systematic
diagnosis, information interpretation, action planning, implementation and evaluation of the
processes by which people work together.
He holds a Ph.D. in Personnel Services, Humanities, Social Science and Education from Purdue
University; an M. A. in Personnel Administration from Bowling Green State University; and a
B.A. in Psychology from MacMurray College.
Stephen D. Hanna, Ph.D.
In 1971, Steve Hanna received a bachelor's degree in zoology from UCLA. This was followed by
a Ph.D. in zoology from UC Davis in 1976. After four years of postdoctoral research in
biochemistry, he began working for the State of California. His experience with the state has
involved work as a computer programmer, systems analyst, genetic disease program specialist, and
hazardous materials specialist.
Steve Hanna's major emphasis for the past 10 years has been environmental data management,
with an emphasis on data integration. He is currently the Assistant for Environmental Information
for Cal/EPA, which involves data integration activities and the coordination of all agency data
processing activities. He is also the state TRI contact and is the chair of the Cal/EPA workgroup
on environmental indicators.
William A. Kucharski
In January 1994, Mr. Kucharski was appointed Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality. In this capacity, he worked closely with Secretary Kai Midboe and, in
addition to advising the secretary on policy matters and technical implications of policy decisions,
Kucharski participated on the Louisiana Oil Spill Interagency Council, the Environmental Health
Assistance Panel, the LSU Institute for Recyclable Materials, and the LUMCON Steering
Committee. As Deputy Secretary, he played an integral part in developing Louisiana's
Environmental Justice Program. He has worked in the environmental area for over 25 years.
Tom Looby
Mr. Looby is the Director of the Office of Environment (OE) at the Colorado Department of
Health where he is responsible for managing air quality, water quality, waste management,
radiation Control and consumer health protection divisions of the state. He has held various
environmental planning and management positions with local government.
54
-------
Mr. Looby also serves as chair of the Strategic Planning Subcommittee of the State/EPA
Operations Committee (SEOC). He is a member of the Western Governors' Association's
Environmental Policy Advisory Council, the National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy
Technology (NACEPT), the advisory boards for the pollution prevention partnership, Colorado
Center for Environmental management and is the vice president of the newly formed Environmental
Council of the States (ECOS).
Shelley Metzenbaum, Ph.D.
Shelley Metzenbaum currently serves as Associate Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for the Office of Regional Operations and State/Local Relations. Previously,
she served as Undersecretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
(EOEA).
While at EOEA, Ms. Metzenbaum was instrumental in initiating several environmental permit
processing reform projects. She also developed ENVest, the Massachusetts Environmental
Investment Campaign, which raised private sector contributions for environmental projects; and set
up an environmental business promotion project that led to the creation of the Massachusetts
Environmental Business Council. Ms. Metzenbaum also taught a course on Pollution Prevention
Policy at Tufts University Center for Environmental Management.
Shelley Metzenbaum previously served as Director of the Office of Capital Planning and
Budgeting for the Massachusetts Division of Capital Planning and Operations. Prior to working
for state government, Ms. Metzenbaum served as Director of Logistics for America Works, a
private firm that created franchises to place welfare mothers in private sector jobs. Other
experience includes serving as Director of the City of Boston's Washington office; and economic
development specialist in the State of Arkansas' Washington Office.
Shelley Metzenbaum received her doctorate from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University in 1992. Her thesis addressed strategies state governments can employ to make the
most of the bidding-war atmosphere that arises when firms seek new sites. She received a Master
of Public Policy degree from the Kennedy School in 1978 and a bachelor's degree from Stanford
University, majoring in Humanities and Asian Studies, in 1974.
Tim Mulholland, Ph.D.
Tim Mulholland is a Waste Management Engineer with the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. Tim has been with the WDNR for more than three years, where he works on a variety
of hazardous waste issues, ranging from permitting and license modifications, to special hazardous
wastes. His waste-related work also includes PCB management and regulation. Tim is the
Department's comparative risk specialist.
Tim Mulholland received his Bachelor's degree in Biology and Chemistry from Drake University in
1981. In 1983, he received his Master's degree in Organic Chemistry from the University of Iowa.
Tim received his Doctor of Philosophy in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University
of Iowa in 1986, where he developed new, economical methods for the removal of radium from
ground water for small towns' drinking water supplies.
55
-------
Upon graduation, Tim spent a year with ENVIRON Corporation in Washington, DC, where he
worked on Superfund site remediations and risk assessments. He then spent a couple of years with
Labat-Anderson Inc. where he performed exposure and risk assessments for the Federal
government as a part of environmental impacts statements. Tim performed a variety of NEPA
work for the Departments of Energy, Interior (BLM) and Agriculture (APHIS and Forest Service).
Richard V. Sinding
Since 1991, Mr. Sinding has served as the Assistant Commissioner for Policy and Planning with
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. He is responsible for overall
policy development and coordination for this department and directly supervises the Office of Air
Quality Management; the Office of Energy; the Division of Solid Waste; and the Division of
Environmental Safety, Health, and Analytical Programs.
Previously, Mr. Sinding served as Policy Advisor to Governor Jim Florio in the Governor's Office
of Management and Planning. He was also President of the Center for Analysis and Public Issues,
a private, nonprofit public policy research organization.
Mr. Sinding is a graduate of Rutgers University and a Vietnam veteran.
Hans van Zijst
Hans van Zijst is Counselor for Health and Environment at the Royal Netherlands Embassies in
Washington and Ottawa. He has been trained as a lawyer at the State University of Utrecht. He has
worked in the environmental field since 1982, mainly on waste management issues and on
environmental information issues. He came to the United States in December 1991. He represents
the Dutch Ministry for the Environment in the USA and Canada and lectures and writes about the
Dutch experience in national environmental planning.
56
-------
Appendix 3:
Comment on Candidate
indicators
-------
58
-------
Comments on (Candidate (Indicators
The following comments were generated during the voting process on the candidate indicate list.
During the voting process, participants were asked to make comments on the individual indicators.
Candidate Indicator 6: Number of stream miles declared unsafe for fishing.
It is not clear that states and localities have consistent criteria for declaring streams "safe" for
fishing. Also, it is not specified which fish are safe and which are not.
Candidate Indicator 10: Volume of ground water reserves not meeting
drinking water criteria.
To track volume of ground water reserves not meeting drinking water criteria without
distinguishing between the designated uses of the ground water could be very misleading, e.g.,
shallow ground water or ground water in coastal areas that is subject to saltwater intrusion should
not have to meet drinking water criteria.
I am skeptical about our ability to determine this number. And if it includes hopelessly
contaminated ground water I do not see great usefulness in the number.
Volume - should be moved to quantity, reduce redundancy of indexes.
Candidate Indicator 11: Concentrations of pesticides, nitrates, toxins,
pathogens, etc. found in the ground water.
Concentration says nothing. Change it to percent.
Extent of concentrations needs to be included in this environmental index, (extent in terms of plume
and volume measure).
Candidate Indicator 15: Disease outbreaks from water supplies (total number
of incidences).
What is a "disease outbreak" and how is it linked to public water supplies? This group is wildly
optimistic about health data.
Candidate Indicator 18: Number of aquifers in which the withdrawal exceeds
the recharge.
I understand some aquifers span several states while others may be small. I see no use in this
number. Also, aren't most ground water aquifers in use for drinking water by definition being
depleted faster than they are recharged?
59
-------
How about measuring the population served by aquifers in which withdrawal exceeds recharge.
This seems more useful than number of aquifers.
Candidate Indicator 21: Number of times surface water bodies exceed safe
yield.
Sounds good but definitions will be a problem as will availability of data. This will take years, if
ever.
Concerned that we might fall back to original definition of "safe yield" which is completely oriented
to human use.
Candidate Indicator 22: Number of exceedances of critical flow (safe yield to
be established).
Sounds good but definitions will be a problem as will availability of data. This will take years, if
ever.
Concerned that we might fall back to original definition of "safe yield" which is completely oriented
to human use.
Candidate Indicator 23: Cases of sickness caused by indoor air quality, e.g.,
asthma, carbon monoxide exposure (medical experts needed to finalize sub-
indicators).
How would link be demonstrated?
We need some health officials!! No way will you get these data and what you can get will be
wildly inconsistent.
Candidate Indicator 24: Percent of smoke-free environments versus total
environments.
Not an indicator. Should be standard per workplace/industry.
Candidate Indicator 26: Percent of individuals that live in residences that
meet current ASHRAE standards.
How measured? Impossible to determine accurately.
Candidate Indicator 27: Usage of off-gassing products and materials per
capita.
How linked to specific agents/disease?
60
-------
Candidate Indicator 29: Dust mite index (type and amount of measurable
organisms in the air that cause respiratory problems).
Dust mites not dust mops.
Candidate Indicator 31: Worker right to know
Not an indicator.
Worker right to know is not an indicator of indoor air quality. Indoor air quality probably should
not be included as an environmental indicator, but rather a human health indicator. Discharges
form indoor environment to outdoor. Air/water/soil, etc. should be environmental indicators.
Candidate Indicator 32: Health care cost and productivity loss or time (tied to
"cases of sickness caused by indoor air quality," e.g., asthma, carbon
monoxide exposure).
This adds another layer of unreality to delusions of being able to determine cases of "sickness"
caused by indoor air. You will never determine the costs.
Candidate Indicator 33: Building stock characteristics (construction materials
used, use of building, building characteristics).
Not enough information.
Candidate Indicator 34: Emission density zoning (environmental equity, e.g.,
locating industry near low-income housing).
How does it include environmental equity?
Should be an outdoor air indicator - good.
Candidate Indicator 35: Respiratory cases per year per 100,000 related to
poor air quality.
We continue to draft extensive regulations that attempt to control the sources of outdoor air
pollution but place little or no emphasis on measuring the effect of implementation on the receptors
that we hope to protect. We need to move toward ambient air monitoring in urban and residential
areas along with more extensive airshed modeling. Look at exposure rates not release rates.
Release rates do not always correlate with exposure rates which do not always correlate with
impact rates!! We need to measure impact!
61
-------
Candidate Indicator 36: Number of ambient air quality exceedances, criteria
pollutants.
These are all indirect indicators. We continue to draft extensive regulations that attempt to control
the sources of outdoor air pollution but place little or no emphasis on measuring the effect of
implementation on the receptors that we hope to protect. We need to move toward ambient air
monitoring in urban and residential areas along with more extensive airshed modeling. Look at
exposure rates not release rates. Release rates do not always correlate with exposure rates which
do not always correlate with impact rates!! We need to measure impact!
Candidate Indicator 37: Total emissions with trends - on-road vehicles, off-
road vehicles, areas sources, point sources.
These are all indirect indicators. We continue to draft extensive regulations that attempt to control
the sources of outdoor air pollution but place little or no emphasis on measuring the effect of
implementation on the receptors that we hope to protect. We need to move toward ambient air
monitoring in urban and residential areas along with more extensive airshed modeling. Look at
exposure rates not release rates. Release rates do not always correlate with exposure rates which
do not always correlate with impact rates!! We need to measure impact!
Candidate Indicator 38: Population of non-attainment areas.
These are all indirect indicators. We continue to draft extensive regulations that attempt to control
the sources of outdoor air pollution but place little or no emphasis on measuring the effect of
implementation on the receptors that we hope to protect. We need to move toward ambient air
monitoring in urban and residential areas along with more extensive airshed modeling. Look at
exposure rates not release rates. Release rates do not always correlate with exposure rates which
do not always correlate with impact rates!! We need to measure impact!
Candidate Indicator 39: Toxic Release Inventory by Standard Industrial
Classification Code with trends.
These are all indirect indicators. We continue to draft extensive regulations that attempt to control
the sources of outdoor air pollution but place little or no emphasis on measuring the effect of
implementation on the receptors that we hope to protect. We need to move toward ambient air
monitoring in urban and residential areas along with more extensive airshed modeling. Look at
exposure rates not release rates. Release rates do not always correlate with exposure rates which
do not always correlate with impact rates!! We need to measure impact!
TRI data are not accurate for our purposes. The community interest in the data is already met. No
need to use it as an indicator.
Candidate Indicator 40: Average ozone levels (median during ozone season).
These are all indirect indicators. We continue to draft extensive regulations that attempt to control
the sources of outdoor air pollution but place little or no emphasis on measuring the effect of
implementation on the receptors that we hope to protect. We need to move toward ambient air
62
-------
monitoring in urban and residential areas along with more extensive airshed modeling. Look at
exposure rates not release rates. Release rates do not always correlate with exposure rates which
do not always correlate with impact rates!! We need to measure impact!
Rather than just median, would percentiles be better?
Candidate Indicator 41: Visibility (Class I areas, sulfate particle
concentrations).
Visibility may be due to natural causes, e.g., Great Smoky Mountains.
These are all indirect indicators. We continue to draft extensive regulations that attempt to control
the sources of outdoor air pollution but place little or no emphasis on measuring the effect of
implementation on the receptors that we hope to protect. We need to move toward ambient air
monitoring in urban and residential areas along with more extensive airshed modeling. Look at
exposure rates not release rates. Release rates do not always correlate with exposure rates which
do not always correlate with impact rates!! We need to measure impact!
Candidate Indicator 42: Amounts/percent of solid waste disposed of by
methods of disposal/management, e.g., landfill, incineration, recycling,
composting, waste to energy.
An indicator for relative generation of solid waste by source would be useful in focusing on
reduction.
Can include hazardous waste.
Candidate Indicator 43: Amount of municipal solid waste generated per
capita.
An indicator for relative generation of solid waste by source would be useful in focusing on
reduction.
Candidate Indicator 44: Composition of municipal solid waste stream by
percent (effects of recycling, change over time).
An indicator for relative generation of solid waste by source would be useful in focusing on
reduction.
Candidate Indicator 45: Projected amount/years to capacity for landfills by
waste type.
An indicator for relative generation of solid waste by source would be useful in focusing on
reduction.
Can include hazardous waste.
63
-------
Candidate Indicator 46: Number of landfills contaminating ground water and
surface water.
An indicator for relative generation of solid waste by source would be useful in focusing on
reduction.
Because of variability in landfill size and volume of ground water contaminated, this number tells
you nothing.
Can include hazardous waste.
Candidate Indicator 47: Tons of air emission from solid waste management
facilities by disposal method.
An indicator for relative generation of solid waste by source would be useful in focusing on
reduction.
Can include hazardous waste.
Candidate Indicator 48: Amount of recyclables collected compared to the
amount of recycled materials used in the production of new products.
An indicator for relative generation of solid waste by source would be useful in focusing on
reduction.
Candidate Indicator 49: Industrial waste generated by Standard Industrial
Classification Code.
An indicator for relative generation of solid waste by source would be useful in focusing on
reduction.
Can include hazardous waste.
Candidate Indicator 50: Hazardous waste generation.
Hazardous waste not sufficient to support - need to include specifics.
No confidence in this.
Very little specifics. I would prefer some of the regional indicators.
These are far too broad to be meaningful. Rated neutral because had no other choice; does not
indicate lack of interest or need for indicators and goals, but rather rejection of this groups lack of
meaningful work.
I found little value in this indicator. I want to see the indicators of environmental health, not just
human behavior.
64
-------
Good in general, but specifics need to be worked out and avoid activity indicators, but focus on
amounts generated, disposition, and character (including number of situations requiring
cleanup/remediation).
I keyed as 3's rather than sign a blank check; however, I am in agreement with much of what was
said verbally.
Poor information for evaluation. Does "geographical distribution" as speaker mentioned include
proximity to populations for all facilities. It should. Environmental equity issues - demographics.
Migration of substances, off site, by media.
Candidate Indicator 51: Contaminated sites.
Hazardous waste not sufficient to support - need to include specifics.
No confidence in this.
Very little specifics. I would prefer some of the regional indicators.
These are far too broad to be meaningful. Rated neutral because had no other choice; does not
indicate lack of interest or need for indicators and goals, but rather rejection of this groups lack of
meaningful work.
I found little value in this indicator. I want to see the indicators of environmental health not just
human behavior.
Good in general, but specifics need to be worked out and avoid activity indicators, but focus on
amounts generated, disposition, and character (including number of situations requiring
cleanup/remediation).
I keyed as 3's rather than sign a blank check; however, I am in agreement with much of what was
said verbally.
Poor information for evaluation. Does "geographical distribution" as speaker mentioned include
proximity to populations for all facilities. It should. Environmental equity issues - demographics.
