H/elewte to- t&e
National Environmental
Goals and Indicators Conference
"Measuring and Communicating Progress"
February 2-4,1994
Conducted by the
Florida Center for Public Management, Florida State University
In cooperation with and funding provided by the
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Clarion Hotel New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana
-------
ScAedt(&erf4trf4-(2leutce
All sessions will be held in Grand Ballroom Salon B (2nd floor), unless otherwise noted
1
02
8:30 AM
Registration
9:00
Pilot Roundtable Meeting On Settinc National Environmental Coals: — Cypress Room (2nd floor)
The Rensellaerville Institute
Special Pre-Session On Comparative Risk, Indicators and the Development of National Environmental Goals
Ken Jones, Acting Director, Northeast Center for Comparative Risk
2:00
Welcome and Overview
Rick Sinding, Assistant Commissioner for Policy and Planning,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Bill Kucharski, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
W
g
£
2:30
The Future of Environmental Policy In America
3:30
How Does It All Fit?
Moderator: Kate Kramer, Director, Western Center for Comparative Risk
Panel: Tom Looby, Director, Office of the Environment, Colorado Department of Health
A State Perspective
Bob Currie, Director, Strategic Planning and Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A Federal Perspective
Gil Bergquist, Senior Management Consultant, Florida Center for Public Management, Florida State University
The Nuts and Bolts of Environmental Indicators
6:00
Free Time
6:30
Caiun Fais Do Do — Caiun Barn
fHURSDAY
7:30 AM
Breakfast — Grand Ballroom Salon A (2nd floor)
8:30
Overview and Expectations
8:45
Summary of the Homework and Summary of the Four Recional Conferences
Rick Sinding, Assist. Commissioner for Policy and Planning, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Northeastern Conference
Gil Bergquist, Senior Management Consultant, Florida Center for Public Management, Florida State University
Southeastern Conference
Gerald Buianowski, Colorado Department of Health
Mid-America Conference
Steve Hanna, California Environmental Protection Agency
Western Conference
Jim Bernard, Director, Natural Resources Policy Division, Maine State Planning Office
Homework Summary
c-«
9:45
Instructions for the Indicator Development Session
10:00
Indicator Development Workshop Session 1
12:00
Luncheon Address — Grand Ballroom Salon A — Hans van Zijst, Counselor for Health and Environment, Royal Netherlands Embassy
1:30
Transition
1:45
Indicator Development Workgroup Session II
5:00
Sessions Reports
6:30
Drop-In Reception — Pat O'Brien's On Bourbon Street
1
7:00 AM
Breakfast — Grand Ballroom Salon A
8:00
Plenary Discussion of Core Indicators
10:30
Future Directions for EPA and the States
2
12:00
Workinc Lunch — Grand Ballroom SaionA
1:30
Recional Discussion Group Reports and Wrap-Up
2:00
Conference Adiournment
-------
&kvu
-------
IctMe (Zauteute
Schedule-At-A-Glance
Clarion Hotel Floor Plan
TAB 1 Meeting Information
Evaluation Form 1-1
Participant List 1-3
TAB 2 Summaries
First Northeast Regional Conference on Environmental Indicators 2-1
Southeastern Regional Environmental Indicators Conference 2-45
Mid-American Conference on Environmental Indicators 2-69
1994 Western Regional Environmental Indicators Conference 2-105
Homework Assignment for the National Conference on Environmental Goals and Indicators 2-107
TAB 3
The Nuts and Bolts of Environmental Indicators 3-1
TAB 4
Group on Environmental Performance OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance
Review Synthesis Report by the Group on the State of the Environment 4-1
TAB 5
Presentation Overheads from "How Does It All Fit:" A Federal Perspective 5-1
TAB 6
Setting National Goals for Environmental Protection: Goals in Development 6-1
Setting National Goals for Environmental Protection: A Project Briejing 6-35
-------
1
-------
-------
-------
'Panticifautt
DANIEL ABBASI
Special Assistant
USEPA
Washington, DC
FLOYD ADAMSEN
Soil Scientist
USDA, ARS
Phoeniz, AZ
DERRY ALLEN
Director, OSPED
USEPA
Washington, DC
KAREN ARMSTRONG-CUMM1NGS
Director, Admin. Serv.
Frankfort, KY
LINA 8ALLUZ
Environmental Scientist
LA Dept. of Health
Baton Rouge, LA
RUSS BARNETT
Deputy Commissioner
Frankfort, KY
PHIL BASS
Chief, Field Services
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Jackson, MS
rf SUE BATTLE
Dept. Dir., Policy & Ping
Dept. of the Environment
Baltimore, MD
NANCY BEACH
Environmental Specialist
USEPA
Washington, DC
DAVID BEDAN
Sr. Policy Planner
Dept. of Natural Resources
Springfield, MO
~j- STEVE BEIBER
Environmental Specialist
Dept. of the Environment
Baltimore, MD
SHERRY BISHKO
Program Analyst
USEPA, Region II
New York, NY
— WILLIAM D. BRANNON
Assistant Chief
Div. of Environmental Protection
Nitro, WV
HENRY BRUBAKER
Program Analyust
USEPA, Region III
Philadelphia, PA
BARRY BURCON
USEPA
Washington, DC
MARY CARTER
Chief, PPAS
USEPA, Region VII
Kansas City, KS
DICK CASSET
Chief
Dept. of Pollution Control & Ecology
Little Rock, AR
JEAN CIRCIELLO
Management Analyst
USEPA, Region IV
San Francisco, CA
EDWARD COLE
Assistant Commissioner
Dept. of Environment & Conservation
Nashville, TN
BOB COONER
Environmental Manager
Dept. of Environmental Management
Montgomery, AL
ROBERT COOPER
Planning Unit Chief
USEPA, Region III
Atlanta, CA
JOYCE CROSSON
USEPA, Region 10
Seattle, WA
ROBERT CURRIE
Dir., Strategic Ping & Mgmt.
USEPA
Washington, DC
JOHN DABULIEWiCZ
Assistant Commissioner
New Hampshire DES
Concord, NH
EDWARD DELHAGEN
Policy Associate
Northeast Center for Comparative Risk
South Royalton, VT
KIMDEVONALD
USEPA
Washington, DC
LEE DOGGETT
Project Director
Casco Bay Estuary Project
Portland, ME
WILLIAM EBERLE
Environmental Engineer 3
NYSDEC
Albany, NY
MARILYN ELLIOTT
Director, Permits & Serv.
Dept. of Environmental Management
Montgomery, AL
JANE EPHREMIDES
Director, RMES
USEPA
Washington, DC
1-3
-------
(continued)
DAVID EVANS
JAUNAE HANGER
BILL JAROCKI
Senior Analyst
Executive Assistant
Division of Environmental Quality
Public Health Services
Dept. of Environmental Management
Boise, ID
Atlanta, CA
Indianapolis, IN
BERNARD JOHNSON
PATRICK FELLING
STEPHEN HANNA
Special Assistant
Strategic Ping. Coord.
Asst. for Env. Info.
Agency for Natural Resources
Dept. of Health
CA Environmental Protection Agency
Waterbury, VT
Honolulu, HI
Sacramento, CA
KEN JONES
ANNE FORBES
RUSSELL HARDING
Acting Director
Special Assistant
Deputy Director
Northeast Center for Comparative Risk
Dept. of Natural Resources
Dept. of Natural Resources
South Royalton, VT
Madison, Wl
Lansing, Ml
I
i
h GREENE JONES
JOE FRANCIS
GALE HARMS
Director, Env. Serv. Div.
Assistant Director
Policy Analyst
USEPA
Dept. of Environmental Quality
NM Environment Department
Philadelphia, PA
Lincoln, NE
Santa Fe, NM
CHARLES JONES
LARRY GALES
ABEER HASHEM
Director, Div. of Env.
Director, Support Service
Chief, Chemical Control
Dept. of Health & Environment
Dept. of Environmental Quality
USEPA, Region V
Topeka, KS
Oklahoma City, OK
Chicago, IL
MICHAEL KAKUK
RICHARD GATES
DENNIS HEITMANN
Staff Attorney
Lab Administrator
Supervisor, Ground Water Sec.
Environmental Quality Council
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Helena, MT
Portland, OR
Lincoln, NE
ROGER KANERVA
SHASHI GOEL
JERRY HILL
Env. Policy Advisor
Program Planner
Bureau Director
IL Environmental Protection Agency
Dept. of Natural Resources
Dept. of Health
Springfield, IL
DesMoines, IA
Little Rock, AR
JACQUES KAPUSCINSKI
WENDY GORDON
GARY HUGHES
Management Analyst
Project Manager
Asst. to Deputy Director
USEPA, Office of Info. Res. Mgmt.
Texas Natural Res. Conservation
Dept. of Natural Resources
Washington, DC
Comm.