Migration of substances, off site, by media.
Needs to include indicators on contaminated ground water in terms of plumes and contaminated
surface and subsurface soils in terms of acres.
Candidate Indicator 52: Hazardous waste management.
Hazardous waste not sufficient to support - need to include specifics.
No confidence in this.
Very little specifics. I would prefer some of the regional indicators.
65
-------
These are far too broad to be meaningful. Rated neutral because had no other choice; does not
indicate lack of interest or need for indicators and goals, but rather rejection of this groups lack of
meaningful work.
I found little value in this indicator. I want to see the indicators of environmental health, not just
human behavior.
Good in general, but specifics need to be worked out and avoid activity indicators, but focus on
amounts generated, disposition, and character (including number of situations requiring
cleanup/remediation).
I keyed as 3's rather than sign a blank check; however, I am in agreement with much of what was
said verbally.
Poor information for evaluation. Does "geographical distribution" as speaker mentioned include
proximity to populations for all facilities. It should. Environmental equity issues - demographics.
Migration of substances, off site, by media.
Candidate Indicator 53: Percent of changed land uses.
This data is available through USDA Soil Conservation Service - National Resource Inventory
(NRI). Our group primarily dealt with "cover", not uses. Our primary sticking point was defining
what was "good" and "bad", i.e., is farmland or silvaculture good or bad for the environment. I
think most in the group would support a position that in absolute terms agriculture etc. should be
split out leaving a clear split between lands manipulated for human use and lands in a "natural"
state (natural was another word that we had trouble defining). Perhaps there could be a second
measure that would somehow recognize that some uses by man are more harmful than others (i.e.,
farming, grazing as opposed to residential development).
Candidate Indicator 57: Annual soil loss.
What does it tell us? This indicator is still too broad, but leave room for applicability. Some of
these have no data. What happens to the more specific indicators worked by the groups? Can we
get hold of these? Some can be very valuable.
Candidate Indicator 58: Area and perimeter ratio.
Fragmentation of habitat areas indicates several types of changes to natural environment. It
represents road construction, building, utility extension, and even trail development for recreation,
i.e., bike paths, ski trails, etc. By measuring ratio of perimeter changes to total areas, one can
quantify level/degree of change on habitat areas. GIS technology allows most states to map these
changes.
Candidate Indicator 61: Acres of wetland/critical habitat purchased or
managed for conservation.
Protected land should be weighted by total state area or by total available.
66
-------
Definition of acreage should be expanded to include not just increased acreage, but increased or at
least maintained habitat values.
Candidate Indicator 63: Land use/management changes over time, including
wetlands and other aquatic systems.
Needs to be percent by habitat type.
Question ability to do this without new data collection.
Candidate Indicator 64: Variability/diversity in populations, communities,
ecosystems, genetic variability with populations.
By habitat type.
Question ability to do this without new data collection.
Candidate Indicator 65: Population trends of selected species, including
keystone species, listed, threatened, and endangered species.
By what measure?
States, regions, ecosystems have to identify species.
Candidate Indicator 66: Intact ecosystems functions, e.g., natural, fire and
flood regimes, and nutrient cycling.
How measured/determined?
What is being counted?
This measures what part of the country was settled first, not environmental conditions.
Candidate Indicator 67: Proportion of non-native biota.
By habitat type.
This measures what part of the country was settled first, not environmental conditions.
Candidate Indicator 68: Biota tissue concentration for key contaminants.
State, regions, ecosystems will have to identify species.
67
-------
Candidate Indicator 69: Amount and condition of terrestrials and aquatic
habitat types.
Can only support if move targeted to "critical" habitats.
General Comments
The land indicators produced for the voting process were untenable. The homework candidates are
viable and should be used instead.
The hazardous waste group appears to have failed their task due to lack of specificity.
We should do this exercise again as a follow-up with two adjustments: 1) everyone should have
the criteria for evaluating national indicators (e.g., national applicability) right in front of them
while they are scoring; and 2) the scoring should be done twice, once based on what would be a
good indicator now, and once based on what has the potential to be a good indicator
Many of these indicators cannot be measured or it would be too expensive to measure. Also, some,
especially land, ask for absolute numbers which, unless measured against sustainability are not
particularly useful in our economy which is apparently disregarded.
Whereas we did not have goals (national) to which we could relate any indicator we suggested, I
cannot imagine the administrator wanting to establish any goal that has a negative focus, i.e., we
will seek to achieve a goal of "out-of-compliance" percentages or numbers. Therefore our
indicators should be expressed in a positive sense if they are expected to support the evaluation of
positive goal performance. For example, the percentage of our nation's streams or water bodies
that support beneficial uses (designated uses). For example, the percentage of the nation's
population that drinks water that is in compliance with SDWA MCLs.
As usual, the devil is in the detail. It is very important to identify exactly which questions you
want to answer with a data base before any data are collected. Otherwise you wind up with apples
and oranges - interesting but not comparable. Example: EPA and state radon DB's have hundreds
of thousands of data points but cannot answer the basic question of how many people are actually
exposed (i.e., live in) radon levels above 4 pl/L).
Things noted in presentation on indicators: 1) regarding visibility in national parks - the haze from
turpenes etc. in some forests predates man's activities. E.g. Smoky Mountains, Blueridge
Mountains; and 2) regarding solid waste - whatever shortage exists in low level radiation waste is
politically contrived. The existing sites have plenty of space but the states involved decided to
restrict usage.
The Florida "Homework Assignment" developed criteria for considering indicators including
quality of data, trends, etc. We should have continued to use it. It would have been helpful.
There was very little discussion of cost. Very expensive data collection can equal vers' little data
collection. Does that make it a good indicator?
68
-------
Some indicators, #23 for example, would be a great indicator, if it were readily collectable, but it
isn't.
Too much disparity between levels of detail, for example, hazardous waste and all others.
Process needed more direction. For instance, a group discussion of what values make a good
indicator. This was touched upon initially when discussing "bean counting" vs. measuring actual
indicators of health -very useful discussion. We needed to talk more about cost/benefit,
measurability, etc. A good indicator that is too expensive or difficult to measure is not a good
indicator.
A lack of a theme or focus on risk communication throughout this conference and how its
constraints/requirements should play a role in designing (and presenting results to the public) goals,
indicators.
For hazardous waste, there was no detail. Need types, amounts, etc.
Where are measures/indicators of sustainability?
Candidate Indicators 42 through 52: solid waste and hazardous waste are stressors not
environmental areas for which we need indicators. Possibly consider removing from list and
consider as programs which you develop administrative indicators.
The 69 indicators from our subgroups can be collapsed and simplified. Many of the air indicators
will be hard to measure. We still have not addressed how the federal/state working relationship
will change. We need an indicator that will measure progress to a goal. We agreed on Wednesday
9 am session that this goal could be "increased flexibility to states and tribes". The measurable
indicator would be the number of block grants given to states/tribes as in 1993 Midwest Floods.
Concerns: data availability and data quality.
Indicators are needed for energy, greenhouse gases/global warming, and vehicle miles traveled.
Specifics need to be determined with panels of true experts in topic areas, including balance of both
policy/usage experts and technical credibility/accuracy experts.
Candidate Indicators 53 and 63 need to be combined.
Candidate Indicators 23 and 35 need to be interrelated because of difficulty in distinguishing
indoor/outdoor cause/effect.
After scoring, the list of indicators should be sent to states et. al. for a final scoring by expertise
that could not be represented at the meeting by all organizations. This would also give each
organization equal weight in the scoring because each organization would be given 1 scoring sheet.
This was a good way to get general buy in to conference participants, but it was a poor way to
generate environmental indicators. It was obvious that there were very few "experts" who daily
use/generate/analyze indicators. They need to be contacted and again generate real indicators.
69
-------
Hazardous waste indices are inadequate - much more work needs to be done.
In terms of land use and biota, representation of other federal programs and EPA programs
(EMAP) were inadequate to inform the debate. Coordination with the federal government,
especially including staff from agencies that will actually collect, summarize and interpretate the
data that make up the indicators is crucial. This is a major failing of this meeting.
A huge amount of technical evaluation will be needed to validate the practicality and utility of all
proposed indicators.
Quality of life or welfare indicators are conspicuously absent from the categories of indicators.
The hazardous waste proposals should be itemized as follows: 1) volume of 1 degree of
hazardous waste generated by a specific industry/SIC per year; 2) measure management practice
for wastes in Item 1 (i.e., display as trends over time); 3) TSDF compliance rates over time,
normalized for economic issues (i.e., going out of business); 4) geographic restoration (i.e., aquifer
contamination via contaminated solid waste management unit); 5) hazardous waste management
practice risk (i.e., incineration a "high-risk" is less used); and 6) compliance rates of management
segments.
This process has to be the worst possible approach to developing something useful on indicators.
A real waste of time and effort!
Regarding drinking water, what about cross-connection control? Protection of back-flow of
contaminants.
Regarding hazardous waste, needs more work and requires some thought about overall impacts on
the environment.
For land use, need land cover and water rights.
For outdoor air, need nutrient and toxics loading to watersheds and surface waters; global
warming; acid rain/acidification; wet deposition and source; ozone-global; harmful emissions from
phytoplankton blooms.
For solid waste, area of ground water and surface water contaminated by landfills.
For hazardous waste, categories useless - unable to vote.
For biota, identification and proportion aerially of introduced species.
Hazardous waste needs alot - there are obvious indicators: household waste per capita and
contamination of water reserves.
For outdoor air, need acid rain, wet deposition, toxic loading.
For water quantity, per capita household water use.
70
-------
For land, please use our (my group) background that the first two bullets are not captured correctly
or fully on 1-69 list.
I think it would be very good to have or develop a set of crossover indicators.
For hazardous waste, need to break out specific environmental indicators form the 3 general
headings.
Availability of data should not always be an issue. Even though the data may not exist does not
mean its not worth measuring. We looked at measurability overall.
For biota, reduction in population species is not necessarily a negative indicator. Natural rhythms
have both high and lows.
Many hazardous waste indicators equal to site-specific, hard to aggregate up at national level.
Many biota indicators are "mom and apple pie", but difficult or very expensive to measure. Need
definitions first. Indicators should be predictive.
On the land group, I felt it showed a non-defined bias against all development. States with less
undeveloped land (i.e., New Jersey) and states with lots of undeveloped land (i.e., Montana) have
very different environmental issues with development. Too many of the land indicators, in my
opinion, reflect a "New Jersey" bias that might not be applicable nationwide.
Overall, "generic" indicators (like first water quality or all 3 hazardous wastes) do not allow for
good reaction because the devil is in the detail and the general categories do not reflect that.
Overall ratings reflect utility of indicator in public domain. Issues of availability, quality etc., have
not factored as major consideration in any rankings.
Obviously, indicators will require refinement. Changing 1 or 2 does not necessarily indicate
concurrence with the specific indicator methodology. As a policy person committed to indicators,
this is an important consideration.
There are a lack of multi-media indicators. There is a distinct lack of indicators which address
global issues and energy issues. Discussions included: vehicle miles traveled, global warming -
international. Air issues such as acid rain.
In general, these indicators can be tied to specific goals. However, a great amount of work by
program staff to clearly define and evaluate the data available will be necessary to develop the
indicators. Unless this work is performed with national coordination most (if not all) of these
indicators will be useless for developing a national environmental agenda.
I could only rank low (not support) indicators in areas in which I have expertise (land and biota).
"C" in general means "I do not know but seems less relevant."
Need indicators for: stratospheric ozone depletion, greenhouse gases emissions, per capita energy
use (coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, solar, etc.), energy sources, energy use by sector (transportation,
71
-------
commercial, industrial, residential), energy use by application (lighting, heating, motors, etc.),
vehicle miles traveled per capita, population growth (state, U.S., world), changes in land use in
flood plains. All of these were discussed in New Jersey, Florida, and Colorado. The structure of
this conference seemed to systematically exclude them - why?
Need indicators for: energy use (by source, per capita, by sector), greenhouse gases, stratospheric
ozone.
For indoor air, could use C02 levels as parameter for assessment and estimate number of buildings
above and below threshold value to derive indicator. Could track number of buildings with retro-
fit systems to ensure air quality.
Focus on indicators for which data are available - many of these 69 indicators do not exist!
Need to add to outdoor air: median pH in rainfall, total emission greenhouse gases in terms of
C02 equivalent, total stratospheric ozone depletion gases emission in terms of CFC-12 equivalent.
Need to add to hazardous material: total TRI releases all media.
Major concern: criteria for ranking was not well defined, e.g., data availability, are indicators
possible.
Several critical issues were not addressed: population, energy, global warming, climate impacts A
very strong message needs to be sent that goals should not be imposed on states. National goals
are exactly that and should not be allowed to drive states.
We need the background explanation from each of the workout groups to understand and more
fully evaluate each one.
Its fair to keep many of these which are indices rather than indicators because they are richer and
perhaps more adaptable state by state.
Need "interior" representation. Questions on land indicators revealed a low level of understanding.
EPA should not do this without other federal cooperators who have money to fund land and biota
data collections.
I hope we do not lose product 4 concerns. These are clearly items missing from our work on
environmental indicators, such as energy, consideration of health effects.
What is the process for continuing development of these indicators? It would be very helpful for
someone to coordinate identifying data sources which might be used to further develop these
indicators. This kind of information should be shared with the states.
The majority of the public cares most about the economy. Today, the majority of the public is
increasingly skeptical/irritated at EPA, this is even true of those who consider themselves to be
"environmentalist." Local elected officials will only provide input into a process like this if part of
their game of interest is played. Without these officials, this indicator exercise can only be seen as
a hostile, bureaucratic move on part of the "government."
72
-------
Our committee never was able to resolve the goal of this process. Indicators cannot be developed
unless goals are explicit. Government cannot set goals, therefore, in a real world sense, this
process will probably have little if the great benefit to society it might otherwise have.
The process (at least in New Orleans) was flawed. Facilitators did not know how to facilitate
and/or were biased. Committee membership was flawed in that it was dominated by public
servants who frequently had little knowledge about the subject area.
This is too important a process to be treated invalidly. Especially in the area of biodiversity, there
is too much at stake to not do this right. It may be years before there will be another opportunity
like today to try something new. The hard work is not developing indicators, it lies in the
development of visions and goals. EPA cannot do this, but it can work with other agencies to
facilitate this in the public arena.
Do not reinvent the wheel. Look to Canada - its successes and failures. What the U.S. could do
that would be new on the international scene is to set the goals by elected officials across the
country then set up a dialogue between elected and technical staff.
73
-------
74
-------
Appendix 4:
(Instructions for (indicator
C£)cvefopmcnt Session
-------
76
-------
(Instructions for the
(Indicator development Session
Session Purpose and Goals
For the past several years EPA has been working intensively with states to create the foundation
for the development of a national environmental planning process and the development of a set of
consensual national environmental goals. A precedent condition to setting goals is having the
capacity to measure progress towards meeting those goals. Accordingly, EPA has sponsored two
national conferences and has funded, at the explicit request of state environmental agencies, four
regional conferences to support the development of environmental indicator systems. A principal
objective of this round of regional conferences is to provide input into the development of a
national environmental indicator system that has the active participation and support of all of the
50 states.
These Indicator Development Workgroup Sessions jointly constitute the point in this process
where all of the work of the previous conferences is examined and distilled into an initial set of core
environmental indicators suitable for inclusion in a national environmental indicator system that
both the states and the federal government find useful for measuring and communicating
environmental progress at the state, regional and federal level. Each workgroup will recommend 8-
10 indicators that reflect the very best available for the issue with which they are concerned. The
80-100 indicators produced by this process will be voted on by the plenary the next day to produce
the final list of candidate core indicators.
Role of the Participant
At Conference Registration each participant will be asked to offer their top three choices for
workgroup assignment. The available workgroups are:
Water Air Quality Waste Natural Resources
• Water Quality • Outdoor Air • Solid Waste . Land
• Water • Indoor Air . Hazardous • Biota
Quantity Waste
Participants were invited to this conference because they occupied a policy-making position
capable of influencing the use of environmental indicators within a state agency or because they
had a substantial, broad knowledge of environmental indicators and indicator systems. This mix
was believed to provide the best opportunity to combine environmental policy concerns with
technical considerations. Each participant is expected to bring their own unique orientation and set
of skills to bear in assisting each workgroup meet its objectives. While each participant will view
this process primarily as a representative of some state or regional interest, it is hoped that all will
be able to step back from that role and consider the broader, national environmental policy issues
implicit in this process.