Lansing, Ml
Austin, TX
PAM KASTER
SUSAN HUTCHERSON
President
ROBERT GRIFFITH
Program Analyst
Citizens for a Clean Environment
Chief, Strategic Planning
USEPA, Region 10
Baton Rouge, LA
Dept. of Administration
Seattle, WA
Providence, Rl
^ STEVE KEEN
DEBBIE INGRAM
Chief, DEP
DR. ANNA HACKENBRACHT
USEPA
DEP - Information Services
Chief, Ping & Analysis
Washington, DC
Nitro, WV
USEPA
San Francisco, CA
1 -4
-------
T^artictfazrtt (auitixued)
TIM KEENEY
Commissioner
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Hartford, CT
RONALD KREIZENBECK
ESQ Division Director
USEPA, Region 10
Seattle, WA
SAM MABRY
Chief, Hazardous Waste
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Jackson, MS
EDDLEMON KENDRA
Ecologist
OK Conservation Commission
Oklahoma City, OK
DOUGLAS KIEVIT-KYLAR
Admin. Assistant II
Agency for Natural Resources
Waterbury, VT
ROBERT KING
Deputy Director
Dept. of Health & Environmental
Control
Columbia, SC
KATRINA KIPP
Program Analyst
USEPA, Region I
Boston, MA
WILLIAM KIRK
Acting Director
Advanced Science & Res. Team, PA
DER
Harrisburg, PA
ART KOINES
Deputy Director, OSPED
USEPA
Washington, DC
KATE KRAMER
Executive Director
Western Center for Comparative Risk
Boulder, CO
RANDY KREIL
Natural Res. Biologist
ND Came & Fish Dept.
Bismarck, ND
BILL KUCHARSKI
Deputy Secretary
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Baton Rouge, LA
TONY LAFFERTY
Environmental Specialist
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Columbus, OH
MARK LAWRENCESON
Nat. Res. Program Scientist
Pierre, SD
JIM F. LEMONS
Chief, Branch Materials
Bureau of Mines
Washington, DC
MICHELE LESLIE
Policy Analyst
Science Applications Int'l Corp.
Falls Church, VA
TOM LOOBY
Director
Office of Environment
Denver, CO
J.W. LUNA
Commissioner
Dept. of Environment & Conservation
Nashville, TN
ROBERT LYNCH
Assistant Secretary
Office of the Secretary of Environment
Oklahoma City, OK
MICHAEL LYONS
Exec. Vice President
LA Mid-Continent Oil & Cas Assoc.
Baton Rouge, LA
-r
RON MARIBETT
Director, Administration
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Boston, MA
PAT MARI ELLA
Management Consultant
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Phoenix, AZ
BILL MARKLEY
Administrator
Pierre, SD
MARK MCCLANAHAN, PH.D.
Health Scientist
Center for Disease Control
Atlanta, GA
SCOTT MCDONALD
Assistant Professor
Jackson State University
Jackson, MS
MARY MCKENZIE
Executive Assistant
DNRES
Dover, DE
STACY MCVICKER
Program Analyst
USEPA
Kansas City, KS
MICHAEL MENGE
Director
Div. of Environmental Quality
Juneau, AK
ALISON MILLER
Statistician
TX Natural Resource Conservation
Comm.
Austin, TX
1 -5
-------
(c
-------
^anticifazrtt (c&tfittued)
RICK SINDING
Assistant Commissioner
Dept. of Env. Protection & Energy
Trenton, NJ
BRUCE SLATER
Planner
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Salt Lake City, UT
MARC SNYDER
Senior Ecologist
Western Center for Comparative Risk
Boulder, CO
ROBERT STEIERT
Supervisory Engineer
USEPA, Region VII
Kansas City, KS
TIMOTHY STUART
Statistician
USEPA
Washington, DC
DAVID SULLIVAN
Env. Quality Spcialist
TX Natural Res. Conservation Comm.
Austin, TX
DICKSUMPTER
Program Analyst
USEPA, Region VII
Kansas City, KS
/MATT THAYER
Project Manager
Dept. of the Environment
Baltimore, MD
DAVID TRIMBLE
Environmental Specialist
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Tallahassee, FL
JOHN TURNER
Chief, ESD
California Fish and Came
Sacramento, CA
CLARK VEGA
Associate
Harris, DeVille & Associates
Baton Rouge, LA
FREDERICK VINCENT
Assoc. Dir., Ping & Admin
Dept. of Environmental Management
Providence, Rl
DAVID VOGT
Section Chief
Environmental Statistics & GIS
Raleigh, NC
KARLWAGENER
Executive Director
Council on Environmental Quality
Hartford, CT
BARBARA WELLS
Sr. Policy Analyst
National Governor's Association
Washington, DC
GWENDOLYN WHITT
Env. Protection Spec.
USEPA
Washington, DC
WILLIAM WILEY
Deputy Director
Dept. of Enviornment
Phoenix, AZ
KARL WILKINS
Environmental Specialist
Dept. of Environemtnal Protection
Augusta, ME
JIM WILKINS
Northeast Center for Comparative Risk
South Royalton, VT
DON WILLARD
Deputy Director
Mecklenburg Co.
Charlotte, NC
DAVID WORKMAN
Planner
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Salt Lake City, UT
JANET YOWELL
Research Associate
Western Center for Comparative Risk
Boulder, CO
GREGORYZACCARDI
Environmental Scientist
USEPA
New York, NY
EDWARD ZIOMKOSKI
Program Analyst
EPA, Superfund
Washington, DC
1 -7
-------
2
-------
Summary:
First Northeast^
©si
M . ,J3( 'Aqr± JS"»»1 S3M
~t!.J s Thitaf |WW
-------
SUMMARY
The Environmental Indicators Conference of March 6-8 encec with a cr.e arc
one-hair" hour open discussion summarizing what the participants Learned from the
conference. Tnis discussion iay the foundation for deciding where to go from here.
Listed below are the five key points noted by the participants throughout the
conference. The discussion ensuing around these topics is summarized.
1. There is no single, ideal environmental indicator.
2. The purpose of indicators is to measure progress toward achieving clearly
stated environmental goals.
3. Stakeholders should be involved when developing environmental goals and
indicators. Stakeholders include the public, industry, business, environmental
groups, government agencies, academia, etc.
4. It is important to convey environmental progress to the public.
5. The environmental debate cannot be conducted in a vacuum but must be
expanded to encompass social and financial arenas.
There Is No Single Ideal Indicator
Environmental indicators are a very complex topic. The conference workshop
clearly established that there is no single ideal environmental indicator, nor is there
a single list of indicators which would be adequate for all of the States. There are
some indicators in use today which can provide us with models for developing
environmental indicators.
Different indicators should be used for different audiences. For the public,
generalized indicators would be appropriate. Generalized indicators simplify
environmental information so it is easily understandable. One common technique
for generalizing information is to develop a composite number.
An example of a general, composite indicator is the GNP (Gross National
Product). This economic indicator is communicated to the public as a single
number, but is derived by combining many separate values which represent different
aspects of the nation's economic activity. These separate or component values are
indicators themselves, but of a highly complex nature. The complexity of the
component values often reflects the level of detail needed by specialists to
scientifically measure complicated phenomena.
Composite indicators are a good communication tool for portraying a complex
issue in a simple, comprehensive way for the public. This model can be used for
environmental indicators. For example, "air quality" could be reported using a single
number which was derived by measuring and combining several air quality
characteristics. Not all conference participants approved of the general, composite
indicator model for publicly reported indicators.
2-1
-------
Other indicator models, such as comprehensive sees of indicators fcr each media
were discussed. Accurate ar.v. .-crimen tai reporting '^:ii likely recuire the jse or
several types of incicators.
Indicators may change over time. Developing and reporting indicators is a
dynamic process. The process should start with available information that can be
reported now. From this baseline, one can identify indicators that would be good to
use and begin to collect the necessary information.
Since there are no ideal indicators, one can defend why individual indicators are
selected by stating the indicator's benefits and limitations up front. It must be clear
that indicators are one piece of a mosaic and like all measuring tools they are limited
in some way. The panel discussion described earlier addresses several important
issues concerning the limitations of indicators.
The Purpose Of Indicators Is To Measure Progress
Toward Achieving Clearlv Stated Environmental Goals
One of the most fundamental issues facing us today is the erosion of public
confidence in government. The general lack of government credibility has several
causes. Central to this is the government's failure to communicate more effectively
with the public and to increase public involvement in decision-making. Developing
and reporting environmental indicators is one way to improve government's
relationship with the public.
Part of the credibility gap is because the communication focuses on the
environmental agency. The communication focuses on government activities, not on
ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS. Government is reporting program expansion and
successes, not environmental successes. State's have not answered some simple but
important questions such as; "Is the environment better than it was before?" Or
healthier? Or cleaner?
The public is -interested in environmental accountability, not accounting.