77
-------
Process
All particpants will be assigned to one of the eight workgroups listed above based, to the degree
possible, upon their choices made at registration. This should result in an average group size of
approximately 20 people. Each group will be facilitated by a state or local government
representative who has experience in environmental indicator development and who will have
received specific training for this task. That facilitator will be served by a recorder to ensure that
the group process is accurately captured.
Each group will have four tasks:
Task 1: Identification of Candidate Core Environmental Indicators. Each participant has
been provided in this Tab (Tab 7) strawman lists of candidate indicator for each of the eight issue
areas. Using the list for their issue, the indicator lists drawn from the proceedings of the other
regional conferences (Tab and the knowledge and experience of the participant, the group will
complete a process that will culminate in the identification of the best 8-10 environmental
indicators that are suitable from a state, regional and national perspective with regard to their
issue.
Task 2: Collection and Aggregation of Data. For each indicator selected, the group will develop
a brief, practical plan for collecting and aggregating the data
Task 3: Displaying the Indicator. Since indicator that cannot be displayed well cannot
communicate their meaning, each workgroup should discuss and make a recommendation
concerning the most effective means of displaying eac one of the selected indicators.
Task 4: Identification of Unresolved Issues and Recommendations for Future Directions.
This Conference represents the first major step in developing national environmental goals and
supporting indicators. There is much more work to be done, not only from the technical side, but
also inworking out the relationship between state and local governments and the federal
government. Each group should discuss how states and the federal government should proceed in
developing environmental indicators over the next year or so and should provide some some
attention to how all levels of government and our citizens should proceed to develop a national
strategic plan for the environment.
The results of each of these activities will be presented to the plenary of the conference. The
indicators identified will become the basis for the final voting on Friday, February 4, 1994.
78
-------
Guidelines for Participants/Workgroups
(Indicator Development Session)
PRODUCTS
Products resultant from these efforts include:
• developing no more than 10 environmental indicators which correspond to the accompanying
lists of environmental indicators (list of indicator headings generated from the four sub
regional workshops). See homework assignment.
• a brief plan for collecting and aggregating the data associated with each of the identified
environmental indicators.
• suggestions as how to best display, format or visibly address the identified environmental
indicators
• a list of recommendations or comments regarding unresolved issues associated with the
development of national environmental goals and indicators.
PROCESS
WHY YOU ARE HERE AND PARTICIPANT /WORKGROUP STEPS
Your selection as a participant in this group was based upon your interest and selection of your
three top environmental groupings below.
1. Water Quality 3. Outdoor Air 5. Solid Waste 7. Land
2. Water Quantity 4. Indoor Air 6. Hazardous Waste 8. Biota
Please review (with the facilitator) the homework assignment and sample environmental
indicators for your respective areas of interest.
PRODUCT#!
STEP#1
Participant: On a blank sheet of paper provided please write at least one environmental indicator
(based upon the samples provided - for level specificity) for the environmental indicator headings
with the most numerical points assigned from homework returned. Remember we are capping a
total of 10 environmental indicators per group. For example: water quality as a group.
Step #2
Facilitator/Recorder: Having completed that exercise, the facilitator, starting with the highest
numbered indicator heading will ask (moving from left to right) for one indicator from each
person until the listing is exhausted or other indicators are amended. Recorders write key words
of indicators (not word smithing - the objective is understanding). After one environmental
heading is complete move to the next higher order category and so forth.
(Note: Remember, develop no more than 10 environmental indicators per issue area and keep
in mind the # of indicators per indicator heading).
Guidelines/Roles for Indicator Development Session
79
-------
Product #2
Step #1
Participant: Each participant jot down on a blank sheet of paper, a brief planning outline (what
needs to be done first, second last) to reflect and aggregate the data associated with each of the
10 or less environmental indicators.
Step #2
Facilitator/Recorder: Having completed that, the facilitator (in serial fashion) from left to
right, will build major planning points for each environmental indicators. The recorder will list
the primary points of planning or collection and aggregation of data. Recorder collect products
and collates for presentation at a later date.
Product#3
Step#1
Workgroup/Recorder: Each participant write down on a blank sheet of paper provided,
considerations as how to best display, format or visibly address the identified environmental
indicators. Group discussions concerning display and format considerations Recorder display
on flip chart primary considerations. Recorder collect products and collates for presentation at a
later date.
Product #4
Step#1
Participants/Recorder: Each participant write down on a blank sheet of paper provided, a list
of recommendations or comments regarding unresolved issues associated with the development of
national environmental goals and indicators. Recorder collect products and collates for
presentation at a later date.
Step #2
Each group selects a spokesperson to report highlights of their group environmental indicator
results and key points of discussion. Facilitator and recorder help designated person with
format and presentation of information for presentation in plenary session. Recorder collect
products and collates for presentation at a later date.
Guidelines/Roles for Indicator Development Session
80
-------
National Environment Goals and Indicators Conference
Workgroup assignments
WATER OUALITY
OUTDOOR AIR
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Adamsen, Floyd
Brubaker, Henry
Delhagen, Ed
Bass, Phil
Eberle, Bill
Glenn, John C.
Bieber, Steve
Elliott, Maryln
Glumac, Ann
Brannon, William D.
Fillingame, Drew
Hutchenson, Susan
Burgan, Barry
Francis, Joe
Kaster, Pam
Carter, Mary C.
Gales, Larry
Kienit-Kylar, Doug
Cassat, Dick
Harding, Russell
Nadai, Agi
Constantz, George
Jones, Ken
Priftis, Sue
Devonald, Kim
Kanerva, Roger
Reams, Margaret
Doggeu, Lee
Keeney, Tim
Rudzinski, Suzanne
Gates, Richard
McKenzie, Mary
Vega, Clark
Griffith, Robert
Miller, Philip E.
Wall, Eloise
Jones, Greene
Miller, Alison A.
West, Carol Rowan
Kipp, Katrina
Negri, Beverly
Wilkes, Nathan
Lynch, Robert
Pippen, Harvey
Zaccardi, Greg
Mabry, Sam
Pitcock, Angie
Ziomkoski, Edward
Markley, Bill
Sandusky, Mike
McVicker, Stacy
Schelp, John
LAND
Powers, Tom
Sinclair, Rick
Battle, Sue
Schuettpelz, Duane
Smith, Bill
Bedan, David
Turner, John
Sullivan, Dave
Cole, Ed
Vogt, David
Workman, David
Eddlemon, Kendra
Wells, Barbara
Gutenson, Debra
INDOOR AIR
Johnson, Bemie
watrr oiianttty
Balluz, Lina
Kapuscinski, Jacques
Austin, H. Kay
Beach, Nancy
Kelly, Joyce
Blunk, Kristen
Bishko, Sherry
Kreizenbeck, Ronald
Church, Marilyn
Dils, Rebecca
Lemons, Jim
Cooper, Bob
Fousoen, Nancy
Leslie, Michele
Dabuliewkz, John
Goel, Shashi
Martin, Lawrence
Ellenhoff, Tom
Hill, Jerry G.
Poirier, Dick
Heitmann, Dennis
Jones, Charles
Richard, Deb
Kakuk, Michael
Kirk, William
Seliga, Ed
Lafferty, Tony
McCIanahan, Mark
Spivey, Lawson D.
Maribetta, Ron
McDonald, Scotl
Trimble, David
Moilanen, Michael
Paterson, Chris
Vincent, Frederick
Moore, Jane
Wilkins, Jim
Wagener, Karl
Pavella, Cheryl
Wilkins, Karl
Whitt, Gwen
Schneider, John
Wiley, William
Steiert, Bob
SOLID WASTE
Alfredson, Tracy
HIOTA
Ephremides, Jane
Barber, Valerie
Harms, Gale
Circiello, Jean
Hughes, Gary
Cooner, Bob
Lemons, Jim
Fenedick, A1
Maberly, Julie
Forbes, Anne
Nicholas, David
Garvey, Pat
Ragsdale, Dee
Hanger, Jau Nae
Robertson, Gregg
Harper, Sallyanne
Ross, Maureen
Johnson, Philip C.
Sandoval, J.R.
Kriel, Randy
Setser, James
Lawrensen, Mark
Morales, Susan
Paul, Rose
Rabe, Bonnie
Simmers, Chris
Simmon, Harvey
Slater, Bruce G.
Snyder, Marc
Sumpter, Dick
81
-------
82
-------
Appendix 5:
^Indicator gurvcv
-------
84
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS & INDICATORS CONFERENCE
Indicator Survey
Please indicate your affiliation using the following breakdown.
A State participant - funded for this Conference
B State participant - non funded
C All federal
D Tribes
E Local Government
F Non profit
G Private
Primary Role or Work Area Where You Spend Most of Your Time:
1 Policy leadership
• Secretary/Commissioner of an agency/Assistant or Deputy
Secretary/Commissioner of an agency
2 Policy Staff
• Reports to individuals in category 1 (Policy Leadership) above
3 Program Managers
• Division Directors of agencies/individuals running a major environmental
program
4 Technical Staff
• Reports to individuals in category 3 (Program Managers) above
5 Other
85
-------
National Environmental Goals & Indicators Conference
indicator Survey
Using the following scale, please indicate your degree of support for each of the following national
core indicators. If you have no basis for judgment, leave that item blank.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Support Neutral Do Not Strongly
Support Support Do Not
Support
WATER QUALITY:
OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS OF WATER QUALITY
1. Bodies of water supporting beneficial uses (rivers, streams, lakes, aquifers,
wetland, non-coastal waters). This composite environmental indicator
would include the following detailed information:
• Biological information which should be tied to ecoregions;
• Chemical information compared to standards
• Stream habit and riparian conditions
• Fish consumption and health advisories
The above four include spatial and temporal designs supporting status and
trends.
2. Community metrics (aquatic measures, structure and function of biological
communities, including feeding times and opportunistic species).
3. The States 305 (b) Report to Congress for Designated Use Attainment can be
used; but must be upgraded with standard methods and practices, quality
assurances, and consistency across all the states.
SURFACE WATER
4. Non-point surface indicators index (e.g., roads, population, soil and land
use/land cover)
5. Water quality index
6. Number of stream miles declared unsafe for fishing
W1
86
-------
National Environmental Goals & Indicators Conference
Indicator Survey
Using the following scale, please indicate your degree of support for each of the following national
core indicators. If you have no basis for judgment, leave that item blank.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Support Neutral Do Not Strongly
Support Support Do Not
Support
7. Shellfish closures measured in acres/days that are contamination related
8. Contaminants in species as indicators of surface water quality
(bioaccumulation, biomagnification)
9. Number of exceedences of surface water quality standards, criteria levels of
biological, chemical, parameters, and standards
GROUND WATER
10. Volume of ground water reserves not meeting drinking water criteria
11. Concentrations of pesticides, nitrates, toxins, pathogens, etc. found in the
ground water
DRINKING WATER
12. Concentration of chemicals and pesticides/absolute water quality including
pathogens
13. Population served by systems with maximum contaminant level violations
14. '£ Days systems in compliance X population
Total days operating X population
15. Disease outbreaks from water supplies (total number of incidences)
WATER QUANTITY:
16. Number of restricted water days (public water supplies)
17. Total precipitation
18. Number of aquifers in which the withdrawal exceeds the recharge
87
-------
National Environmental Goals & Indicators Conference
indicator Survey
Using the following scale, please indicate your degree of support for each of the following national
core indicators. If you have no basis for judgment, leave that item blank.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Support Neutral Do Not Strongly
Support Support Do Not
Support
19. Total ground water and surface water withdrawals by use, including loss
20. Per capita ground water and surface water withdrawals by use, including loss
21. Number of times surface water bodies exceed safe yield
22. Number of exceedences of critical low flow (safe yield to be established)
INDOOR AIR:
23. Cases of sickness caused by indoor air quality, e.g., asthma, carbon monoxide
exposure (medical experts needed to finalize sub-indicators)
24. Percent of smoke free environments versus total environments
25. Percent of individuals that work in buildings that meet or exceed current
ASHRAE standards
26. Percent of individuals that live in residences that meet current ASHRAE
standards
27. Usage of off-gassing products and materials per capita
28. Standards and enforcement
29. "Critter Index"
30. Percent of buildings that exceeds acceptable radon standards
31. Worker right to know
32. Health care cost and productivity loss or time (tied to "cases of sickness caused
by indoor air quality, e.g., asthma, carbon monoxide exposure)
88
-------
national Environmental goals & indicators conference
Indicator Survey
Using the following scale, please indicate your degree of support for each of the following national
core indicators. If you have no basis for judgment, leave that item blank.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Support Neutral Do Not Strongly
Support Support Do Not
Support
33. Building stock characteristics
34. Emission density zoning
OUTDOOR AIR:
35. Respiratory cases per year per 100,000 related to poor air quality
36. Number of ambient air quality exceedences, criteria pollutants
37. Total emissions with trends: on-road vehicles, off road vehicles, area sources,
point sources
38. Population of non-attainment areas
39. Toxic Release Inventory by Standard Industrial Classification Code with
trends
40. Average ozone levels (median during ozone season)
41. Visibility (Class I areas, sulfate particle concentrations)
SOLID WASTE:
42. Amounts/percent of solid waste disposed of by methods of
disposal/management, e.g., landfill, incineration, recycling, composting,
waste to energy.
43. Amount of municipal solid waste generated per capita
44. Composition of municipal solid waste stream by percent
89
-------
National Environmental Goals & Indicators Conference
Indicator Survey
Using the following scale, please indicate your degree of support for each of the following national
core indicators. If you have no basis for judgment, leave that item blank.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Support Neutral Do Not Strongly
Support Support Do Not
Support
45. Projected amount/years to capacity for landfills by waste type
46. Number of landfills contaminating ground water and surface water
47. Tons of air emission from solid waste management facilities by disposal
method
48. Amount of recyclables collected compared to the amount of recycled materials
used in the production of new products
49. Industrial waste generated by Standard Industrial Classification Code
HAZARDOUS WASTE:
50. Hazardous waste generation
51. Contaminated sites
52. Hazardous waste management
LAND:
53. Percent of changed land uses
54. Percent in census tracts greater than X density
55. Ecoregion assessment, e.g., instream, biological, and riparian area habitat
assessment
56. Percentage of developed land occurring in previously developed land versus
previously undeveloped land
57. Annual soil loss
90
-------
National environmental goals & Indicators Conference
indicator Survey
Using the following scale, please indicate your degree of support for each of the following national
core indicators. If you have no basis for judgment, leave that item blank.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Support Neutral Do Not Strongly
Support Support Do Not
Support
58. Area and perimeter ratio (i.e., fragmentation)
59. Amount of underdeveloped (i.e., national, state) land as percentage of total
land
60. Change in impervious surface area
61. Acres of wetlands/critical habitat purchased or managed for conservation
62. Acres of land successfully returned to its natural state
BIOTA:
63. Land use/management changes over time, including wetlands and other
aquatic systems
64. Variability/diversity in populations, communities, ecosystems, genetic
variability with populations
65. Populations trends of selected species, including keystone species, listed,
threatened, and endangered species
66. Intact ecosystems functions, e.g., natural, fire, and flood regimes; nutrient
cycling
67. Proportion of non-native biota
68. Biota tissue concentration for key contaminants
69. Amount and condition of terrestrials and aquatic habitat types
91
-------
92
-------
y^ppencfix 6:
(JJrealcout gession Scroffs
-------
94
-------
breakout Session Scrolls
During the Breakout Session, each group was given four tasks. During the first task of identifying
candidate core environmental indicators, the group members compiled lists of indicators that the
group then presented to the conference participants to be voted on. For the second task, each group
developed a brief, practical plan for collecting and aggregating the data. The third task concerned
developing the most effective means of displaying each of the selected indicators. The final task
entailed identifying unresolved issues and recommendations for future directions. The following is
a list of the compiled indicators for each of the eight issue areas and the results of the remaining
tasks.
WATCQ QUALITY
• Bioaccumulation
• Population served by systems with MCL violations
• Drinking water advisories
• Inconsistent failure of system operation
• Lack of time variable
• Total number disease outbreak from water supply
• Number of leaking UST
• Volume of ground water reserves not meeting drinking water criteria
• Concentrations of pesticides, nitrate, toxins, pathogens
• Groundwater in Interstate Commerce
• Acres of ground water contaminated by solid waste facilities
• Disease outbreak from domestic fish or shellfish consumption
• Endangered species and habitat as indicator of surface water quality
• Contaminants in species as indicators of surface water quality (e.g., Bald Eagles)
• Number of exceedances of surface water quality standards, criteria levels of biological and
chemical
• Nonpoint source indicator index (population, roads, soil, and LU/LC)
• Sediment criteria violations
• reduction of bioaccumulation pollutants to surface water and key conventional pollutants
• In-stream ambient toxicity testing
• Fish kills
Surface Water
• Beach closings
• Swimming and secondary contact
• Disease outbreak from swimming
• Number of stream miles declared unsafe for fishing
• Shellfish closures per acre per day (contaminant related)
• Aquatic insects
• Biological community matrix
• Structure and function of biological community
• Percentage of miles/acres meeting standards
• Percentage of stream miles exceeding 200 fecal coliform per 100 miles
95
-------
• Waterbased recreation days per year
• Fishing license sales
• Fish tissue contaminant level
• Water Quality Index
• Non-market value survey
• Number of violations of NPDES
• Permit limits
• Pollutant loading reductions
• Wetlands
• Antidegradation
• Beach closures
e CDC as data source
• Ground water collection model
Ground water
• Pollutant loading groundwater from UIC wells
. 2-96
• Vadose zone contaminant load
• Population served by public water supply with wellhead protection
• Fishing days per year
• Bioaccumulation
• Cumulative risks to exposed individuals
• Blood lead levels
Designated Use Attainment
• Biological diversity
• Reference sites
• Viable fish propagation-305-B
• Maximum contaminant levels (mcl) violations for drinking water
• Concentration of chemicals and pesticides
WATER QUANTITY
• Number of restricted water days (public water supplies)
o Total precipitation
• Number of aquifers in which the withdrawal exceeds the recharge
• Total ground water and surface water withdrawal by use
• Per capita ground water and surface water withdrawal by use
• Number of times surface water bodies exceed safe yield
• Number of exceedances of critical low flow (safe yield to be established)
INDOOR AIR
• Cases of sickness indoor air quality (e.g., asthma)
• Carbon monoxide exposure (medical expertise needed to finalize sub-indicators)
• Percent of smoke-free environments vs. total environments
96
-------
• Percent of individuals that work in buildings that meet or exceed current ASHRAE standards
• Percent of individuals that live in residences that meet current ASHRAE standards
• Usage of off-gassing products and materials per capita
• Standards and enforcement
• "Critter Index"
• Percent of buildings that exceed acceptable radon standards
• Worker right-to-know
• Health care cost and productivity loss of time (tied to item # 1)
• Building stock characteristics
• Emission density zoning
OUTDOOR AID
Objectives
• Trend baseline — Target
• graphic - map or chart
• end: barriers, strategies to achieve targets
• good example: Chesapeake Bay program
• -"for further information" section - stand alone pages.
• -each indicator has same format in 1 report.
Indicators
• Respiratory cases per year per 100,000
• Ambient air quality exceedances criteria pollutants
• Population of non-attainment areas
• Total emissions
• Population of non-attainment areas
• TRI by SIC Code with trend
• Average Ozone levels during median ozone season
• Visibility
Unresolved Issues
• Media crossover of pollutants (e.g., air pollution switched to water)
• Tying health effects with emission rates
• Environmental equity?
• Differentiation between tobacco use and chemical exposures impact on health
• Need stake-holder buy-in
• Targets should be achievable
• Have targets; identify barriers of unattained
• Costs need to be realistic
• Lead poisoning
• Tobacco use rates
• Bureaucratic barrier
• Vehicle miles traveled - multi-media
• Energy and global greenhouse gasses
• Need to leam by doing - begin somewhere and then improve
97
-------
Additional areas of analysis regarding impact on minorities
• Calculate true environmental costs of production
o Get easy indicators first to legislator/public
• Ambient monitoring for non-criteria pollutants in neighborhoods
• "are we making progress"
• ambient monitoring is better than emissions inventory
Major planning points
• Review existing state health objectives, especially, environmental health
• get Healthy People 2000 - Public Health Service
• Direct hospital data collection for correlation with AAQ level (e.g., PM 10)
• How do we find the health effects?
Presentation
• TRI - database, trends, partitioned many ways. Air, other media, SIC Codes
• Ambient air measuring
• Modeling
• Consistency of point source definition
• Refining/defining scope of indicator - consistency
• need for standards and QC in handling data
Communication
• Graphics plus narrative explanation
• trade-off between clutter and easy understanding
• A dream: series of bars breaking apart health incidents due to air pollutant in each year
• Two reports: general and technical
SOLID WASTE
• Amount/percent of solid waste disposed of by method of disposal/management (e.g., landfill,
incineration, recycling, composting, waste to energy)
• Amount MSW generated per capita
• Composition of MSW waste stream by percent
• Projected amount/years capacity for landfills by waste type.
• Number of landfills contaminating groundwater, surface water
• Tons air emission from solid waste management facilities by disposal method
• Amount recyclables collected compared to the amount recycled materials used in the
production of new products
• Industrial waste generated by SIC Code
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Planning Waste Generation
• Hazardous waste generation
• Volume of waste
• Who
98
-------
• What happened to it?
• Facility profile
• LQG
• SIC
• Geographic information
• Economic activity
• Worker exposure
• Appropriate
• P2
• Waste minimization
• Media shift
• TUR data
• BRS
• RCRA
• State Annual Reports
• Surveys
• Site Plans
• Insurance data/rates
• Pesticide production volumes
• Source Generation
• on-site
• off-site
• domestic
• international
• Contaminated sites
• Site characterization data
• Milestones and dates
• Volume of waste remaining uncontrolled
• Site profiles:
• Spacial data and/or
• assurance of adequate data to measure exposure to sensitive ecosystems and environmental
justice issues
• responsible parties, etc.
• Exposure pathways
• Waste generation
• Air, water, and soil monitoring
• Future land use
• Cleanup complexity
• Immediate threat to human health or ecosystems
Display (Product #3)
• Appropriate graphs, charts, pie. charts, for trend
• Sound bites
• Consistency from report to report
• Contain target point, quantitative measure of progress toward
• Regulator report
• Targeted to educated public
• Electronic/magnetic availability
99
-------
• Include baseline information and related components and target point
• Explicit discussion of data limitations
Hazardous waste data collection
• Waste reduction plans
• Regular reporting cycles
• annual or bi-annual to agency, to USEPA
• QA public dissemination
Hazardous waste other issues
• Waste classification
• Pesticides: point and non-point
• Impact of economic issues on waste generation
• Worker exposure
• Transportation
• Number of miles per accidental releases
• Demographic data
• environmental justice
• ecosystems
• adequate data for spatial analysis in priority areas
c TRI
• as potential data collection vehicle
• Hazardous waste as a percentage all waste
• Is data collection linked to regulatory programs
QA
e No double counting
• Cost/benefit
• Superfund reevaluation
• Other appropriate concerns
LAND
1. Percent of changed land uses
2. Percent in census tract > 'X' density
3. Ecoregion Assessment (e.g., instream, biological, riparian area habitat assessment)
4. Percentage of developed land occurring in previously developed land vs. previously
undeveloped land
5. Annual soil loss
6. Area and perimeter ratio (i.e. fragmentation)
7. Amount of undeveloped land as percentage of total land
8. Change in impervious surface area
9. Acres of wetlands/critical habitat purchased or managed for conservation
10. Acres of land successfully returned to its natural state
For Indicators #1 and HI:
Product #2
100
-------
• remote sensing data (consistency problem)
• Maryland State Planning Office
• Agriculture Stabilizing Conservation Service
• E-MAP (EPA)
• USGS
• Natural Resource Inventory (SCS)
Product #3
• Pie-chart
• Colored map (by county)
• Mapped by ecoregions
• Drop-out/separate public/private owned or federal lands
• Must reference to goal (i.e., where)
For Indicator #2
Product #2
• U.S. Census data (every 10 years)
• Tax reporting
• County estimates
Product #3
• Pie-charts
• Colored coded maps (by county) (GIS)
• Line graph showing change over time
Product #4
• Coordination with E-Map
• Overlap among and within indicator categories
• Establishing baseline/point of reference
• Availability of data for potential indicators
• Use of non-government organizations
• Watershed/ecosystem
• Demography not a good indicator
• Urban sprawl indicator
• Carrying capacity very important, but not yet definable/measurable
BIOTA
• Biodiversity
• Sustainability
• GOAL: Healthy ecosystems
• Consumption of renewable bio-resources
• Habitat diversity index
• Percent for 1 degree productivity consumed by humans
• Percent of developed urban communities with native/adapted/sustainable species
• Media contamination
• Funding for habitat acquisitions protection
101
-------
• Human health?
• Energy use?
• Global climate change; stratospheric ozone depletion
• Intactness of ecosystem function
• Amount of legally protected habitat
• International agreement and activities
• Human population dynamics and demographics
• Public education awareness on healthy ecosystems
o Amount and condition of terrestrial and aquatic habitat - types
• Habitat carrying capacity
• Number of successful takings suits
• Human population demographics
• Native American health
• Population county of key individual species for specific habitats
• Acres of wetlands
• Number of river miles supporting designated uses
• Land use/Land covered
• Number of hunting and fishing licenses
• Number of acres used for development
• Hunter/angler success
• Presence of balanced predator/prey species
• Intactness of ecosystem function
• Acres vs. amount of habitat
• Amount of legally protected habitat
• Habitat diversity index
• Consumption advisories
• Population health of high trophic organisms
• Measures of national community habitat types:
1) Amount acreage in primary condition (protected)
2) Amount acreage of habitat/communities in 2nd condition (restored)
3) Resiliency: corridors, buffers, and remnants
4) Spacial/temporal arrangement of habitat
• International agreements and activities
e Consumption of renewable biological resources in relation to their regrowth
• Visible degradation
• Public education/awareness on healthy ecosystems
• Changes in land use over time
• Physical/chemical/biological alteration of habitat
• Occurrence and abundance of sensitive species
• Raptor breeding success
• Degree of habitat fragmentation
• Percent of developed urban communities with native/adapted/sustainable species
• Non-consumptive use of natural resources
• Absolute number of endangered/threatened species including number of extinctions per year
• Land use/management changes over time, including wetlands and other aquatic systems
• Amount of variability/diversity in:
• populations
• communities
102
-------
• ecosystems
• genetic variability with population
• Percent of primary production consumed by humans
• Population dynamics of key species
• Biotic tissue concentration for key contaminants
• Media contamination
• Activity level and success rates of species restoration
• Land management practices
• Funding for habitat acquisition/protection
• Acres of dead zones
• Percent urban conversion rate of high diversity corridors and high diversity areas
• Changes in quantity of critical habitat
• Population trends of selected species, including keystone species, listed threatened or
endangered species
• Proportion of non-native biota
103
-------
104
-------
Appendix 7:
•Homework y\ssianment
Qummary
4%
-------
106
-------
ISSUE: WATER
SUB-ISSUE: WATER QUALITY
National
Dets
Data
Importance
Resiita
Understand-
Availability
Trenda
Causality
Aggregation
Indicator Lists
RESPONSE #1J
Use attainment measures
Applicability
•
3
Consistency
2
Quality
DM Th»*» Ine
2
3
3
ability
2
2
2
2
2
Population served with MCL violations
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
Protection of critical groundwater resources
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
RESPONSE M2:
ft of miles of primary rivers/streams that are ftshable/swlmmable
3
3
But
3
lootota
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Marine water quatity-monitorinq of 6hellfish bed and beach closing
2
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
2
3
Biology diversity and abundance for freshwater
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
RESPONSE J*3
Ground water: exceedances of standards
3
1
Three Ind
2
l^etool!
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
Ground water; number of contaminated ground water sites
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
Ground water: exceedances of clean water drinking standards
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
1
2
3
RESPONSE *3;
Surface water: designated use
3
2
Beat Three Inc
2
oators
3
2
1
2
3
2
3
Surface water: benthic and fish abundance
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
Surface water: fish advisories
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
3
RESPONSE 04t
Water Quality Indox
3
3
M Thfw Ir*
3
2
<»«*»
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Index of biological integrity
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
Designated use measures
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
RESPONSE *6:
Species diversity
3
2
Beat Throe l«
2
ootuta
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
Vegetation
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Shellfish closures
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
RESPON6E *6;
Water quality standards exceedances
3
Qq»t Irx
3
Icetnjs
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
Exceedances of ground water quality standards
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
Populations served by systems with MCL violations
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE *7;
Contaminated ground water sites (quality of life and health)
3
3
B««t Thr*a Ira
iofctore
3
3
3
MCL Violation levels
3
3
2
2
1
Population served by systems with MCL violations
3
3
2
3
3
RESPONSE #8;
Waterbodies supporting/not supporting designated uses
3
1
Beet TfvM lrx
2
icatorf
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
RESPONSE #0:
Number of ground water invest, resulting in additional action taken
3
2
Best Three Int
2
colors
3
2
2
3
1
1
1
Compliance with surface water standards
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
Compliance with drinking water standards
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
-------
RESPONSE #10:
Ground water: Exaedanca of ground water quality standards
3
2
Bmi Ire
3
caUxa
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
Ground water: contaminated ground water cites
3
2
2
2
3
J
2
3
3
3
3
Ground water: water quality advisories
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE 410;
Surface water: designated use measures
2
2
Bk»« Tlx« tm
3
COIU1H
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
Surface water: benthic and fish abundance, assemblage
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
Surface water: fish advisories
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
RESPONSE *11;
Benthic and fish abundance
3
2
Best Thiw Ind
2
IC«tOf«
3
3
3
1.6
2
2
3
Fish advisories
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Sediment contamination
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
3
3
RESPONSE f 12;
Designated use measures
3
2
Bwt ThK* In
2
iqotcx*
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
Benthic and fish abundance, etc.
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
Water quality standard exceodances
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
RESPONSE #13:
MCL violation lovols
3
2
Bmi thrM In
2
icatora
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
TRI releases to water
3
3
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
Species diversity
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
RESPONSE #14:
Percent of rivers and streams meeting water quality standards
3
2
Best Inc
2
C4I
-------
Designated use measures
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
MCL violations
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
RESPONSE *31;
Population served by systems with MCL violations
3
2
B«st loc
2
Icatw*
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
Designated use measures
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Contaminated ground water sites
2
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
RE$P0NSE#22>
Benthic and fish abundance and diversity
2
1
a -
i
i
ioaiw*
3
2
1
1
2
1
2
Natural species diversity
2
1
i
3
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
Population served by MCL violation
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
1
3
RESPONSE #?3:
Ground water/drinking water quality
3
2
l i
>¦
3 1
O'
ICfllHI
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
Ambient surface water quality
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
Surface water discharges (NI'DES)
3
2
i
2
2
3
2
2
1
3
RESPONSE #24;
Designated use measures
3
2
S«*t TUu Ind
2
lc«to»
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fish advisories
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Benthic and fish abundance
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
RESPONSE ,#2B:
Surface Water: number of impaired
3
3
B«st ThfM tnc
3
CMlDT*
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Ground water: number of contaminated ground water
Reduction in rate of water body impairment
RESPONSE #26;.
Fish advisories (recreational)
3
2
Bwt ThfM Ire
2
4»K*»
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
Drinking water quality advisories
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Leaking underground petroleum sites
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
RESPONSE #27:
Dissolved oxygen measures
3
3
Best TftfM tnc
3
(Wlora
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
Total phosphorous
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
Nitrate concentrations
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
RESPONSE #28:
Water quality standards/exceedances
3
3
Be»t TM« l<*
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
Water quality Indices
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
Ronthlc and fish abundance
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
RESPONSE #28:
Ambient ground water quality
3
3
8«1 Thiti If*
2
lc«lof»
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
Number of contaminated sites
3
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
3
2
Bodies of water making ambient standards
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE #30:
Invertebrate indices
3
2
Bwt Th»M liw
2
OelOf«
3
2
2
2
2
2.5
1.5
Total metals
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
Shell fish closures (acres)
2
1
2
1.5
2
3
3
2
1.6
1.6
RESPONSE #31:
Water quality standards exceedances
3
3
Beat ThrH Ini
2
calora
3
2
2
3
1
3
3
Water quality index
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
Sediment contamination
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
-------
ISSUE: WATER
SUB-ISSUE: WATER QUANTITY
National
Data
Data
ImpottaiKe
Rotulis
Undeiaiand-
Availability
Tienda
Causality
Aea'oO'tlon
Indicator Lists
RESPONSE#!;
Applicability
Consistency
Quality
Tbr* M*
ability
RESPONSE U2\
Water supply versus water demand index
6mI Yhf«« Irw
catora
Inter-basin transfer of water
RESPONSE *3;
Flows and level measures
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Total and per capita withdrawal
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Aquifer declines
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE #4;
Supply vb. domand index
Per capita withdrawal by use _
Percent of irnpairod aquifurs
3
2
B«ft TIum Inc
2
3
2
actor*
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
JJ
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
3
2
2
3
1
RESPONSE .