Indicators need to be tied to results oriented environmental goals. For example, the
goals of the Clean Water Act are that the Nation's surface waters support fish
propagation, maintenance and human swimming. Have the activities conducted
since the passage of the Clean Water Act brought more streams to that level of
quality? Have the billions of dollars spent for sewage treatment systems improved
water quality? In which areas of the country are streams closer or farther away from
the Clean Water Act goals? Public satisfaction and understanding will increase if
environmental indicators can be used to track our progress toward specific goals.
Goals for environmental indicators can be taken from existing statutes. Other
goals can be developed by the government, in concert with the stake holders in
environmental issues.
There are many possible goals for environmental agencies. By developing
indicators the environmental goals for the country will be opened for discussion.
This is one of the most important aspects of increasing communication with the
public and opening up the process to the stake holders involved.
2-2
-------
Stake Holders Should 3c Involved When
Developing Environmental Goals
There are many non-governmental (external) stake holders in environmental
issues. Indicators ' need to be objective measures of the environment and
environmental progress. Government agencies will always generate distrust among
some groups of the public. Different vested interests, holding different
environmental philosophies, may disagree on the appropriate indicator for a medium
or a region. Therefore, indicators must be subject to outside peer review if they are
to build a public trust among environmentalists, business, industry, legislators,
academics, local officials and community residents.
One use of environmental indicators is as an environmental agency report
card. Tnis makes government agencies key stake holders. Measuring' progress
toward external goals instead of measuring internal activities requires
self-examination and invites external criticism. This a necessary step to improving
government's credibility. The report card concept can be a positive step since it
highlights environment^. successes, which often go unreported to the general public.
Environmental failures will need to be addressed. In either case agencies would be
more accountable for managing the environment.
Using indicators as a report card can highlight the fact that a government
agencies performance is not necessarily the dominant factor controlling
environmental conditions. Often environmental results depend upon activities
conducted by the general public, the community or industry. A critical use of
environmental indicators is to educate the public about their roie in environmental
protection, such as non-point source pollution control.
The most important role for stakeholders is in goal setting. The selection of
indicators should involve all stakeholders, but should be influenced by technical
experts in the various fields. This is because all indicators contain some bias. Tne
benefits and limitations of environmental goals and the indicators used to measure
the goals must be clearly stated.
It Is Important To Convev Environmental
Progress To The Public
To be meaningM to the public indicators must relay progress, and in some
manner show improvement or degradation. The indicators may need to be
interpreted to b« understood. One cannot merely report uninterpreted
environmental conditions because the same environmental outcome can be viewed
by one interest group as a success and by another interest group as a failure. Success
and failure are value judgments. Well thought-out environmental goals and
indicators provide a measure for the degree of progress achieved.
Environmental goal setting and indicator selection are an opportunity for bridge
building with the public. However, before agreement can be reached on measuring
progress, the stake holders must understand what environmental conditions have
been and what they are now. Documenting environmental trends is a useful place to
begin communication with the public.
2-3
-------
Simplifying environmental issues for [he public is a complex undertaking. For
example, in many areas of the country phosphorus loading into surface waters has
decreased markedly. This decrease is generally attributed to the bans on phosphorus
in laundry detergent. The result is less eutrcphicaticn in tne nation's lakes "due to
phosphorus. Is the public aware of this reduction? The government's role in this
achievement? The public's own role in this achievement? Is the phosphorus related
reduction in eutrophication relevant given the simultaneous decline in lake health
due to acid deposition ana non-point source pollution? Are fewer or more lakes
euiropnied than a decade ago? What role did natural eutrophication processes play
in the current environmental starus of lakes? What are the relevant successes and
failures in the water quality of the Nation's lakes?
The answers are not always known or intuitively obvious. Indicator reports on
environmental conditions should include cause and effect explanations whenever
possible, if indicators are to be used as an educational tool to increase the public's
understanding of environmental issues. Unfortunately, cause and effect explanations
of environmental conditions aie often elusive or not fuily understood. Many factors
influence the environment: agency activities, public and business activities,
population densities, climatic fluctuation, hyaroiogic fluctuations, solar incidence,
volcanic activity, ozone levels, etc. Given the inability to fully explain cause and
effect in some cases, one must report indicators in terms of success, failure or some
level of progress.
There is an intimate relationship between accurate indicators and the scientific
networks which monitor environmental conditions. Finding ways to distill the
complex data for public use will be difficult. Geographic information systems-can be
a useful technology for portraying the geographic complexities of environmental
information.
Reporting progress is important if we are to follow through on our
commitments and set realistic time horizons for our goals. This can be difficult in
government due to the periodic changes in administration, the political environment
and the need to respond to the media. Is the environment improving? Axe we
achieving our goals? Whai goals have we set and who determined them? Periodic
reporting of our successes, failures and progress to the general public will focus the
environmental debate on these issues.
The Environmental Debate Cannot Be Conducted In Isolation.
But Must Be Expanded To Encompass Social And Financial Arenas
A better job needs to be done in collecting and reporting positive economic
benefits atyvjaH with environmental goals. Only anecdotal evidence is regularly
reported, such as jobs created from recycling efforts. The thorough collecting and
reporting of economic information will help to find areas of consensus among
competing interests. For example, changes in the water quality of Chesapeake Bay
could be tied to economic indicators related to fishing jobs. One of the roles of
government is to supply the environmental debate with concrete information.
l-b,
-------
Indicators will not stop the debate on the environment, whether the
environment is improving or what costs are valid for what benefits. Much of :he
current environmental debate is over the effectiveness of command and control
strategies to manage the current pollution tnreats. Hopefully, indicators will focus
the debate on environmental results, not government activities.
Tne debate over environmental sustainabiiity versus growth is becoming a major
issue. Another fundamental issue is whether we plan to spend a larger piece of our
total resources to achieve environmental goals or if we will reallocate existing
environmental spending to achieve new goals. These issues must be examinee
during our search for goals ana indicators, but must not be allowed to confuse
immediate concerns or halt progress.
One participant noted that government environmental agencies have become
holding companies for folks administering environmental statutes. On the other
hand the country and the general public hold the same agencies accountable for
managing and cleaning the environment. There are questions concerning how many
of the existing regulatory and statutory mandates are getting us closer to our
environmental goals? The situation is staged for failure if many environmental
statutes and regulation are not effectively achieving environmental results.
Many statutes and regulations need to be reevaluated, some eliminated and
some changed. One outcome of national, regional or state goal setting should be
statutory and regulatory evaluation. Managing and cleaning the environment
requires goals and strategies as much as rules and regulations.
Summary
There was unanimous agreement among participants that the conference was
productive and thought provoking. The conference achieved its goal of reaching a
consensus about the purposes for environmental indicators. Clearly enough
information exists to begin reporting some indicators to the public now. Those states
which have ongoing environmental indicators programs have much to offer states
beginning this process. One outcome from this conference will be the start of
indicator programs in additional states.
2-5
-------
WATER WORKSHOP
The water workshop of the Environmental Indicators Conference oezan a: 9
a.m. on Sunday, March 7. The moderator was Caren Gloreity, Deoucy Secretary for
Water Management, Department of Environmental Resources. Ofnce of Wa'ter
Management for the State of Pennsylvania. The workshop was attended bv
twenry-si.x individuals from a variety of backgrounds. Most participants were from
state environmental agencies; however there were representatives from industry, the
general public, local and federal government agencies. The goai of the workshoo
was to develop a iist of environmental indicators which would be useful for managing
coastal, surface, ground and drinking water resources.
To aid the group in developing the list of indicators for water resources, a
comprehensive list of 142 potential water-resources indicators was provided. Tne
purpose of this list was to give the participants a starting point for selecting specific
indicators. The list provided contains a wide range of physical, biological, chemical,
regulatory and other indicators used as measures for surface, ground, coastal or
drinking waters. Water-quality, availability, and use indicators were included. It was
stressed that the participants were not to feel restricted by the indicator list provided
since its purpose was to provide a starting point for discussion. Participants were
encouraged to add any indicators or areas they felt were important. Tne long list
was completed from a thorough literature review and is reproduced in the
appendices.
Ms. Glofelty opened the workshop by suggesting that the group define an
environmental indicator and its uses. The group agreed that water quality is a 'good
indicator of overall environmental health.
Defining An Environmental Indicator
Some water indicators measure contamination levels, while others measure the
health of humans or the ambient environment. A comprehensive set of indicators
would measure all three conditions. Also, a good' indicator system would assist in
identifying problems, their magnitude, and provide an early warning system for
developing issues. A good indicator shows historical trends. Trends are increases or
decreases in the value measured over time.
Environmental indicators can measure very general or very specific qualities.
To explain this concept an analogy was used during our discussion which compared
the environment to a patient. A general indicator is analogous to a thermometer,
which assesses a basic symptom (fever) of an illness. The symptom could be a result
of many different causes. A specific indicator is analogous to a CAT scan, which
delineates the precise cause of an illness.
General indicators, such as biodiversity, usually assess ambient conditions or the
degree of contamination. Specific indicators, such as the concentration of nitrates in
water, usually identify the causal factors of contamination and may be obtained from
scientific monitoring networks.