Th^ Inri
RESPONSE*6:
Counts and effects of water rest days
3
3
Beit TfvM |f¥
3
rC«tOT«
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Aquifer declines
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
Water supply vs. water demand index
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
RESPONSE *7:
Aquifer contamination
3
2
TlM^e trw
2
c*ior«
3
2
3
3
Water supply/demand
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
RESPONSE *8:
B«*t tNM Ind
Icators
RESPONSE *0;
Thr»« li m
RESPONSE #10:
Aquifer declines
3
3
Beat TIum Int
2
CStOft
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
Flows and levels measuros
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
3
2
3
-------
Precipitation and irrigation measures | 2
3 31 2 21 3 21 31 2 2
RESPONSE #11*
Groundwater levels, lake levels, stream flows
3
3
&**t ThcM Inc
3
ioalort'
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
Water diversions
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
Water discharges
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
RESPONSE #12;
Total and per capita surface water withdrawal, etc.
3
2
PtttTbtt* ind
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
Interbasin transfer
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
Counts and effects of water restriction days
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE #13;
Freshwater withdrawals
3
3
BmlTtwM I»1
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
Water reuse
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
Wellhead/watershed protection
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
RESPONSE *14;
Total and per capita freshwater withdrawal
3
1
Thr« l~l
1
2
1
3
2
2
1
1
Percent of aquifers that are receding
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Number of water restriction days & percent of population affected
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE #16;
Water supply vs. demand
Water restriction days
1.6
3
Yhre* Inc
laatoft -
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
1.6
2
3
3
3
Flows and levels measures
1.6
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
RESPONSE #1fl:
Total and per capita freshwater withdrawal by use
Precipitation measures
3
2
Hf«r1 Thtw Ir*
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
Water 6upply versus water demand index
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE #17;
Gallons of water used per person per day
3
B«l Thf«* Iw
CalOM
3
3
3
3
3
% of monitored aquifers drawn down faster than replenished
3
3
3
2
3
3
RESPONSE #19;
Per capita freshwater use per day
3
2
8*>t T*V4« Inc
3
!c«lar«
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
% of monitored aquifer drawn down faster than being replenished
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
RESPONSE #18:
Precipitation measures
3
3
B«*t thm Inc
3
antof*
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Aquifer declines
2
2
1
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
Water supply or water demand index
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
RESPONSE #20:
Counts and effects of water restrictions
2
1.5
Thft* |pc
2
2
3
3
2
2
1.5
2
Flows and level measures
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
Water supply v. water demand index
3
1.5
2
3
3
2
1.5
2
2
2
RESPONSE #21;
Water supply v. water demand index
2
2
Beat Yhroa Im
2
WlDll
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
Counts and effects of water restrictions days
3
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
1
Aquifer declines
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
RESPONS£#22: Ge*c Thron IncMcator*
-------
Aquifer declines or recovery
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
Total and per capita use • all sources
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Surface water flows
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
RESPONSE #33!
Precipitation measures
3
3
8<*M Th)r««
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Flows
3
3
3
. 3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Saltwater intrusion
2
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
RESPONSE *24:
Flows and levels measures
2
2
B*«t Thr« Ik
2
on tort
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
Total and per capita freshwater withdrawal
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
Counts and affects of water restriction days
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE W.
TIwm In?
calW ,
RESPONSE #26:
Water supply vs. water demand Index
3
3
Bui tl«M tnc
2
colors
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
Precipitation measures
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
Use of reclaimed water
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
RESPONSE #27;
Precipitation measures
2
3
tol Tfxw •«
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
Flows and levels measures
2
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
Aquifer declines
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE #28:
Water supply vs. water demand Index
3
2
BmI Thr«« tnc
2
oatof*
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
Aquifer declines
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Counts and effects of ground water
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
RESPONSE #29:
Total and per capita freshwater withdrawal
3
3
Thtfi Ir*
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Index of water supply vs. water demand
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Withdrawal/recharge rates
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE #30;
Water supply vs. water demand index
1
1
But Ihm Inc
1
icaiota
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
Total of per capita freshwater
Withdrawal by use
2
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
RESPONSE #31!
Precipitation measures
3
3
9«l Th<«« l™
3
Icatpf*
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Flows and levels measures
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fishery population surveys
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
-------
ISSUE:
AIR
SUB-ISSUE: OUTDOOR AIR
National
Data
Data
Importance
Resi4la
Undaiatand-
Availability
Tronda
Causality
Aggregation
Indicator Lists
RESPONSE#^
Days with unacceptable air quality conditions
Applicability
3
Conaiatency
2
Quality
lm
2
!<»«*«
3
2
ability
3
2
2
1
2
Population affected in areas
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
Aggregate release of hazardous air pollution in urbanized areas
3
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
RESPONSE #2:
Ambient air quality monitoring
3
3
B«i( Yhf«a Ik
3
CVtMB
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Emission reduction • cars, industries, others
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
RESPON6E S3'-
Air quality standard exceed
3
3
ftW.t.ThfM
3
icstnrs
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Ambient air quality data
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Criteria air pollutants
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
RESPONSE #4;
Air quality index
3
3
B«st TfoMlnc
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Toxic release inventory
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Percent population non-attainment area
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
RESPONSE
Odor
J
Thf»« Inc
C#t(X»
3
3
3
3
3
Visibility
3
3
3
3
3
3
Respiratory disease
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
RESPONSE «6;
Air quality standard exceedances
3
3
&•»! Tbw ln»
3
«4lOll
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
Population standard index
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
Respiratory disease
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
RESPONSE f7?
Ambient air quality standards
94ft Th>« Irw
Mtnra
3
1
2
Human health/disease
3
2
1
3
1
3
2
Exposure (population affected)
3
3
3
1
3
RESPONSE #8:
Ambient air quality standards
3
3
Bwt ThrM lm
2
catora
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
Air toxics - ambient levels
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Air toxics - emissions
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
RESPONSE
Ambient standard exeedances
3
3
Oo«»,Thtw lm
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Complaints
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
Health indices
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
RESPONSE Aid!
Ambient air quality measures
3
3
Best.ThfM Inc
2
catora
3
1
2
3
3
3
2
Toxic release inventory
3
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
2
-------
Air quality standards exceedances | 3 2| 3| 2| 2 3
2 [ 31 2 3
RESPONSE #11;
Ambient air quality criteria
3
3
B«*t Thr*« In
3
loator*
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Ambient air quality toxicity
3
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Emissions inventory
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
response #13:
Ambient air quality measures
!
3
3
Th»M ln<
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
Air quality standards exceedances
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Pollution Standard Index
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
RESPONSE #13;
TRI air releases
3
3
Beyf IIhm Irv
2
iC0tW«
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
Criteria air pollutants
3
3
2
3
3
_ 2
2
3
3
2
1
J
2
2
3
Respiratory disease rates
3
2
2
3
3
RESPONSE *14;
Air pollution index
3
2
94*1 Ttn«« trx
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
Percent of population living whore air quality standards are met
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
Air quality standards exceedances by parameter
3
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
RESPONSE #16;
Blood lead levels
3
3
B«fl ThfM In
3
OUtOf*
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Visibility
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Ground-levef ozone violations
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE #16:
Criteria air pollutants
3
3
Pwt Thj®« Int
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
Pollution Standard Index
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
Population affected living in Impacted areas (e.g N Areas)
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
RESPONSE# 17:
% of residents living where air meets govern, air quality standards
3
3
B«»l TIhm Ik
2
,Hl«a
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Annual vehicle miles traveled per person
3
3
3
3
3
3
Carbon dioxide emissions from energy use
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
RESPONSE #1?:
Percent of residents living where air meets NAAQS
3
3
QtttTtWttlfw
3
!£«<*»
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Annual vehicles miles travelled per capita
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
RESPONSE #18:
Ambient air quality measures
3
2
B«l TIwm Iik:
2
ionlorf
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Population living In non-attainment areas
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
Air quality standards exceedances
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE fZO'.
Air quality standards exceedances
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
Population living in impacted areas
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Acidified lakes
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
RESPONSE #21;
Toxic release inventory
3
2
B«l Ihm IreJ
2
loot am
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Population affected living in impacted areas
3
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
Pollutuib Standard Index
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
RESPONSE022: 8«l Tlwat Indutmi
-------
Visibility
3
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
Foliage damage
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Air quality standards exceedances
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
peSfp.NW: .W ....
Air quality standards exceedances
3
3
3
IW
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Criteria pollutant emissions
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Toxic emissions (including TRI)
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
neepoNir
Air quality standards exceedances
3
2
n«*l ItaM Ilk
2
ItldtOr*
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
Ambient air quality measures
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
- 2
JJ
3
2
2
2
Population affected living in impacted areas
2
2
2
IILUPOty-'iC fiV.
Pollutant Standard Index
3
J
Pmi thiM lin
2
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
2
Visual range measurements - visibility
2
2
2
_ 3
3
3
1
3
1
1
Enhanced arid photography of vegetation
1
1
2
3
2
2
3
1
1
RCSrON.M? Miti,
Ambient air quality measures
2
3
B»*f IhM li%
2
icistar* .
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
Visibility/smoke shade
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Criteria air pollutants
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
PfcSPurwfc-jpjt'/?
TN«. Inc
H6S>P0MSfc>28;
Stationary sources: tons per year of criteria pollutant emissions
3
Bnl ThrM ln<
3
enter* .
3
3
2
2
1
Mobile sources: percent reduction In hydrocarbons and CO
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Ambient concentration of criteria pollutants in ppm vs standards
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
Number of persons living In non-attainment areas
3
3
PMtyhtM Ir*
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Visibility
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
Criteria air pollutant trends
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE #30;
Air quality standards exceedances
3
3
Bc»t TIvh Inc
3
coltwa
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Exposure to air toxics
3
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
3
1
Exposure to odor
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
1
ReSPQN&e f3U
Acidified lakes
3
3
IMtf Tt*«« I(k
3
lector*
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Air quality standards
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
-------
ISSUE: AIR
SUB-ISSUE: INDOOR AIR
National
Dsls
Osls
linpoitsnce
Results
Undetsfend-
Avsllsbtltly
Trends
CeueWtry
Aagrooeuon
Indicator Lteti
RESPONSE
Applicability
Consistency
Quslity
Thr»< Im
ebility
RESPONSE U2-.
B«(T(um Ira
celme
RESPONSE #3;
i~
RESPONSE *4:
Percent homes above federal radon level
3
3
Best Three Inc
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Porcent worksites above federal radon level
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Percent worksites with smoking bans
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
1
RESPONSE ff,
Related respiratory disease
3
3
Th>M tnf
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
RESPONSE #0:
Number of school/homes above radon level
3
Bm( TIvm Ira
colors
2
2
3
3
3
Number of buildings containing asbestos
3
2
2
3
3
3
RESPONSE 9T'
8
-------
1 1 1
1
HliSP0N3fc.#.l V:
tt«*t I'ma Im
BE8PPNSF. flSt-
ewThfMlnc
k*(w«
Radon
2
3
but ThfM Im
3
icfliora
2
2
1
3
1
2
3
-
Radon
T'1*« t«v|
-
Reported cases of Sick Building Syndrome
(ll.'SffflNSt #1U:
Kilt I'rwt# Iik
Imlort
— -
HliW.'PNtS&'f'tt!
Population exposed to unsafe radon levels (by age group)
3
2
(Ml ThfM IIH
2
!c«u>>« ¦
3
2
ii
3
2
3
1
2
Projected lung cancer and permanent cardiocascular/respiratory
problems from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
3
1
1
3
1
2
1
3
2
2
LfllUIf
pF,SPONflE,*r«;,.r,.
0*tt ThU" li«l
'
nrspoNsr;#if)!
Number of homes/schools above Radon level
2
2
Beat I'lm In
2
iinlof*
3
3
3
2
2
2
:
2
Air quality standards exceedances
2
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
2
ncorpNftf #Z0:
Phi iImm.Iik
nrsPONRR #711
Number of homes/schools above radon level
1
1
Bmi TKim !>
1
oetma,.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ftESPONt>b£22; B •» i Tluaa liK^L'AIorfl
-------
Number of homes with radon above standards
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
VOCs
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
RCSPQNOE f 23*
Indoor toxic chemical levels
3
1
B*»t Th>M»«
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
Radon
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
RESPONSE #24:
Number of houses and schools above federal radon levels
3
3
B««t Thva* Im
2
oator*
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE
T(hm )r>d
RESPONSE #26;
Radon levels
2
2
PatlTfewativ
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
Asbestos levels
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Formaldehyde levels
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE «7;
04ft l
-------
ISSUE:
WASTE
SUB-ISSUE: SOLID WASTE
National
Data
Data
Importance
Roaulta
Underatand-
Availability
Tranda
Cauaalily
AoortQatlon
Indicator Lists
RE9P9N$e.#1i.
Amounts generated
Applicability
3
Conaiatancy
2
Quality
B»«t ThtM |r*d
1
3
2
ability
3
2
2
2
2
Amounts recycled
3
1
1
3
2
3
i
2
2
Remaining disposal capacity
3
1
1
2
2
2
i
2
2
RESPONSE #2:
Municipal solid waste generated
3
2
Itwl Thm Iw
2
iootoia
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Municipal solid waste disposed of
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Municipal solid waste pounds recycled
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
RESPONSE
Pounds of total waste stream
3
2
V<*tT*>r4a ln<
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
Recycling participation rate
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
Availability of solid waste sites
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
RESPONSE #4;
Percent of waste stream recycled
3
2
BhI TIkM Ira
2
fmlora
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Tons of solid waste per capita per year
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
Solid waste disposal by method
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE #5!
Landfills causing water pollution
2
2
ThtM It*
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
Total 6olid waste generated
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
RESPONSE #0:
Solid waste generated
3
3
Bol IIvm Inc
3
c«lora
2
1
3
2
3
3
3
Solid waste disposal by method
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
Landfills associated with water pollution
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
RESPONSE #7!
Capacity of solid waste facilities
2
M T*w#a Iru
iCAtofa
3
2
3
2
2
3
Landfills (water pollution)
1
1
1
3
2
3
3
3
2
Recycling
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
REsP6Ns£«&t
Solid waste generated
3
3
But fhraa lm
3
eatofa
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
Landfills associated with pollution
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
Solid waste disposal by method
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
RE$PONS£ *9;
Compliance with Subtitle 0
2
2
(Uxt Tlww It*
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
Compliance/establishment with waste reduction
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
Compliance/establishment toxicity reduction
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
RESPONSE #10:
Total/percentage of solid waste disposal ¦ method
2
2
Beat thm Ik
2
CBlMI
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
Landfills associated with water pollution
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
2
3
3
-------
Recycling participation 3
1| 21 31 1 31 11 3 11 3
RESPONSE #11:
Solid waste generated total amount and per capita by type
3
1
B**t TIvmIik!
1
OQtOft
3
2
3
1
2
2
3
Recycling, total amount and per capita by type
3
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
Status of facilities (permit & compliance status, remain, capacity)
2
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
RESPONSE #12:
Solid waste generated
3
2
PMtThtM Ind
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
Landfills associated with water pollution
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
Total and percents of solid waste disposal
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE 413;
Recycling participation
3
2
Bui YtwAft liv
2
icvlora
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
Recycling market development
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
RESPONSE #14;
Pounds of solid waste generated per capita per year
3
1
t ItK
1
3
2
3
2
2
I'llMtll.l.'ll.lll-
3
3
Percent of solid waste recycled per capita per year
3
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
Recycling participation
3
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
RESPONSE #16:
Solid waste generatud
3
3
b«t ThrM Ira
3
oatert
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Landfills associated with water pollution
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Solid waste disposal method
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
RESPONSE 11$':
Total and percentages of solid waste disposal by method
3
2
e«t Thw Int
2
2
3
2
1
3
1
3
2
2
Solid wa6te generated, total amount and per capita by type
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
RESPONSE #17;
Pounds/person of municipal solid waste produced not recycled
3
2
B«»t Tlv« Ik
2
c«tora
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
- -¦ - ¦ ¦ - —
RESPONSE #19!