2-6
-------
The reliance of many indicators on data from routine monitoring networks was
noted. Manv environmental indicators are oar. of baseline monitoring networks.
For others, the information collected rrom monitoring networks provides the
scientific defense for the reliability and accuracy of the environmental indicator.
Budget constraints on monitoring networks can affect the reliability and accuracy of
environmental trends communicated to the public ana poiicy makers.
All agreed that indicators should be based upon and measure progress towards
specific and defined goals. Existing environmental laws and regulations can provide
the basis for some indicator goals. For example, the federal Clean Water Act states
that the fresh waters of the states should be able to support primary contact
recreation (swimming), and the maintenance and propagation of natural and
established biota. Good indicators would measure progress toward these goals.
Indicators not based upon environmental laws and regulations should have
clearly stated goals. Goal based indicators enhance the degree of accountability
between environmental organizations and the public or legislative bodies which
empower them. As one participant succinctly stated, "The public wants
accountability, not accounting."
Indicators which measure the cost of environmental protection activities should
be developed. Such economic indicators should be linked with the indicators which
measure the environmental results achieved. Together, economic*" and
environmental indicators can help the public make informed choices among
competing issues.
Trends are valuable when educating the public about environmental issues.
During this discussion there was repeated mention of the need to educate the public
about its role in contributing to pollution and encouraging environmental
protection. Public activities such as street sweeping, septic-systems maintenance,
catch-basin cleaning and other non-point-source activities were noted.
The group developed a comprehensive list of the qualities and functions of a
good indicator. These qualities are listed below.
The Use Of Indicators
Characteristics Of A Good Environmental Indicator
1. goal baaed
2. can show progress toward goals
4. identifies problems
6. prioritizes among issues
8. cumulative pollution impacts
3. uses available data
5. shows historical trends
7. sensitive to changes
2-7
-------
9. educates public
10. educates ociiticians
11. shows llfesr/ie imDac:s
jnc^rSuz-T.CcOiw or ^.n313.1^0
13. cost efucient
I-, scientifically reliable
15. soatiallv distributed
lo. reoresentadve
17. robust and dependable
19. assesses environment
Developing An Indicators List For Water Resources
Having identified the characteristics that make a good indicator, the group
focused on the workshop exercise of selecting twenty-five indicators for water
resources. The group recognized that to complete the workshop exercise it must
agree on an environmental goal and a target audience. It was decided the goal was
to determine the overall status of environmental health in a state. Tne level of detail
sought would be an overall assessment, using general indicators. The audience for
the information was to be the public and government officials.
The group decided that due to the time allotted they would not account for all
of the important characteristics of an indicator. Therefore, six of the nineteen
characteristics noted above were agreed upon for the workshop exercise. The
indicator should be understandable, cost efficient, reliable/representative
/defendable, show progress, enhance accountability, and educate ±e general
public. Given the time constraints, it was agreed that the workshop list would be an
exercise, and not a fully considered, usable indicator list.
The short list was developed by allowing each individual to nominate one
indicator. Several participants were allowed to nominate two. Participants debated
the merits of several indicators which were nominated; however none were rejected
due to disagreement. Thus, the list is reflective of the accumulation of many
individual values, and does not represent extensive debate or compromise. The final
list contained twenty-five water-resource indicators.
Once the workshop list was completed the group wanted to rank the list to
emphasize the most valuable indicators. Each participant picked the 5 indicators he
or she believed most important from the 25 and voted for them. The total number of
votes each indicator received was counted. The one receiving the most votes is listed
first (#1), the one receiving the next highest number of votes is listed second (Z2)
and so on. The indicator receiving the fewest votes is listed last (#25). It was
pointed out that no economic indicators were chosen and this is an important area
that should not be ignored when developing a set of indicators for use in a specific
state.
The following twenty-five indicators, listed in order of importance as ranked by
the group, is the outcome of the workshop discussions.
2-8
-------
Water Workshop Exercise: Indicator Set
1. Land Use/Land Cover
2. Water-Quality Index
3. Benthic and Fish Abundance, Assemblage and Diversity
4. Habitat Status
5. Percentage of Designated-Use Attainment
6. Percentage and Acreage of Shellfish and Fish Areas Opened & Closed
7. Nitrate Concentration
8. Public Environmental Education and Activity Index
9. Index of Water Supply versus Water Demand
10. Presence and Absence of Indigenous and Noxious Vegetation
11. Number of Exceedences of Ground-Water-Quality Standards
12. In-Stream Water-Flow Measurements (peak, low, and 7Q10 day)
13. Number of Sites with Confirmed Contamination
14. Sediment Contamination
15. Index of Environmental Agency Coordination
16. Dissolved Oxygen
17. Pollution Loading per Area (including pesticides)
18. Total Phosphorus
19. Water-Body Status
20. Percentage of Population Using Public Community Water Supplies in
Compliance with Safe Drinking Water Standards
21. Number of Fish and Drinking Water Advisories
22. Fecal Coliform
23. Baseflow/Runoff Ratio
24. Volatile Organic Compounds
25. Number of Permits and Percentage ir Compliance with Standards
2-9
-------
Summary
The results of the workshop exerc.se are thai the development of a lis: of
indicators for a State or a region will entail substantial work, debate and
compromise. Several techniques used during the workshop could be employed when
developing indicators for acti^l use by a state. Identifying goals and targeting ones
audience is an important first step. The iist of desired characteristics of an indicator
is a good tool for comparing indicators. Tne water workshop adjourned at noon.
2-10
-------
AIR WORKSHOP
The air workshop was moderated by Saily Dudley, Executive Director.
Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions. The discussion began at 9
a.m. and ended at 10:30 a.m. A working list of example air indicators was distributed
to the conference participants prior to the workshop. This list was used as a starting
point for workshop discussion ana is shown in Appendix C.
The purpose of the workshop was to develop a list of air indicators which
measure environmental progress, that are easily understood and can be reported to
the public.
Denning An Environmental Indicator
Workshop participants discussed the importance of defining an environmental
indicator. Historically, national air pollution standards were based on percepdon
and nuisance. If you can smell it or see it then it is a pollutant that should not be
present. For example, at one time in Los Angeles the soiling of laundry hanging
outside by air contaminants was used as an indicator of air quality.
Traditionally, there has been reliance on visibility as an important indicator of
air quality. In California the inability to see the mountain range from one's home
reduces property values substantially. Also, odor complaints are traditional air
quality indicators. These are all perception based indicators. If you can see or smell
something the air quality is "bad". The problem with perception based air indicators
is that they do not measure health impacts; or include colorless or odorless air
contaminants, management strategies, ecosystem impacts.
Other common indicators do address management strategies and air conditions.
The indicators selected in the Clean Air Act demonstrate this focus. In the Clean
Air Act, Title I measurements focus on air quality standards and criteria pollmants.
Title II indicators emphasize motor vehicle measurements, such as reducing the
number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Title HI indicators measure air toxics.
These indicators are technology based or activity based because the health effects
and ecosystem impacts of the 189 identified hazardous air pollutants are not well
understood.
Following a discussion, the group agreed that environmental indicators for air
should measure the following six areas.
1. Health Impacts 2. Air Conditions
3. Actual Emissions 4. Management Activities
5. Environmental Impacts 6. Public Perceptions and Actions
2-11
-------
Health impacts are difficult :o directly tie to 'daily air conditions. Monitors.z of
air conditions, emissions and management activities are somewhat itancarciisc
tcoay. Tnere is a marked absence of ecosystem impact monitoring prsser.dy in use.
ihis is reflected in the absence of environmental impac: indicators noted on the iist
of example indicators handed out at the beginning of the workshop. Each of these
topics was discussed in greater detail.
Indicators Which Measure Health Impacts
Human risks due to air exposure are determined today by a standard
calculation. This is done using acruai emissions data and toxicity'data to determine
the potential exposure and subsequent potential health risk. The risk to human
heaith due to potential exposure to the air is an important indicator; however, one
could not report ail potential exposures to the public without overwhelming them.
One might list the top three carcinogenic exposure risks each year, aiong with
information on the degree of exposure, for the public. This would indicate the
critical chemical compcLnds, The top three chemical compounds may change from
year to year. This change could indicate progress in managing air quality.
Another possible health indicator can be obtained from the Right To Know data
bases maintained by the States. Those carcinogens identified in the top ten category
of volume or risk could be included in the potential health exposure calculations;
along with the top non-carcinogens based on either volume or reference inhalation
exposure.
Indicators Which Measure Air Conditions
Several indicators were discussed which measure general air conditions on a
daily or periodic basis. Visibility is a simple and useful indicator that the public can
understand. New Jersey monitors visibility at one wildlife refuge site, but the
indicator does not differentiate between natural, facility, or mobile source generated
smog. Some states do not measure visibility.