Pounds per capita of municipal solid waste that is not recyclud
3
1.6
B«»t Tl*«« Int
2
Mi»r#
3
2
3
2 5
2
3
3
RESPONSE #19:
Amount of solid waste generated
2
1
B««t ThiM lix
1
qatort
2
2
2
2
3
1
i
1
2
2
Recycling total - amount, per capita
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
RESPONSE #Jtqt
Solid waste generatud
Status of solid wasto facilitius
3
1
ThtM Int
1
i
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
2
2
Total percentages of solid waste disposal
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE #21;
Total and percent of solid waste disposal by method
3
2
Be»l Ytvwi In
2
.patof*
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
Recycling participation
3
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
3
2
Status of solid waste facilities
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
RESPONSES22: B«l ThfM Imluiaii
-------
Solid waEte generated, per capita
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
Number of solid waste sites with environmental problems
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
RESPONSE #«}
Disposal volume
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
Diversion from landfill (includes recycling)
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
Contaminated sites
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
RESPONSE #24;
Status of solid waste facilities (remaining capacity, facilities)
3
2
Bwl Thru Int
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
Landfills associated with water pollution
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
Recycling, total amount and per capita
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE
Amount of solid waste generated
3
3
tott.Tts** ini
1
i
3
3
3
Source reduction
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
Amount of solid waste recycled
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE #30; 1 " ""
Solid waste 0unera total amount and per capita by type
3
2
6«*t Thr«t In
1
cetera
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
Landfills associate^ w,th water pollution
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
RESPONSE #31}
Thrw ¦<*
fmp.
-------
ISSUE: WASTE |
SUB-ISSUE: HAZARDOUS WASTE
National
Data
Data
Importanca
Results
Understand-
Availability
Trends
Causality
Aggregation
Indicator Lbta
RESPONSE #1:
Amountb generated
Applicability
3
Consistency
2
Quality
BhI threa In
2
icatora
3
2
ably
2
2
2
2
2
Amounts disposed
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Numbers of generators
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
RESPONSE #2;
Toxic release Inventory
3
3
Best 7hi« Inc
2
l"«s Im
colors
3
2
3
2
3
3
Sites with confirmed soil or water contamination
3
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
2
RESPONSE #8;
Hazardous waste generated
3
3
Bwt Three IM
3
OOtOft
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
Hazardous waste management by type
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
Amount of hazardous waste material used
3
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
RESPONSES;
Compliance with RCRA
2
2
PM1 ThfM It*
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of NPL /listed sites
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
SAPA Title III
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE #10;
Hazardous waste management by type
3
2
Btn( Yhraa Ini
2
icotojs
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
Sites with confirmed soil/water contamination
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
Hazardous waste generated
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
-------
RESPONSE *11:
Waste generated - amounts and type
BMt tltfH Ik
icatora
Waste management by type
Final disposition , including if wastes are recycled
RESPONSE #12;
Hazardous waste generated
3
2
B«»t Ind
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
Hazardous waste management, etc.
Totals and percents of 6olid waste disposal
RESPONSE *13;
TRI releases to land
3
3
8«*t ThrM Inti
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
Pollution prevention
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
Recycling/market development
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
RESPONSE #14;
Pounds of hazardous waste generated per year (total & per cap)
3
t
Bwi TtifM Im
2
ktnlOft
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
Percent of hazardous waste contaminated sites cleaned or being
cleaned up
3
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE 416:
Hazardous waste generated
3
3
Bhi tin. Inc
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Sites with confirmed contamination
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
TRI
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE *1 a;
Hazardous waste generated (total amount, per capita by source)
3
2
B«M Thr«« Inc
2
Ml«»
2
1
3
2
3
1
2
Toxic release inventory
Acres contaminated soil or water (confirmed)
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
RESPONSE *17;
0 sites w/ cnfrm soil/ wtr contam pend. action to redc/remv contam
3
2
Bnt I'hfoo Inc
' • j
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Total hazardous waste produced/person
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Pounds of toxic substances released into environment
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
RESPONSE! 18*.
Pounds of TRI substances released into environment
3
3
Bwt Ttww Im
2.5
3
2
3
3
2
1
3
Sites with confirmed soil/water contamination and clean up status
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
Per capita hazardous waste generated
3
2
2 5
3
2
3
3
2
1
3
RESPONSE #19:
Sites with confirmed soil or water contamination
2
1
BmI Tlvtf Im
1
icatora
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
Hazardous waste sites by type, etc.
2
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
RESPONSE #20;
Hazardous waste generated
3
1.5
Bot Ttw«* Im
ij}
2
......
2
2
3
2
2.5
~ 3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
Toxics Release Inventory
Sites with confirmed contamination
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
RESPONSE f?l!
Hazardous waste generated
3
2
B«st fhiH Inc
2
2
C«(Of»
2
2
1
i
2
]
2
J J
2
1
2
1
Hazardous waste managemtmt by type, strategy and dispobitlon
2
2
1
1
RE$PONSE#22:
Toxics Release Inventory [ 3
Ro«t Tbrtw IrKtoau** •
2| ll 2 \ 2| 2| 2l 2l 1
2
-------
Sites with contamination
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
RESPONSE #23:
Disposal volume
3
3
B«at Thi*« Ind
1
IcAtorv
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
Pollution prevention/source reduction
3
3
1
3
1
3
2
2
1
3
Contaminated site occurrence
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
RESPONSE #24i
Hazardous waste generated (total amount/capita)
3
3
6*41 TIwm 11*
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
3
Toxic Release Inventory
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
Hazardous waste management by type
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
1
3
RESPONSE #2G:
Amount of hazardous waste generated
3
3
Dili TIvm Irv
3
iG0lWN
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Amount of hazardous waste shipped off site
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Number of hazardous waste enforcement actions
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
2
2
3
RC3P0NSG*2C;
Toxic Release Inventory
3
3
0«M
3
IMIHH
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
Hazardous waste generated vs. recycledAreated
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
Number of known contaminated sites
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE #27;
Bnl TIvm Inc
c«tora
RESPONSE #28;
0 of sites w/confirmed soil, air, groundwater, surface water contam
3
2
Rett Thrw Iik
2
««U»«
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number of people moved to alternative water supply
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Percent of facilities wtlh leak prevention
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
1.6
3
RCCrONSC 0ZO:
Hazardous wabte generation rate, total and per capita
3
3
Bhi Thrtf |ru
3
CSIUlf
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Hazardous waste management by type
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Hazardous waste recycling
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
R,ESP6N$£tf3ti:i
Contaminated properties IDs
3
1
B
-------
ISSUE: NATURAL RESOURCES
SUB-ISSUE: LAND
National
Data
Data
Importance
Reiulta
Undaratand-
Availability
Trenda
Causality
Agorogation
Indicator Lb la
RESPONSE #1.'
Area affected by contaminated sites
Applicability
3
Conaiatency
2
Quality
2
2
2
ability
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE M2:
Demography measures
3
3
Seat Thiaa t»
2
icwtoia
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Total amount and change in wetlands
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
Land cover by category
3
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
RESPONSE.#?;
Land cover by category
3
3
T^«"
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
Change in significant habitat
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Amount of protected lands
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE #4:
Land use by category
3
3
Baat Thraa In
3
oatpra''
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
Rate of change by category
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
Percent of protected lands
RESPONSE #5;
Total amount of undisturbed land
3
2
6*at ThfW IlK
2
wwa .
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Total wetlands
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Total grasslands
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
RESPONSE /»6:
Amount and change rate of significant habitat
3
S«at Thrti Iw
ootola
3
3
3
2
2
2
Land use by category
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
Demographic measures
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
RESPONSE $7 i
Land cover by category habitats
3
3
9«< Thr«« Irx
3
WOT
1
2
3
1
1
3
RESPONSE <8:
fast ftiraa Ind
Icalor*
RESPONSE
Requirements for best management practices
2
1
e«4t Th»M lr*
1
oatcxa
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
Soil lo66 per acre
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
Visibility
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
RESPONSE #10:
Land use by category
3
3
Beat Thr»a Itv
3
calwf
2
^ 1
2
3
3
3
1
3
Land cover by category
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-------
Total amount and change in wetlands | 3| 2| 2| 3| 3| 3| 2| 2| 3 2
RESPONSE *11:
B**t Tlirro Inc
GOlQrt
RESPONSE *12:
Land use by category
3
2
Phi 1i*
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
Land cover by category
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
Amount and change rate of significant habitat
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
RESPONSE S13:
Land use
3
2
BqM Th« IrK
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
Demographic measures
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
Habitat destruction/restoration
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
RESPONSE #14;
Total and percent changes In wetlands
3
1
e«»t ti»«» t™
i
WW
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Total and percent chanqes In estuaries
2
1
i
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Total and percent changes In agricultural land
3
1
i
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE «16:
Wetlands acreage
2
3
B»*t Ttww Int
3
lie (or*
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Demography measures
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Significant habitat
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE 0 IB!
Demography measures (total population per acre...comparison)
31 3
PM1 TtKM If*!
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
Amount and change rate of significant habitat
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
Land cover hy category
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
RESPONSE *17;
Percent foreBt land In 1970 Glill available for foreBt ubb
2
2
Butt thf«* ln»
2
iC4tO»
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Percent of counties with sustainable cropland erosion rates
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Percent of wetlands in 'X' year that are Gtill wetlands
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
RESPONSE «18:
Percent of forest land In 1970 still available for forest use
2
1
Tfcrw l«
2
teftotp '
3
2
3
1.5
1.6
2
3
Percent of counties with sustainable cropland
2
2
2 5
1.5
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
Percent of wellands in °X' year that are still wetlands
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2.5
3
RESPONSE *18;
Land cover by calegory
3
1
Gwt T|(hI
1
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
Amount and change of significant habitat
3
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
3
2
Demography measures
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
RESPONSE #20! ;
Amount/percentage of protected lands
2
1
TftfM (f*
2
fcputrt
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
Amount/change rate of significant habitat
2
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
1
-
3
2
2
Total amount and change in wellands
3
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE 421:
Total amount and change In wetlands
2
1
Bwl Thna Irvj
1
~ 1_
lcalU7»
2
2
1
i
1
] 1
1
1
1
1
Amount and change rate in significant habitat
2
1
1^
1
1
1
RESPON$f;ff?2;
-------
Land cover bv category
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
Amount and changa of habitat
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
Demographics
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
RESPONSE #23; " . •
Land use
3
3
B4»t Thr«t) If*
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Demography
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Wetlands
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE #24:
Land use by category
3
2
Btll TiHH fix
3
iynlwt
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
Land cover by category
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
Amount and change rate of significant habitat
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE #26; .
Number of acres of wetland classified
3
3
Bwl Th/*« ln
-------
ISSUE: NATURAL RESOURCES
SUB-ISSUE: BIOTA
National
Data
Data
Importanca
RoauJta
Undoratand-
Availability
Tranda
Causality
A£gr«g«tion
Indlootor Lists
RESPONSE «1:
Status of fi6h advisories
Applicability
2
Conslatancy
2
Quality
fhrti In*
2
lea ton
2
3
abillty
2
2
2
3
2
RESPONSE #2;
Statusof threatned/endgd/special concern wildlife and plant 6pec.
3
1
B*«t Tlw«» Im
1
k»U>r«
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
Chngs in quality of ecosys existing to supp healthy/diverse spcs
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
RESPONSE «3:
Change In habitat
3
1
Baat ThfM Inc
2
csloif
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
Biological diversity of native species
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
Status of indicator species
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
RESPONSE <4:
Aquatic IBI
2
2
84*1 TIh«« tn<
2
Union
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
Terrestrial IBI
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
Index of exotic species
3
1
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
2
RESPONSE J»B:
Rate of species extinction
3
3
B««t Thraa Irx
3
kMtqn
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Percent of 6pecies endangered
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
Percent of species threatened
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
RESPONSE #6:
Status of threatened and endangered species
3
" - •
8*«t Thiaa Iik
UtHtor*
3
3
3
3
3
3
Populations of key species
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
Change in habitat
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE tl;
^eat Throa Ira
icalora
RESPONSE 48;
Biological integrity of plant and animal communities from
Bait Yhrsa Ire
loSldtl
typical habitats in each ecoregion
3
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
RESPONSE »9;
Endangered/threatened species
3
3
Tt*«« I'x
3
lp»»
-------
RESPONSE #11:
B*at YIvh Ira
icatoia
RESPONSE #12; ,
Change in habitat by type and quality
3
2
B«M traj
2
,COI«»
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
Status of threatened and endangered species
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Populations of key species
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
RESPONSE #13:
Habitat destruction/restoration
3
2
fie*! Thr» IM
2
Icatprt
2
3
2
1
3
2
3
Plant and animal diversity
3
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
3
Toxic accumulation (food chain)
3
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
3
RESPONSE #14! ..
Diversity of key communities
2
1
Thi*« Inti
1
ioatt**
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
Percent change in ecosystem key species
3
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
2
2
Bioaccumulation - food weh
3
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
RESPONSE #16:.
Physical and reproductive health
3
3
B*at Tlvaf Ik
3
calOfa
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Species diversity
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Habitat measures
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE #16;
B«H Th«l IrK
K>lm»
RESPONSE *17;
Percent of 'X' year critical habitat still available
3
1
Bttt fhr«« Inc
1
catort
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
# of native plant/fish/wildlife sps that are threatnd/endngrd/extlnct
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
% of natural salmon runs whose numbers are stable or Increasing
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
RESPONSE #18:
Number/type of species threatened/endangered/extinct
3
2.5
B*«tThrM lm
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
Percent of 'X' year priority habitat still available
3
1
1.5
3
3
2
1.5
1
2
3
Pop. of key spocies (o g. % of natl salmon runs stable or increas)
2.5
2
2
3
2.5
3
2
2
1.5
3
RESPONSE #19:
Population of key species
3
1
But thf«« Ik
1
gators
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
Toxic accumulation
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
Change In habitat by type
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
2
RESPONSE #20;
Plant and animal species diversity
2
1
B«< TN«* tnc
1
o»i0r»
3
3
2
1
3
2
2
Physical/reproductive health
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
Change in habitat by type and quality
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE #81
Plant and animal spuciu6 diversity
2
1
Bail TIum Inc
1
catora
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Change in habitat by type and quality
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE#22i. TtaMfntfooton
Plant and animal species diversity I l| l| l| 3[ 21 1| l| 2I l| 1
-------
Total habitat
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
RESPONSE #23:
Endangered species
3
3
Best ThrM IM
2
Icaton
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
Key species populations
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
Biodiversity
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
RESPONSE #24;
Population fo key species
2
2
B««t TtaM Ind
2
ktauxt
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
Total habitat
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
Change in habitat
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
RESPONSE #25:
Population of key species
3
3
Best Thf«ft Ire
3
icttlofa
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Physical and reproductive health of selected wildlife
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
Toxic accumulation in flesh
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
RESPONSE #26;
Population of threatened and endangered species
3
3
B«t Tlx en Ik
2
CflltMP
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Public acquisition of important habitat
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
RESPONSE #27"
Population of key species
3
3
B«*t Tlwifl lot
3
catofi
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Change in habitat by type and quality
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
RESPONSE #28;
Contaminant
3
2
Bwt Jhrw lr*
2
on too
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
Species richness
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
Habitat change
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
RESPONSE #29:
Decline, recovery of threatened/endangered species
3
3
But Thm Ik
3
kc«l(Ka
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Wildlife and habitat diversity
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
Occurence/absence of keystone species
3
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
3
2
RESPONSE #30:
Protected open space (in acres)
3
2
T'mco Inc
3
catorw
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Outdoor recreation demand/supply (usage of public facilities)
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.5
3
3
Physical and reproductive health of Ospreys
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
RESPONSE #31:
Change in habitat (type and quality)
3] 2
Beat Ttv« Inc
2
color*.