Many States use the number of exceedances of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards as an indicator. One example is the New Jersey Pollution
Standard Index (PSI) which measures ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, smoke and particulates. The index combines the individual
measurements into one value between 0 and 500. A daily value between 0 and 50
indicates good quality air; while a value between 300 and 500 indicates hazardous air
quality. In general, a value above 100 adversely affects human health. This single
index is reported daily and provides the public with a general understanding of
overall air quality with three main caveats. The index includes only six pollutants
ar.d its accuracy is based on the extent of a given State's air monitoring network.
There are questions about the geographical extent of a given exceedance. For
example, a carbon monoxide monitoring exceedance may represent conditions which
exist at one location the size of a street block.
2-12
-------
Criteria pollutant ambient data is available now, but does not hold the public's
attention. These indicators could be changed to heaith based indicators. One"option
is ;o report the number of person hours of exposure to each poilutar.t. Another
option for a health based measurement is the duration of time an average :>erscn is
exposed to excesdance concentrations of a criteria pollutant.
The last air indicators discussed were the pH of acid rain and the concentration
of ground-level ozcr.e. There was some debate whether these indicators measure the
quality of the air, the heaith of the ecosystem or the potential impact on human
health and welfare. Tnese measures have broad implications and may not be tied to
air conditions or ecosystem impacts as closeiv as some proponents suggest.
Indicators Which Measure Emissions
Measuring or estimating actual emissions from vehicles and facilities is very
difficult and prone to large errors. Generally, experts agree that surrogate indicators'
for emissions are acceptable; however there are difficulties with some commonly
used surrogate indicators. Typical issues and problems were discussed.
The number of cars or the percentage of cars that annually fail emissions
inspections was discussed as a possible indicator. One problem with this indicator is
that emissions standards change, so emission standards five years from now will
likely be different from today's emission standards. This affects the usefulness of the
indicator over time and makes year to year comparisons of questionable value. The
group did agree that emission inspections of light and heavy duty vehicles should be
mandatory.
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a good surrogate indicator for emissions data.
One problem with this surrogate indicator is determining what threshold value is
meaningful to regulators. Similarly, what threshold value is meaningful to the
general public? For example, New Jerseyans travel 60 billion VMT each year; is that
too much? At certain times of the day, on certain roadways, traffic slows down and
emissions per mile change; thus, VMT are not a straightforward surrogate for actual
vehicle emissions. Another issue is that VMT has been increasing at 3 percent per
year for most of the 1980's. It is difficult to explain why VMT is increasing while air
quality is actually improving.
Another emissions related indicator is the percentage of vehicles using
alternative fuels. Alternative fuel vehicles run on natural gas and propane. Last
year 5 percent of all vehicles used alternative fuel. The percent of alternative
vehicles could indicate several areas of progress to the public; including research and
development progress and reduction in emissions. Also, this indicator can be used to
educate the public about the dynamics between environmental and social issues.
Presently, alternative vehicles do not pay fuel tax. While increasing percentages of
alternative fuel vehicles are a positive indicator from an emissions standpoint, they
are a negative indicator from an infrastructure funding standpoint.
2-13
-------
Emissions are used as an air quality monitoring tool by government and as a
market :ccl by industry. Industries trade emissions as a commodity, obtaining
credits for mobile or stationary sources or they bank the emission credits for future
use. Thus, emission markets ar.d credits should be included in any final air
indicators List.
Indicators Which Measure Management Activities
Management activites include permit, control ana enforcement activities.
Permitting information links the sources with the emissions. However, permits do
not provide information on actual amounts (volumes and concentrations) of
emissions. Still- permits provide useful data for assessing changes over time in the
number, type and" volume of facility emissions. This baseline is needed for new
numbers, different types or different volumes of emissions to indicate either progress
or lack of progress. Typical permitting indicators Include the number of each type of
air permit, the number with a certain volume of emissions or the total volume of
emissions permitted.
One participant suggested reductions in commuter trips as a management
activity indicator. Other participants were concerned that these control measures
were not accounting for the largest segment of automobile use. Some information
suggests that 65 percent of automobile movement is travel to shopping centers or
entertainment centers. It is clear from this discussion that measures of management
activities are only valid indicators when a verifiable, measurable relationship has
been demonstrated between the activity monitored and specific impacts in air
quality, ecosystem and/or human health. Without a demonstrated relationship
between activity ar.d actual impacts the meaning of the indicator is not clear and
open to misinterpretation and misuse.
Another typical air indicator is to count the number of enforcement activities or
the amount of fines assessed or collected from enforcement activities. This indicator
measures the efficiency of the State's environmental agency as much as it measures
the number of problem facilities affecting the environment. Thus, the actual
meaning of the indicator, in any given report, is open to several interpretations.
Another question raised is whether the public is really interested in this type of
information.
Indicators Which Measure Ecosvstem Impacts
Ecosystem impacts due to air quality are difficult to quantify. One example is
research into the effects of air pollution on crops. Rutgers University has done
extensive research on the relationship between ozone levels and crop development.
The results are mixed depending on the specific crop, the concentrations of ozone
and the duration of exposure.
2- 1 4
-------
Other air quality conditions, such as ground-level ozone and acid deposition, are not
directly tied :o measurable ecosystem impacts. Instead, the air quality conditions
may result in an effect, which ir. combination with other conditions or following a
complicated series of intermediate effects, impact the environment in a measurable
way. A common example is using the percentage aieback of certain tree species to
indicate the impact of acid deposition. It is important that other causes of dieback.
such as disease or drought, are incorporated into the interpretation of general
ecosystem changes.
Tne type or appropriateness of an indicator may be geographically determined.
For example, acid' rain damage on blue spruce in Vermont is regionally specific.
Another example is lichens which can be affected by atmospheric concentrations of
metals, but are geographically limited. Some ecosystem impact indicators will likely
be regionally specific.
Another possible ecosystem impact indicator is the monitoring of metals in lake
sediments or nitrates in estuary waters. Research has shown that atmospheric
deposition is an important mechanism in the accumulation of contaminants in these
areas. Often though, there are other mechanisms which contribute to the
contaminant accumulation and separating the portion due to air deposition is
difficult.
Some participants noted that identifying causes, and the relative contribution of
various sources to a given environmental problem was not necessary because
indicators should measure general environmental health. For example, nitrate
accumulation in water can be caused by air deposition, agricultural runoff, -urban
runoff and other sources. Therefore, determining the amount of nitrate
accumulation due to air deposition as opposed to that from agricultural runoff, was
not necessary. They expressed the position that the nitrate concentration indicates
general ecosystem health and that was sufficient to gauge environmental progress.
Others felt that to translate indicators into positive actions, one should choose
indicators that can be tied to specific media or activities. Most agreed that it is
important to understand the cause and effect relationships underlying general
ecosystem measures before one uses indicators as a basis for actions or response.
Indicators Which Measure Public Perceptions and Actions
One problem with indicators is that they may be misinterpreted by the public.
For example, the air may look dirty, but the health quality may be fine. To avoid this
indicators should be reported which can be easily explained and understood.
Visibility is not a primary indicator, it is a secondary indicator; but it is easily
understood by the public. It can be used to drive the indicator process and
familiarize the public with the more important primary indicators, which are health
based and not merely aesthetic measures.
2-15
-------
Indicators can be used to educate the pubiic about their role in air quality.
Private industry alone should not be asked to make sacrifices to improve the nation's
air quality. The general pubiic over the past four aecaces has increai^d car
ownership significantly. High schools have changed from having no parking lots :o
fully loaded parking lots. Most of che major point sources of air contamination are
under management. Dramatic air quality improvements in problem zones must
address individual behaviors and lifestyle choices.
Another issue that must be addressed is determining "how clean is clean", and
how much we as a society are willing to pay for a certain level of air Quality. An
indicator which can stimulate this debate is to express poilutant costs in dollars per
ton of pollutant. In California it costs 520,000 per ton to control hydrocarbons. For
industries at the 98% control level the cost rises dramatically to achieve a 99%
pollutant control level. Do we, as a society, wish to pay those costs? Are there
creative solutions, such as pollution credit banking, borrowing or trading which can
be used to achieve the desired reduction? Two indicators were suggested to
highlight this issue. One is dollars spent per pollutant. The second is tons of
ambient pollution over gross regional product. This second indicator gives one a
very broad measure of the relationship between a pollutant and the industrial base.
It is clear that indicators can contribute to the air quality debate. Indicators
must be chosen which can be realistically interpreted by the public. Trade
associations, such as the American Institute of Plant Engineers, should be consulted
and included in the indicator selection process as much as the general public and
environmental interest groups. The problem with developing indicators is selecting
ones which are understandable and reflect the value the public places on clean air.
Public awareness and public perception are crucial to the development of
appropriate environmental indicators.
Air Workshop Indicators Exercise
To complete the workshop exercise, selecting environmental indicators for air,
the participants agreed to focus on those indicators for which data are collected.
This was done because only these indicators could be implemented and reported to
the public in the immediate future. Fourteen indicators were selected and are listed
below. It was agreed that these indicators are a good starting point for air indicator
development, but that there was insufficient time to finalize the list or fully debate
the merits and disadvantages of the following choices. All categories of indicators
discussed are represented in the indicators selected.
2-16
-------
Air Indicators Exercise
Health Impacts Indicators
1. Number of Person Hours of Exposure to NAAQS Violations
Air Conditions Indicators
2. Pollution Standard Index
3. Visibility
4. Odor Complaints
5. Smoke Shade
Actual Emissions Indicators
6. Emissions Data
7. Emissions Inventory (including Right-to-Know)
8. Emissions by Type
Management Activities Indicators
9. Percent Vehicles Failing Emissions Testing
Ecosystem Health Indicators
10. Crop Damage
11. Needle Damage
12. Ames Testing (mutagenicity)
Public Perception Indicators
13. Amount of Emissions Trading
14. Amount of Expenditure for Controlling or Buying Offsets
2-17
-------
Summary
As a finai caution the participants noted that care be exercised when
selecting indicators because standards and technology will change significantly over
time. Meaningful information one year may run be comparable with information
collected in the next year or the next decade. For example, the number of vehicle
miles traveled will not mean the same thing if future vehicles run very cleanly.
Also, it is important to be knowledgeable about the impacts of our actions.
Methyl ternary butyl ether (MBTE) is used as a gasoline oxygenate to help meet the
oxygenated fuel standards during the winter months in some areas. Tne purpose is
to 'reduce carbon monoxide emissions. Some people are reporting illnesses from
MBTE exposure. There are questions now about controlling a criteria pollutant with
a substitute which may be an air toxic or health issues. These experiences highlight
the complexity and depth involved in environmental management and the need for
careful selection of indicators which will be used to measure our environmental
progress.
2-18
-------
NATURAL RESOURCES WORKSHOP
The session was attended by sixteen peopie, mainiy representatives from state
governments. The session was moderated by James Bernard, Director, Natural
Resources Policy Division, Maine State Planning Office. Tne moderator and the
group members were provided with a list of example indicators in this area to
facilitate discussion.
Tne group concluded that environmental indicators are used to measure
environmental conditions and trends. Process measures, such as the number of
hunting licenses or permits issued, are generally not good indicators.
There are three questions that an acceptable indicator should address:
1. What is happening to the state of the environment, what are the changes and
the trends ?
2. Why is this happening/changing - what are the causes of change, what are the
stresses ?
3. What is being done about it, what is the management response?
During this session natural resources indicators were placed into four
categories: land, biota (wildlife, human demography), natural economic resources
(agriculture, forestry, fisheries), and outdoor recreation. The group agreed on a list
of indicators for each category, and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of
each. All of the indicators selected measure the state of the environment or
environmental trends.
Land
1. Land in Conservation Ownership
This is an indicator which would ordinarily be quantifiable at the state and
federal levels. Possible subcategories for this indicator would be: lands that are open
to the public, private lands, land managed by the Department of Defense. Lands
open to the public may not be a good indicator because an area that is open to the
public may not be a protected area.
2. Land Use/Land Cover Change Over Time, in acres
3. Percent and Absolute Change in Wetlands, by type
This could be expressed as percentage of total acreage in a state that is tided as
wetlands by type, geographical distribution, by county, and percentage lost since the
time of European settlement. There are different systems in place for inventorying
wetlands and data collection could be a problem. The health of wetknds is
important to their characterization and difficult to determine; therefore an indicator
species could be used as a sub-category. In view of these constraints, an aggregate
measure may be more suitable for wetlands.
2-19
-------
Biota
•l. Chemical Contaminant Leveis ir. Raotors
5. Reproductive Successes of Raptors
6. Eggshell Thickness of Raptors
Wildlife species are good indicators of the effects of chemical contamination,
human impact, and loss of wetlands. Amphibians and reptiles are good indicators of
habitat change and quality, so they can be used for a measurements of ecosystem
health.
7. Migratory and Wintering 3ird Populations
8. Deer Harvested by Hunters
9. Canada Goose Reproduction and Distribution
Geese may not be good to use as an indicator because their populations are
subject to significant influence by human activities. Canada goose populations are so
high in some areas that the goose is considered a nuisance by some; this does not
mean the bird is a poor indicator.
10. Breeding Populations of Waterfowl
An overabundance of wildlife could provide useful information for policy
makers. Also changes in the size of animal/bird populations could indicate changes
in habitats. There are good data available on the above list of indicators. In the case
of migratory birds, data collected helped to focus on causes outside North America.
11. Furbearer Populations Measured in Absolute Numbers
Trapping data should not be used, because this is subject to much outside
influences. Presence of furbearers could be a good indirect indicator of the impact
of cutting down forests.
Natural Economic Resources
Due to time constraints opportunities for discussion in this area were limited.
12. Estimated Number of Cold Water Species
This indicator provides an estimation of the productivity of streams for cold
water species.
2-20
-------
13. Shellfish ana rinnsh Landings, ibs.. year/level of error:
The precise method for determining the level of effort was not discussed. This
should consider numbers of fish or pounds of fish, not dollar values; dollars only
provide the going rate for fish.
14. Shellfish and Finfish Population Levels
Population levels could be measured in terms of abundance, size, frequency,
mortality and growth.
15. Heavy Metal Concentrations in Shellfish
16. Percentage of Acres of Shellfish Harvest Areas Opened and Closed
17. Acres and Species Composition of Undisturbed Forests
18. Productivity of Forests
This indicator can be reported in terms of increases or declines of individual
species.
Summary
The indicators selected were three from land, eight from biota and seven for
natural resources. Due to time constraints, outdoor recreation was not addressed.
Indicators do not necessarily have a cause-and-effect relationship. The trends
revealed by well selected indicators will provide information and assist in
determining future questions to be asked.
2-21
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE, HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND
SOLID WASTE WORKSHOP
Welcoming remarks ana introductions were made by the moderators. Mar.-
Shell of the NJDEPE and Bret Burdick of Virginia Waste Management. The
workshop was held on March 7, 1993 from 9:00 until 10:30 a.m.
The attendees reviewed lists of potential hazardous waste and soiici waste
indicators that were prepared by the NJDEPE. The workshop panicipants were
asked by the moderators to avoid defining whether any indicator is the best, but
rather to categorize these indicators into subheadings.
A question was posed to the group about whether the hazardous and solid waste
lists should be combined or kept separate. It was agreed because of time constraints
that hazardous waste and solid waste indicators would be discussed together and the
group would attempt to develop a list of waste management indicators covering both
types of waste.
What Makes A Good Indicator
The group felt that indicators should be chosen to reflect the status of the
environment, and not measures of process or performance of agencies. Process and
performance measures are used extensively in the hazardous waste area. Tnere was
general agreement on this point.
Indicators As A Measure Of Environmental Quality
The discussion focused on environmental quality. A question was raised as to
how indicators can be used to show that the environment has been affected because
of the management of hazardous and solid waste. The following five items were
cited as important issues.
1. A major goal should be source reduction of the waste.
2. A mechanism to quantify successes in waste management is needed; this
could be done on a per capita basis.
3. The toxicity and treatment of waste materials must be considered in light of
the issue of relative risk.
4. The focus should be on source reduction of toxics rather than the "end of the
pipe" solutions; the issue of pollution prevention was raised.
5. It is easy to focus on the process and measures of activity, but this may not be
the best type of indicator.
2-22
-------
How Do You Categorize Waste And Quantify Source Reduction
Waste reduction was cited as a key issue. There was an extensive discussion on
creating separate categories for residential, commercial and industrial waste and
how to quantify source reduction. The following five points were raised on this
subject.
1. Should waste, such as dredging materials from New York harbor be
considered? If so, what is the overall impact on the environment?
2. Information from manifests and origin/destination forms could be helpful.
3. The absence of complete data should not render an issue unimportant.
4. There must be separate consideration for residential vs. industrial amounts
of waste. Small amounts of a significantly hazardous waste (e.g., plutonium) is
an important issue.
5. The amount of the waste is not the only factor; toxicity and relative risk must
also be considered.
The Florida SAFE Report And Waste Management
The Florida SAFE report and its lack of indicators for hazardous waste
management was discussed. The group felt that RCRA considerations were a
relevant topic, since adding a small amount of a hazardous material to a large
quantity of non-hazardous material could result in all of the material being classified
as hazardous. The effect of solid and hazardous waste management and
contaminated site cleanup activities in other media such as water and land was also
cited. Not all waste that is generated can be reclaimed; therefore, relative risk is
especially important. Four criteria for the selection of indicators for hazardous and
solid waste are listed below.
1. The volume of waste material disposed.
2. The need for a combination of indicators that are direct and indirect
measures of environmental quality.
3. Consideration of the environmental impacts of not disposing of waste or not
creating waste.
4. The best perspective for waste management is to think in terms of not
creating waste.