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Population changes in key species
3 1
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
Species diversity (plant and animal)
3| 1
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
-------
Summary of the
Homework Assignment
In order to save valuable conference time and to give conference attendees a head start in thinking
about environmental indicators, each of the supported state participants was asked to complete a
homework assignment. The purpose of the assignment was to have each respondent review the
work that had been accomplished at the New Jersey and Florida regional conferences and to
identify in each of eight substantive environmental areas their top three candidate indicators as well
as to list any other indicators concerning that area that they believed had merit. The areas are:
Water Air Quality Waste Natural Resources
. Water Quality • Outdoor Air • Solid Waste • Land
• Water • Indoor Air • Hazardous • Biota
Quantity Waste
By the cutoff date responses had been received from 30 individuals representing more than half of
the states. For the purposes of this summary a brief analysis was performed on the top three
choices of each of the respondents. What follows is a listing by area of the types of indicators that
emerged in each group. The list reflects an ordered account of indicator types based on the
frequency that each indicator was mentioned as a top three choice across all 30 responses. The
number in parentheses following each indicator title represents the number of times respondents
identified that indicator as a top three choice. With the single exception of indoor air, indicators
receiving a single vote were not included.
This summary represents only a partial analysis of this information and is intended only to provide
an overview and executive review of the homework. As each of the groups goes through its
process of identifying the final candidate core indicators list, additional data from the homework
assignment will be available, including information concerning the indicator selection criteria
scoring.
Participants should keep in mind that the lists found in the following pages do not, in most cases,
contain technically correct indicators, but instead identify a type of indicator that respondents think
they would like to see developed or represent a source of data from which a technically correct
indicator can be developed. A part of the activities of the workgroups will involve moving these
classifications of indicator types closer to specific, technically correct indicators.
Water Quality
The water quality issue produced the greatest diversity of candidate indicators (13) and the lowest
level of unanimity (the top choices received support on only a third of the responses). Indicator
classes include:
• Designated Use Attainment (10)
o Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) violations for drinking water (10)
131
-------
• Contaminated groundwater sites (10)
• Exceedances of surface water quality standards (8)
• Bcnthic and fish abundance (8)
• Exceedances of ground water quality standards (6)
• Fish advisories (6)
• Biological diversity (5)
• River and streams meeting surface water quality standards (4)
• Shellfish closings (4)
• Populations served by systems with MCL violations (4)
• Water Quality Index (3)
• Drinking water advisories (2)
Water Quantity
• Aquifer declines (13)
• Withdrawal by use (USGS data) (11)
• Water demand/supply ratio or index (11)
• Water restriction days (8)
» Flows and levels (8)
• Precipitation (6)
• Use of reclaimed water (2)
• Inter basin transfers of water (2)
Indoor Air
Indoor air is an area where the lack of data will, at least, initially restrict the development of the
range of indicators required to measure progress in this area. Neither the New Jersey nor Florida
conferences produced much in the way of candidate indicators and the results of the homework
demonstrated a similar scarcity. Candidate indicators identified include:
. Number of sites above the federal radon level (12)
® Incidence of respiratory disease (4)
• Asbestos (2)
• Complaints (2)
e Incidence of "sick building syndrome" (1)
132
-------
Outdoor Air
The requirements of the federal Clean Air Act have caused a variety of good quality data sets to be
created dealing with this issue and this is reflected in the responses. Indicator classes identified
include:
• Ambient air quality (13)
• Air quality standards exceedances (12)
• Population affected by air quality violations (12)
• Criteria air pollutant measures (7)
• Incidence of air-related human health and disease (6)
• Visibility (6)
• Pollution Standards Index (6)
• Emissions (5)
• TRI releases (4)
• Vehicle miles traveled (2)
Solid Waste
Solid waste is the most compact of all of the issues, containing the highest degree of agreement on
the candidate core indicator types. They include:
• Solid waste disposition (recycle, incineration, landfill) (25)
• Solid waste generated (total and per capita) (20)
• Landfills associated with water pollution (10)
• Regulatory status of landfills (6)
Landfill capacity (4)
Hazardous Waste
Like the solid waste issue, candidate indicators for hazardous waste tend to mirror data available
from several federal programs. They include:
• Hazardous waste generation (21)
• Sites contaminated by hazardous waste (14)
133
-------
• Toxic releases (TRI data) (11)
• Hazardous waste managed by type (7)
« Hazardous waste recycled (6)
• Hazardous waste disposition by type (4)
• Number of hazardous waste generators (2)
Land
Land, as an element of natural resources, produced a very compact group that had a high degree of
agreement among the respondents. Land candidate indicators include:
• Land use/cover (amount and rate of change) (21)
• Wildlife habitat (amount and change) (13)
• Wetlands (amount and change) (12)
e Demography (population) (11)
• Amount of protected lands (6)
Biota
The number of biota candidates were similarly few in number and the counts were evenly spread.
Candidate indicator types included:
Habitat (amount and change) (18)
Biodiversity (14)
Endangered, threatened and species of special concern (12)
Populations of key species (12)
Bioaccumulation (5)
134
-------
Appendix 8;
^participant 3ist
_ok»
-------
136
-------
1994 Environmental Goals and Indicators Conference
FINAL PARTICIPANT LIST
Daniel Abbasi
Special Assistant
USEPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-4332
202/260-0275 - FAX
Nicholas Achee
LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
504/765-0720
504/765-0742 - FAX
Rae Adams
Travel Coordinator/Conference
Registrar
Florida Center for Public Management
118 N. Woodward Ave.
Tallahassee, FL 32306 4025
904/921-2773
904/487-4169 - FAX
Floyd Adamsen
Soil Scientist
USDA, ARS
4331 E. Broadway Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85040
602/379-4356
602/379-4355 - FAX
Tracey Alfredson
Office of Solid Waste
USEPA (5305)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-8614
202/260-0284 - FAX
Derry Allen
Director, OSPED
USEPA (2161)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, EXT 20460
202/260-4030
202/260-0275 - FAX
H. Kay Austin
USEPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-3927
202/260-4346 - FAX
Lina Balluz
Environmental Scientist
LA Dept. of Health
234 Loyola Ave., Ste. 620
Baton Rouge, LA 70112
504/563-5967
504/568-7035 - FAX
Valerie Barber
Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe
Route 2, Box 2700
Hayward, W154843
Russ Barnett
Deputy Commissioner
Dept. for Environmental Protection
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
502/564-2150
502/564-4245 - FAX
Phil Bass
Chief, Field Services
Dept. of Environmental Quality
P O Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289
601/961-5143
601/354-6612 - FAX
Sue Battle
Dep. Dir., Policy & Ping
Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Hwy.
Baltimore, MD 21230
410/631-3114
410/631-3936-FAX
Nancy Beach
Environmental Specialist
USEPA (2162)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-2483
202/260-4903 - FAX
David Bedan
Sr. Policy Planner
Dept. of Natural Resources
P O Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314/751-4533
314/751-9277 - FAX
Steve Beiber
Environmental Specialist
Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Hwy.
Baltimore, MD 21224
410/631-3681
410/631-3873-FAX
Gil Bergquist
Senior Management Consultant
Florida Center for Public Management
118 N. Woodward Ave.
Tallahassee, FL 32306 4025
904/922-8042
904/487-4169 - FAX
Jim Bernard
Director, Natural Res. Ping.
ME State Planning Office
184 State Street
Augusta, ME 04333
207/287-3261
207/287-6489 - FAX
Sherry Bishko
Program Analyst
USEPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10987
212/264-5316
212/264-9695 - FAX
William D. Brannon
Assistant Chief
Div. of Environmental Protection
10 McJunkin Rd.
Nitro, WV 25143 2506
304/759-0515
304/759-0526 - FAX
Henry Brubakcr
Program Analyst
USEPA, Region III
841 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215/597-3735
215/597-1203-FAX
Barry Burgan
USEPA (4503-F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-7060
202/260-1997 - FAX
137
-------
Mary Carter
Chief, PPAS
USEPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota
Kansas City, KS 66101
913/551-7350
913/551-7863 - FAX
Dick Cassat
Chief
Dept. of Pollution Control & Ecology
8001 National Dr.
Little Rock, AR 72209
501/570-2131
501/562-0297 - FAX
Jean Circiello
Management Analyst
USEPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/744-1628
415/744-1678-FAX
Edward Cole
Assistant Commissioner
Dept. of Environment & Conservation
401 Church Street, 21st Floor
Nashville, TN 37242 0435
615/532-0103
615/532-0120-FAX
Michael Collins
Senior Planner
Thomas Jefferson Ping. District
413 E. Market St., Ste. 10
Charlottesville, VA 22401
804/972-1720
804/972-1719-FAX
George Constantz
Coordinator, Watershed Cons.
WV Div. of Natural Resources
P O Box 67
Elkins, WV 26241
304/637-0245
304/637-0250 - FAX
Bob Cooner
Environmental Manager
Dept. of Environmental Management
1751 Congressman Dickenson Dr.
Montgomery, AL 36130
205/260-2700
205/272-8131 - FAX
Robert Cooper
Planning Unit Chief
USEPA, Region IV
345 Courtyard St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30065
404/347-7109
404/347-1043 - FAX
Joyce Crosson
Acting Branch Chief
USEPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206/553-4029
206/553-6647 - FAX
Robert Currie
Dir., Strategic Ping & Mgmt.
USEPA (2162)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-4900
202/260-4903 - FAX
John Dabuliewicz
Assistant Commissioner
New Hampshire DES
6 Hazen Dr.
Concord, NH 03301
603/271-3503
603/271-2867 - FAX
Patrick DeVillier
LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
504/765-0720
504/765-0742 - FAX
Edward Delhagen
Policy Associate
Northeast Center for Comparative
Risk
P O Box 96
South Royalton, VT 05068
802/763-8303
802/763-3217 -FAX
Kim Devon aid
USEPA (2162)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, EXT 20460
202/260-4900
202/260-4903 - FAX
Rebecca Dils
Analyst
USEPA, OPPE
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-2733
202/260-2704 - FAX
Lee Doggett
Project Director
Casco Bay Estuary Project
312 Canco Road
Portland, ME 04103 1075
207/828-1043
207/828-1043 - FAX
William Eberle
Environmental Engineer 3
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518/457-2480
518/457-2570 - FAX
Tom Ellerhoff
Admin. Officer
Environmental Sciences Div.
PO Box 20091
Helena, MT 59620 0901
406/444-3948
406/444-1374 - FAX
Marilyn Elliott
Director, Permits & Scrv.
Dept. of Environmental Management
1751 Congressman Dickenson Dr.
Montgomery, AL 36130
205/271-7715
205/271-7950 - FAX
Jane Ephremides
Director, RMES
USEPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-5835
202/260-1156-FAX
David Evans
Senior Analyst
Public Health Service
2355 Arrow Cir.
Atlanta, GA 30341
404/639-0500
404/639-0522 - FAX
138
-------
Patrick Felling
Strategic Ping. Coord.
Dept. of Health
P 0 Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
808/586-4337
808/586-4370 - FAX
A1 Fenedick
USEPA, Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
312/886-6872
312/-FAX
Drew Fillingame
Mgr. Environmental Services
CITGO Petroleum Corp.
4401 LA Hwy. 108
Lake Charles, LA 70602
318/497-6318
318/497-6010-FAX
Anne Forbes
Special Assistant
Dept. of Natural Resources
P O Box 7921
Madison, WI 53715
608/267-7622
608/264-6293 - FAX
Dr. Robert L. Ford
Director
CEES, Southern University
P O Box 9764
Baton Rouge, LA 70813
504/771-4724
504/77 M722-FAX
Nancy Fouser
KY Natural Resources Env. Cabinet
Capital Plaza Tower
Frankfort, KY 40601
502/564-7320
502/564-2043 - FAX
Joe Francis
Assistant Director
Dept. of Environmental Quality
P O Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
402/471-0001
402/471-2909 - FAX
Jim Friloux
Program Manager
Dept. of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
504/765-0720
504/765-0742 - FAX
Larry Gales
Director, Support Service
Dept. of Environmental Quality
1000 NE 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117 1212
405/271-8063
405/221-2339 - FAX
Joanna Gardner
LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
504/765-0720
504/765-0742 - FAX
Patrick Garvey
Deputy Director, PSD
USEPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
703/235-5571
703/557-3186 - FAX
Richard Gates
Lab Administrator
Dept. of Environmental Quality
1712 SW Eleventh
Portland, OR 97201
503/229-5983
503/229-6924-FAX
John Glenn
Dept. of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
504/765-0249
504/765-0299-FAX
Ann Glumac
Deputy Commissioner
Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd.
Minneapolis, MN 55155
612/296-6300
612/297-8626 - FAX
Shashi Goel
Program Planner
Dept. of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Bldg.
DesMoines, IA 50319
515/281-8518
515/281-6794-FAX
Wendy Gordon
Project Manager
Texas Natural Res. Conservation
Comm.
P O Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711 3087
512/463-8448
512/475-2454 - FAX
Robert Griffith
Chief, Strategic Planning
Dept. of Administration
One Capitol Hill
Providence, RI02908
401/277-1220
401/277-2083 - FAX
Larry Gross
Director
Florida Center for Public Management
118 N. Woodward Ave.
Tallahassee, FL 32306 4025
904/644-6460
904/644-0152 - FAX
Debra Gutenson
Analyst
USEPA, OPPE
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-2733
202/260-2704 - FAX
Otto Gutenson
Ecologist
USEPA/OPPE (2162)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-4909
202/260-4903 - FAX
Dr. Anna Hackcnbracht
Chief, Ping & Analysis
USEPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/744-1634
415/744-1678-FAX
139
-------
JauNae Hanger
Executive Assistant
Dept. of Environmental Management
100 N. Senate. IGNC 1301
Indianapolis, IN 48206
317/233-3043
317/232-8564 -FAX
Stephen Hanna
Asst. for Env. Info.
CA Environmental Protection Agency
555 Capital Mall, Ste. 235
Sacramento, CA 95814
916/324-9924
916/322-6005 - FAX
Russell Harding
Deputy Director
Dept. of Natural Resources
530 W. Allegen Street
Lansing, MI 48933
517/373-7917
517/335-4242 - FAX
Gale Harms
Policy Analyst
NM Environment Department
1190 Saint Francis
Santa Fe, NM 87503
505/827-0029
505/827-0045 - FAX
Sallyanne Harper
Dep. Asst. Admin, for Finance
USEPA
401 M Street, SW (PM-208)
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-4600
202/260-0835 - FAX
A beer Hashem
Chief, Chemical Control
USEPA, Region V
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
312/886-1331
312/353-4342-FAX
Dennis Heitmann
Supervisor, Ground Water Sec.
Dept. of Environmental Quality
P O Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509 8922
402/471-0096
402/471-2909 - FAX
Jerry Hill
Bureau Director
Dept. of Health
4815 W. Markham, Slot 10
Little Rock, AR 72205
501/661-2574
501/661-2468 - FAX
Robert Hill, Esq.
CEES, Southern University
P O Box 9764
Baton Rouge, LA 70813
504/771-4724
504/771-4722 - FAX
Linda Himmelbauer
Div. of Environmental Quality
410 Willoughby Ave., Ste. 105
Juneau, AK 99801 1795
907/465-5260
907/465-5274 - FAX
Jim Home
USEPA, Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-5802
202/260-1040 - FAX
Gary Hughes
Asst to Deputy Director
Dept. of Natural Resources
530 W. Allegen Street
Lansing, MI 48933
517/373-7917
517/335-4242 - FAX
Susan Hutcherson
Program Analyst
USEPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206/553-2852
206/553-8509 - FAX
Debbie Ingram
USEPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-8017
202/260-6941 - FAX
Bill Jarocki
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, ID 83706 1290
208/334-5860
208/334-0417 - FAX
Bernard Johnson
Special Assistant
Agency for Natural Resources
103 South Main St.
Waterbury, VT 05671
802/241-3600
802/244-1137-FAX
Philip Johnson
Monitoring Coordinator
USEPA, Region VIII
999 18th Street, Ste. 500
Denver, CO 80202
303/293-1570
303/294-1198 -FAX
Ken Jones
Acting Director
Northeast Center for Comparative
Risk
P O Box 96
South Royalton, VT 05068
802/763-8303
802/763-3217-FAX
Greene Jones
Director, Env. Serv. Div.
USEPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215/597-7478
215/547-7406-FAX
Charles Jones
Director, Div. of Env.