2-23
-------
Impact of Waste On Other Media
The impact of hazardous waste and soiid waste management on other mecia
was discussed. This topic was viewed as extremely important sir.cs improper
management often affects other media. It was acknowledged that information on
historical trends for this topic is difficult to obtain.
Should A Good Indicator Measure Ambient Quaiitv Or Process
There was discussion on what process measures show and what their impacts are
on issues such as air quality. How waste management affects resource allocation ana
planning and how this information could define gaps in data were also considered. It
was mentioned that there may be several different levels of indicators that need to
be used to consider the overall environmental impact of waste management. The
amount of material that is released or discharged was noted as a critical factor.
Public Awareness And Participation
The following points were made relative to public awareness and participation.
1. Today, the public is better informed about waste disposal but may not know
ail of the derails.
2. The amount of hazardous and nonhazardous waste recycling is an important
measure.
3. Is the amount of money spent on site remediation a useful indicator? It may
not be.
4. We need to define, evaluate and quantify the value that society places on
waste management and waste avoidance.
5. We need to consider what the relative risk is of not cleaning up. Are
resources being used to clean up something that is not a "big risk"?
Releases To The Ambient Environment
The impacts" of hazardous and solid waste releases to the environment were
discussed and the following issues were noted.
1. Linking indicators could be discussed in terms of fate and transport.
2. A separate category for accidental releases may be needed.
2-24
-------
3. The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data may be helpful; we need to know
which media are being affected.
Enforcement actions are the nditional activity measure for this issue;
however, direct measures such as monitoring wells and other ambient
monitoring functions are another way of assessing this impact.
Conclusion
Tne meeting concluded with the group deciding upon the following ten
candidate indicators for hazardous and solid waste. These are not presented in any
particular order of priority, although source reduction and recycling were viewed as
important subjects.
1. Source Reduction - total amount of solid/hazardous waste generated per
capita/per industrial process or units
2. Source Reduction - total amount of solid/hazardous waste decreased per
capita/per industrial process or units
3. Source Reduction - change in total amount of hazardous/toxic materials
used in industrial processes
4. Total Amount of Solid/Hazardous Waste Diverted to Recycling Processes
5. Change in Relative Risk - as a function of a process or waste management
activity
6. Collection of Waste - illegally or improperly managed waste in tonnage or by
the percentage of reduction
7. Number of Curbside Programs for the Collection of Recyclables
8. Public Participation in and Awareness of Recycling/Household
Hazardous-Waste Programs
9. Resources Diverted to Waste Management Systems
10. Releases and Transfers (TRI) to Ambient Environment
2-25
-------
ENERGY AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKSHOP
The session was moderated by Joe Sullivan of ns NJDEPE and Caroi Scokes
Cawiey ox the USEPA. Region EI. The group consisted of abou: cwenr/ paruciDants
who represented government agencies, the public and industry. The group first
discussed the criteria for selection of indicators and then chose indicators and
evaluated them against the selected criteria. Tie list that was deveiooec was not
meant to be comprehensive but rather an aid in determining what is a good
environmental indicator.
Indicator Criteria
The criteria for selection of good indicators are listed below.
1. Availability of data
2. Useful purpose of the indicator
3. Connection to environmental quality
4. Connection to environmental quantity
5. Understandable by the public
6. Predictive
A key question is whether indicators should predict what may happen or
whether they should be measures in and of themselves. A good indicator should
show cause and effect as well as changes in the environment. If we consider every
environmental issue, then there could be 2000 separate environmental indicators.
Indicators should be judged for relevance and priorities; intrinsic quality of life items
may not be suitable. Indicators should be a reflection of environmental health
whether or not they are driven by economic forces.
Environmental quantity may be just as important as environmental quality.
There can never be enough of certain things; for example, bald eagles. Indicators
should be results oriented, the endpoint should be something we want, and they
should be comprehensible to the public.
There may be an occasional lack of consistency in the data. For example, if you
are sampling a stream and you sample from different parts of a stream at different
times, yoe change the sampling conditions. In addition certain indicators may be
useful but there may be a lack of data. Do not rule out something because there are
insufficient data.
2-26
-------
Agriculture
The indicators for agriculture were chosen and compared :c Lr.e listing of
criteria :o determine how many of :he criteria couid be met.
This appears to be the oniy indicator group which has been developed which
reflects a specific industry. Agriculture may be considered as a resource or as a
measure of development.
1. Acres in Production or Organically Farmed - meets aii criteria
2. Number of Farm Acres Gained or Lost - meets ail criteria
3. Soil Loss Rate (due to erosion) - meets all criteria
4. Calorie Input per Food Calorie Produced - meets all criteria except
predictive to the public
5. Tons of Fertilizer Used/Removed - meets all criteria
6. Herbicides/Pesticides - meets all criteria
7. Public Dollars - resources expended- to keep acres out of production, meets
availability-of-data criteria only
8 Acreage in Agricultural Easement - meets all criteria
9. Pesticides in Surface Water - meets all criteria
10. Total Agricultural Production - meets all criteria
11. Animal Waste Produced - meets all criteria except environmental quantity
and comprehensible by the public
Public Health
Direct health measures do not relate only to the environment. Three indicators
were chosen in this category and debated as to their limitations and benefits.
Prevalence of rabies in animals is a public concern and a possible indicator. Is rabies
environmentally connected and how does environmental management affect rabies?
Another instance is the prevalence of Lyme disease; does an increase in Lyme
disease indicate that the deer population is on the rise or lyme is being passed from
one animal to another?
Another consideration would be specific concerns related to one specific
industry; for example, in Florida there is a concern over phosphate mining
operations. The issue might be in-plant vs. out-of-plant, focusing on health
down-wind from a smelter or a coke oven.
2-27
-------
A third possible indicator that was discussed is cancer rates. A direct correlation
between cancer rates and an environmental exposure may be difficult to determine.
Cancer rates may ran parallel to the ozone hoie. for exampie. Cancers wouid be in a
generic category because there is so much interest in the dose-risk area. There is an
inconsistency when you avoid using a cancer indicator and the policies are driven by
cancer rates. This is important since public health is often the true goal, not
environmental quality.
Tne indicators chosen in this section are listed below.
1. Asthma Health Statistics - number of individuals affected
2. Allergies
3. Pb Blood Levels
4. Skin Cancer Incidents
5. Prevalence of Rabies in Animals
6. Outbreaks of Waterbome Diseases
7. Occupational Health Data
Energy
The group agreed to focus on transportation issues and not stationary sources.
Non-point sources are not as controlled and tend to be dependent on human
behavior patterns, as opposed to the stationary/point sources. Environmental
agencies can control electricity, power plants, etc. more directly.
Some states are currently monitoring the effectiveness of their conservation
measures. Environmental emissions by category fuels and the environmental impacts
due to fossil fuel combustion can be measured. Some states have initiated aggressive
fuel conservation programs without any methods in place for measuring reduction in
usage. This is a problem because they cannot show the effectiveness of their
conservation programs.
Demand-side management (DSM) consists of ways of gaining additional
capacity by conserving energy. This does not always mean wearing a sweater, etc.
DSM may abo be technology driven. This would be presented as energy produced
and energy consumed.
2-28
-------
The group decided on the following ten indicators.
1. Vehicle Miies Traveled or Emissions cf NOX. CO, per Vehicle Mile Traveled
2. Energy Usage per Capita - can be used as a base figure for energy
3. Land Use - mass transit ricership miies, useful for states that have a high
population density
4. Global Energy Use - power mix of the total fuel use: petroleum, coal, nuclear,
hydropower, bio fuels, alternative energies
5. Recoverables or Renewables as percentage of the mix
6. Conservation Rates - should be included since the United States uses 3 times
as much energy as the rest of the world combined
7. Energy Taxes - might not be a suitable indicator because they are a means of
promoting one type of energy source over another
8. Waste-to-Energy Conversion
9. Waste Disposal Costs per Energy Type
10. Growth in Energy Production vs. Population Growth
11. Low Level/High Level Radioactive Wastes
2-29
-------
CROSS MEDIA WORKSHOPS
SESSION 1
SESSION 2
2-30
-------
CROSS MEDIA WORKSHOP - SESSION 1
The cross media workshop of the Environmental Indicators Conference began
at 2:30 p.m. on Sunday, March 7. Tne workshop was divided into two sessions with
at least one representative from each State in each session. Session 1 was moderated
by Jim Bernard, Director, Naturai Resources Policy Division, of the Maine State
Planning Office. A similar session was conducted at the same time with the
remaining conference participants. Nearly thirty-five individuals attended the
session 1 cross media workshop. Most participants were from state environmental
agencies; however there were representatives from industry, the general pu'oiic, local
and federal government agencies. The goal of the cross madia session was to
examine the'interconnections among indicators used for different media: namely
water, air, energy, natural resources, hazardous substances and hazardous waste.
Defining Cross Media Indicators
Session 1 started by discussing cross media issues and indicators. Land, air,
water and natural resources interact in the environment. A cross media indicator is
one which involves two or more media. A cross media indicator may be sensitive to
more than one stressor. For example, air and energy media often use the same
indicator, as do natural resources and water.