Dept. of Health & Environment
Forbes Field. Bldg. 740
Topeka, KS 66620
913/296-1535
913/296-8464 - FAX
Michael Kakuk
Staff Attorney
Environmental Quality Council
Capitol Station
Helena, MT 59620
406/444-3742
406/444-3036 - FAX
Roger Kanerva
Env. Policy Advisor
IL Environmental Protection Agency
P O Box 19278
Springfield, IL 62794 9278
217/785-5735
217/782-9039 - FAX
140
-------
Jacques Kapuscinski
Management Analyst
USEPA, Office of Info. Res. Mgmt.
401 M Street, SW 3405R
Washington, DC 20460
703/235-5626
703/557-3186-FAX
Pam Kaster
President
Citizens for a Clean Environment
12322 N. Lakeview Dr.
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
504/766-3232
504/767-1550 - FAX
Tim Keeney
Commissioner
DepL of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06102 5127
203/566-2110
203/566-7932 - FAX
Ralph Keiffer
A/V & Speaker Chairman
Florida Center for Public Management
118 N. Woodward Ave.
Tallahassee, FL 32306 4025
904/487-6612
904/487-4169 - FAX
Joyce Kelly
(no address available)
Eddlemon Kendra
Ecologist
OK Conservation Commission
2800 N. Lincoln, Ste. 160
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
405/581-8384
405/521-6686 - FAX
Douglas Kievit-Kylar
Admin. Assistant II
Agency for Natural Resources
103 South Main St.
Waterbury, VT 05671 301
802/241-3888
802/244-1102-FAX
Robert King
Deputy Director
Dept. of Health & Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803/734-5360
803/734-5407 - FAX
Katrina Kipp
Program Analyst
USEPA, Region I
JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
617/565-3696
617/565-3346 - FAX
William Kirk
Acting Director
Advanced Science & Res. Team, PA
DER
P O Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA 17105
717/783-9730
717/787-1904-FAX
A1 Knecht
LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
504/765-0720
504/765-0742 - FAX
Art Koines
Deputy Director, OSPED
USEPA (2161)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-4030
202/260-0275 - FAX
Randy Kreil
Natural Res. Biologist
ND Game & Fish Dept.
100 N. Bismarck Exp.
Bismarck, ND 58501
701/221-6321
701/221-6352-FAX
Ronald Kreizenbeck
ESD Division Director
USEPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206/553-1265
206/553-0118-FAX
William Kucharski
Secretary
DepL of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
504/765-0639
504/765-0746 - FAX
Tony Lafferty
Environmental Specialist
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
1800 Watermark Dr., DSW
Columbus, OH 43266
614/644-2159
614/644-2329 - FAX
Mark Lawrenceson
Nat. Res. Program Scientist
DepL of Environment & Natural
Resources
523 E. Capitol Street
Pierre, SD 57501 3181
605/773-3996
605/773-6035 - FAX
Terry Lee
Water Coordinator
Olmsted County
1650 4th StreeL SW
Rochester, MN 55904
507/285-8339
507/285-85-4 - FAX
Jim F. Lemons
Chief, Branch Materials
Bureau of Mines
810 Seventh SL, NW MS9702
Washington, DC 20241 0301
202/501-9580
202/501-3747 - FAX
Michele Leslie
Policy Analyst
Science Applications Int'l Corp.
7600-A Leesburg Place
Falls Church, VA 22042
703/734-4360
703/821-4721 - FAX
Tom Looby
Director
Office of Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Dr., South
Denver, CO 80222 1530
303/692-3099
303/782-4969 - FAX
J. W. Luna
Commissioner
DepL of Environment & Conservation
410 Church Street, 21st Floor
Nashville, TN 37243 0435
615/532-0104
615/532-0120-FAX
141
-------
Robert Lynch
Assistant Secretary
Office of the Secretary of Environment
P O Box 1075
Oklahoma City, OK 73101 1075
405/231-2588
405/231-2690 -FAX
Michael Lyons
Exec. Vice President
LA Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Assoc.
801 N. Blvd.. Ste. 20 i
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
504/387-3205
504/344-5502 - FAX
Sam Mabry
Chief, Hazardous Waste
Dept. of Environmental Quality
P O Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289
601/961-5143
601/354-6612-FAX
Ron Maribett
Director, Administration
Dept. of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
617/556-1127
617/556-1049 - FAX
Bill Markley
Administrator
Dept. of Environment & Natural
Resources
523 E. Capitol Street
Pierre, SD 57501 3181
605/773-3153
605/773-6035 - FAX
Lawrence Martin
USEPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-7667
202/260-0507 - FAX
Mark McClanahan, Ph.D.
Health Scientist
Center for Disease Control
1600 Clifton Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30333
404/488-7350
404/488-7335 - FAX
Scott McDonald
Assistant Professor
Jackson State University
1738 Brecon Dr.
Jackson, MS 39211
601/982-9597
601/-FAX
Joe McGuire
Conference Coordinator
Florida Center for Public Management
118 N. Woodward Ave.
Tallahassee, FL 32306 4025
904/487-4648
904/487-4169 - FAX
Mary McKenzie
Executive Assistant
DNRES
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
302/739-4403
302/739-6242 - FAX
Stacy McVicker
Program Analyst
USEPA
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
913/551-7360
913/551-7863 - FAX
Shelley Mctzenbaum
Associate Administrator
Office of Regional Operations and
State/Local Relations
H-1501
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/260-4719
Alison Miller
Statistician
TX Natural Resource Conservation
Comm.
P O Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711 3087
512/239-1797
512/239-1605 -FAX
Philip Miller
Executive Policy Asst.
Dept. of Ecology
P O Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504 0608
206/407-6985
206/407-6989 - FAX
Angie Mims
CEES, Southern University
P O Box 9764
Baton Rouge, LA 70813
504/771-4724
504/771-4722 - FAX
Julie Moberley
Dept. of Natural Resources
P O Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314/751-1010
314/751-7627-FAX
Michael Moilanen
Multi-Media Environmental Spec
Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians
HCR 67, Box 194
Onamia, MN 56579
612/532-4181
612/532-4209 - FAX
Jane Moore
Asst. Regional Admin.
USEPA, Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206/553-4858
206/553-6647 - FAX
Susan Morales
USEPA, Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, W A 98101
206/553-1050
206/553-6647 - FAX
Tim Mulholland
Waste Management Engineer
DepL of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster SW/3
Madison, WI 53707 7921
608/266-0061
608/267-2768 - FAX
Agi Nadai
Geologist
USEPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212/264-1015
212/264-6135-FAX
Donna Nalcwaja
Senator
North Dakota Senate
1121 1 ith Street, North
Fargo, ND 58102
701/293-3423
701/293-4001 - FAX
142
-------
Beverly Negri
Chief, Planning & Grants
USEPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214/655-6518
?14/685-8072 - FAX
David Nicholas
Budget Analyst
USEPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/2604512
202/260-8929 - FAX
Steve Nicholas
Seattle Planning Dept.
600 4th Avenue, Room 200
Seattle, WA 98104
206/684-8344
206/233-0047 - FAX
Briggs Owunari
LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
504/765-0720
504/765-0742 - FAX
Andrea Pable
Research Assistant
Florida Center for Public Management
118 N. Woodward Ave.
Tallahassee, FL 32306 4025
904/487-6541
904/487-4169 - FAX
Chris Paterson
University of North Carolina
303 S. Greensboro St..
Carrboro, NC 27510
919/968-8975
919/966-7144 - FAX
Rose Paul
Chief, Policy & Planning
Agency for Natural Resources
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671 0301
802/241-3600
802/244-1137-FAX
Cheryl Pavel la
Special Assistant
Dept. of Env. Protection & Energy
401 E. State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
609/292-1254
609/777-0942 - FAX
Sharon Payne
Deputy Director, SPMD
USEPA/OSPED (2162)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-4560
202/260-4903-FAX
Dee Peace Ragsdale
Policy Planner
Dept. of Ecology
300 Desmond Dr.
Olympia, WA 98504
206/407-6986
206/407-6989-FAX
Harvey G. Pippin, Jr.
Office Director
USEPA, OARM, OGD
401 M Street. SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-2523
202/260-9575 - FAX
Angie Pitcock
Director, Pollution Control
TN Dept. of Environment &
Conservation
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243
615/532-0736
615/532-0231 - FAX
Dick Poirier
Ping. Program Manager
Office of State Planning
95-584 Naholoholo St.
Mililani Town, HI 96789
808/587-2839
808/587-2848 - FAX
Jim Powell
Assistant Director
Div. of Environmental Quality
410 Willoughby Ave., Ste. 105
Juneau, AK 99801 1795
907/465-5260
907/465-5274 - FAX
Thomas Powers
Deputy Commissioner
Dept. of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617/292-5503
617/556-1049 - FAX
Sue Priftis
Section Chief, Ping. & Mgmt.
USEPA/OPPE
401 M Street. SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-6788
202/260-4903 - FAX
Bonnie Rabe
Pesticides Specialist
Dept. of Agriculture
PO Box 30005, Dept. 3189
Las Cruces, NM 88002
505/841-9425
505/841-9426 - FAX
Margaret Reams
Assistant Professor
Louisiana State University
42 Atkinson Dr.
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
504/388-8521
504/388-4286 - FAX
Guanita Reiter
LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
504/765-0720
504/765-0742 - FAX
Debrah Richard
ME Dept. of Environmental
Protection
State House #17
Augusta, ME 04333
207/287-2812
207/287-7826 - FAX
Gregg Robertson
Deputy Secretary
Dept. of Environmental Regulation
P O Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105 2061
717/787-5028
717/772-3314-FAX
Maureen Ross
Grants Policy Sps.
USEPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-9297
202/260-1828 - FAX
143
-------
Carol Rowan West
Director
DepL of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
617/292-5510
617/264-9695 - FAX
Michael Rowe
Division Director
DepL of Health & Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803/734-5381
803/734-5407 - FAX
Suzanne Rudzinski
Branch Chief
USEPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-2442
202/260-9365 - FAX
Kristen Saacke-Blunk
TN Dept. of Environment &
Conservation
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243
615/532-0734
615/532-0120-FAX
J. R. Sandoval
Assistant Administrator
Div. of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706 1290
208/334-5840
208/334-0417 - FAX
Mike Sandusky
Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd.
Minneapolis, MN 55155
612/296-7543
612/297-8626 - FAX
John Schelp
Program Anaiyust
NEIHS - NIH
P O Box 12233
Research Triangle Park, NC 27707
919/541-5723
919/541-2260 - FAX
Paul Schmeichen
Senior Planner
Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd.
Minneapolis, MN 55155
612/296-7795
612/297-8626 - FAX
John Schneider
Program Manager
Dept. of Nat. Res. & Env. Cor.uoi
P O Box 1401
Dover, DE 19303
302/735-4590
302/739-6150 - FAX
Duane Schuettpelz
WI DepL of Natural Resources
P O Box 7921
Madison, WI 53715
608/266-0156
608/267-2800 - FAX
Ed Seliga
Chairman 1992
Environmental Stewardship Council
P O Box 149
Bound Brook, NJ 08805
908/560-0772
908/560-9627 - FAX
James Setser
Chief, Program Coord.
Environmental Protection Div.
205 Butler Street, East 1152
Atlanta, GA 30334
404/656-4713
404/651-5778 - FAX
Chris Simmers
Chief Planner
New Hampshire DES
6 Hazen Dr.
Concord, NH 03301
603/271-2961
603/271-2867 - FAX
Harvey Simon
Environmental Specialist
USEPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212/264-1361
212/264-9695 - FAX
Rick Sinclair
Assistant Commissioner
TN Dept. of Environment &
Conservation
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243
615/532-0734
615/532-0120 - FAX
Rick Sinding
Assistant Commissioner
DepL of Env. Protection & Energy
401 E. State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
609/292-1254
609/777-0942 - FAX
Bruce Slater
Planner
DepL of Environmental Quality
PO Box 144810
Salt Lake City, UT 84114 4810
801/536-4480
801/536-4401 - FAX
W. G. B. (Bill) Smith
Head, Ecosystem Risk Analysis
Ecosystem Sciences & Eval. Dir.
351 St. Joseph Blvd. 9th Floor
Hull, Quebec, CANADA K1A OH3
819/953-9429
819/994-0237 - FAX
Marilyn Smith Church
USEPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-3630
202/260-6913 - FAX
Marc Snyder
Senior Ecologist
Western Center for Comparative Risk
5398 Manhatten Cir.
Boulder, CO 80303
303/494-6393
303/499-8340 - FAX
Lawson Spivey
Soil Scientist
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
P O Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013
202/720-6371
202/720-4593 - FAX
144
-------
Robert Steiert
Supervisory Engineer
USEPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
913/551-7433
913/551-7765 -FAX
Gene Stillman
Research Assistant
Florida Center for Public Management
118 N. Woodward Ave.
Tallahassee, FL 32306 4025
904/921-2328
904/487-4169 - FAX
Timothy Stuart
Statistician
USEPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-0745
202/260-4968 - FAX
David Sullivan
Env. Quality Specialist
TX Natural Res. Conservation Comm.
P O Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711 3087
512/239-1381
512/239-1605-FAX
Dick Sumpter
Program Analyst
USEPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
913/551-7661
913/551-7863-FAX
Stephen Tassin
LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
504/765-0720
504/765-0742 - FAX
Matt Thayer
Project Manager
Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Hwy.
Baltimore, MD 21230
410/631-3114
410/631-3936-FAX
David Trimble
Environmental Specialist
Dept. of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
904/488-8338
904/922-5380 - FAX
Peter Truitt
Nat'l Goals Project Mgr.
USEPA (2162)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-8214
202/260-4903 - FAX
Catherine Tunis
USEPA (2162)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-2698
202/260-4903 - FAX
John Turner
Chief, ESD
California Fish and Game
1416 9th Street (Room 1341)
Sacramento, CA 95814
916/653-4875
916/653-2585-FAX
Clark Vega
Associate
Harris, DeVille & Associates
307 France Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
504/344-0381
504/336-0211 - FAX
Frederick Vincent
Assoc. Dir., Ping & Admin
Dept. of Environmental Management
83 Park St.
Providence, RI02903
401/277-2776
401/277-1181 - FAX
David Vogt
Section Chief
Environmental Statistics & GIS
P O Box 29538
Raleigh, NC 27626
919/715-4474
919/733-8485 - FAX
Karl Wagener
Executive Director
Council on Environmental Quality
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
203/566-3510
203/566-7921 - FAX
Eloise Wall
Citizens for a Clean Environment
4444 W. Lakeshore Dr.
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
504/766-6475
504/ - FAX
Barbara Wells
Sr. Policy Analyst
National Governor's Association
444 North Capitol Street
Washington, DC 20001
202/624-5822
202/624-5313 - FAX
Gwendolyn Whitt
Env. Protection Spec.
USEPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-9484
202/260-6882 - FAX
William Wiley
Deputy Director
Dept. of Enviornment
3033 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602/207-2204
602/207-2218 - FAX
Nathan Wilkes
USEPA (2162)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-4910
202/260-4903 - FAX
Karl Wilkins
Environmental Specialist
Dept. of Environemtnal Protection
State House Station #17
Augusta, ME 4333
207/287-2812
207/287-7826 - FAX
145
-------
Jim Wilkins
Northeast Center for Comparative
Risk
P 0 Box 96
South RoyaJton, VT 05068
802/763t8303
802/763-3217 - FAX
Don Willard
Deputy Director
Mecklenburg Co. Dept. of Env.
Protection,
700 N. Tryon Cir.
Charlotte, NC 28202
704/336-5500,
704/336-4391 - FAX
David Workman
Planner
Dept. of Environmental Quality
PO Box 144810
Salt Lake City, UT 84114 4810
801/5364480
801/536-4401 - FAX
Janet Yowell
Research Associate
Western Center for Comparative Risk
5398 Manhatten Cir.
Boulder, CO 80303
303/494-6393
303/499-8340 - FAX
Gregory Zaccardi
Environmental Scientist
USEPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212/264-9504
212/264-7613 - FAX
Hans van Zijst
Counselor for Health and Environment
Royal Netherlands Embassy
Office of Health and Environment
4200 Linnean Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008-3896
202/244-5300
202/362-1859--FAX
Edward Ziomkoski
Program Analyst
EPA, Superfund
401 M Street, SW MC5201G
Washington, DC 20460
703/603-8920
703/603-9133 - FAX
146
------- |