One cross media issue is lead in the environment. The human health indicator
for lead is lead levels in human blood. The environmental indicator for lead is
concentration in soil, water or biota. High blood lead levels may be traced back to
lead from paint chips, soil, air, or drinking water.
Another cross media indicator is the number of shellfish harvest areas that have
been closed. Closures of shellfish harvest areas involve point and non-point
pollution, water quality, natural resources and human health. It was agreed that
little work has been done in the area of cross media indicators and that our purpose
was to initiate discussion on this topic.
The group agreed that indicators should be goal-oriented and shaped by public
policy and needs. Central issues include:
1. What does the public want to know?
2. What is happening in the environment?
3. lithe environment better now? How do we know?
4. Why is change happening? (cause and effect)
5. What are the environmental trends?
6. What is the government's response to trends?
7. Are government policies having the intended effect?
2-31
-------
8. Are government programs having the intended effect?
9. How much does it cost? Why has it cost so much?
10. Are the priorities correct?
11. Are we improving the environment or just moving pollution from one
medium to another?
12. What is the public's perception of environmental quality?
The focus of these questions is understanding environmental trends.
Environmental trends can be established for single media or for cross media
indicators, such as those used in this discussion. To fully understand the
environment and its trends, knowledge of the cause and effect relationships is
essential. A model of environmental cause and effect relationships is described
below.
At any given time the environment can be measured as having a given level of
quality (ambient condition). That level of quality is affected by contamination
sources or stressors (inputs). The result is a change in the environment's quality
(impacts). Dramatic changes in the environment's quality often result in government
actions (activity measures). Regulatory actions should influence environmental
quality (outcomes) by changing human behaviors. Regulatory actions have
associated social and financial costs. The cycle is essentially one of ambient
conditions which are affected by inputs that cause impacts; the impacts then promote
subsequent activities, which have outcomes and costs. In general, good cross media
indicators describe outcomes. Other indicators would explain environmental
cause-and-effect relationships to the public.
Cause, Effect And Environmental Trends
"-i-—^ CONDITIONSI If
r\\ itrniice ^ I
OUTCOMES
Environmental
INPUTS
Relationships
COSTS
GOVE I
ACTIVITIES
IMPACTS
2-32
-------
The closure of shellfish beds will be used to demonstrate this model. The
general status of shellfish resources may be evaluated from the recai coliform levels
in the water ana the toxic compound or metai concentrations in shellfish tissues
(ambient conditions). Tne ambient quality is affected by stressors, such as
discharges from combined sewage overflows, non-point source runoff, acid
deposition and boats (inputs). Tne result of excessive contamination is a change in
the ambient quality ana an increase in the number of shellfish harvest areas closed
(impacts). Dramatic changes may increase permitting and enforcement actions
(activities). Changes in human actions which are imposed by regulatory ana
enforcement actions should increase the number of harvest areas opened
(outcomes). It is possible to weigh the costs of regulating the various inputs against
the costs of losing portions of the shellfish harvest beds (costs).
The cumulative cross media indicator in this example is the number of shellfish
harvest areas opened and closed (impact indicator) and the trend of this indicator
over time (outcome indicator). The other indicators provide the public with a sense
of the environmental and social interactions influencing the trend.
The group agreed that the topic of cross media indicators is complicated.
Indicators should show environmental successes, failures, trends and financial
expenditures. Financial indicators were seen as important because they raise issues
concerning environmental priorities and resource use. Financial indicators should
include the costs of not doing cleanups or regulating potential sources of pollution.
It is important that tradeoffs be considered when regulations or restrictions curtail
industrial or community activities.
Matrix Analyses Of Cross Media Indicators
The group attempted matrix analyses of several cross media indicators. Each
matrix focused on one cross media indicator and defined it using the model
discussed above. For example, the lead matrix listed the possible sources of
contamination input. In addition, the matrix contained the major indicators for
ambient conditions, such as lead levels in drinking water or air particulate
concentrations. The outcome indicators listed were lead levels in human blood and
bone. No regulatory activity or cost indicators were included during the exercise. A
matrix was completed for closures in shellfish harvest areas and another for
biodiversity levels.
Summary
The group recognized the difficulty of presenting this information to the public
in an understandable format. To simplify indicator explanations for the public some
individuals favored using outcome indicators only. Other individuals favored using
cross media indices instead of single indicators.
2-33
-------
Indices combine several complicated indicators into a single value. This single
value can be ranked. Ranking generally takes the form of high, medium and Low or
some easily understood value. The U.S. Environmental Protecdon Agency is moving
away from combining single indicators together into one index. Other "individuals
believe that any indicator could be presented to the public in three sentences or less.
Rhode Island's' experience is that frequently reported indicators will be understood
by the public in time, even if the indicator is relatively obscure.
There is no ideal multimedia indicator which adequately covers all media. The
central issue is to find clusters of indicators which cross several media and portray a
sense of overall environmental improvement or degradation. Biodiversity is an
example of an indicator which represents cumulative air, water, soil and natural
resources conditions. The whole is often greater than the sum of the parts. Tne
applicadon of this principal to indicators suggests other important cross media
indicators such as forest diversity, land use, land cover, etc.
The Cross Media Session 1 adjourned at 4 p.m. Overall the discussion was
inconclusive and most participants expressed the need for continued work in this
area.
2-3k
-------
CROSS MEDIA WORKSHOP - SESSION 2
The Cross Media Indicator Session 2 was conducted on Sunday ar.err.con.
March 7. The moderator was Douglas W. Kievit-Kylar, Administrative Assistant,
Agency of Natural Resources. Tne session was attended by approximately thirty five
participants. The purpose of the session was to select indicators which qualified as
crossing media. This was done by dividing the conference attendees into two groups,
providing them with the lists of potential environmental indicators developed in the
earlier breakout sessions, and discussing cross media indicators.
The goal was to select indicators which cross several environmental media: for
example air quality, water quality, and land use. Cross media indicators may be
composite indices like the pollution standards index, bio-diversity scores or the water
quality index. Indices provide information on a number of environmental variables
by combining several measurements into one composite score. Indices provide easily
understood information to the public.
Candidate Cross Media Indicators
The group identified a series of indicators which span a number of
environmental media, as this was our first requirement in selecting candidate
indicators for our list. The media include air, water, land, natural resources, etc.
These indicators are listed below.
1. Land Use/Land Cover - affects natural resources, energy use
2. Population Density - affects land use, air pollution, solid waste
generation/disposal
3. Habitat Status - measure of health and condition of numerous land and water
species, measures physical and biological changes in the ecosystem
4. Energy - affects air pollution, water pollution
5. Public Health - measures adverse health effects whose source of exposure
may be through air, water, other media
6. Accumulation Measures - human exposures, through various media to
contaminants which may bioaccumulate
7. Public Education/Awareness - an outreach process which informs the public
on several environmental media and problems specific to those media
8. Source Reduction - changes in industrial processes which result in multiple
environmental benefits, across several media
The process of compiling the list of indicators was difficult and complex. It was
decided that the best way to proceed was to decide upon the criteria to select and
evaluate indicators. The group discussed some of the problems inherent in
establishing cross-media indicators. Three main problems were identified.
-35
-------
Problems Inherent in Establishing Cross Media Indicator1;
Any list of cross-media indicators is likeiv to be made up of some indicators
which affect the environment ana others which reflect the results of human actions
whether positive or negative. Tnis may restrict comparability among cross-media
indicators. For example, Land Use/Land Cover measurement is a good cross media
indicator which affects the environment. Habitat status is a good cross media
indicator which reflects the results of human or natural actions. Having two
measures which are mutually exclusive makes it impossible to develop one
composite indicator. It is important to realize that this dilemma will occur in "trying
to compile one list of cross media indicators, ana to clearly state this in'any
explanation of process to the potential readers or users of these data to avoid
possible confusion.
Cross-media indicators will be valued differently in various geographic regions
of the country. For example, if a cross-media indicator includes ground water as a
component it measures, Florida would consider it important because ground water is
highly valued in that geographic region. However, another state which is not
dependent upon groundwater may assign a lesser value to this indicator. Regional
differences make it hard to reach consensus about which cross media indicators
should be most highly valued. There may be no single cross media indicator list
appropriate for the entire country.
Cross-media indicators are often general system measures and are not detailed
enough to identify cause-and-effect relationships. A biologic indicator such as the
number of fish diseases may not isolate any predominant environmental stressor on
the affected species. For example, if diseased fish are found, additional information
is needed to determine the route of exposure (air, water, sediment) or the cause
(toxics, pathogens, metals, etc.) which led to the development of the illness.
Characteristics Of A Good Indicator
The group then compiled a list of "What Makes a Good Indicator". It was
determined that a good indicator had the characteristics listed below.
1. Cost-efficient
2. Ease of Data Collection
3. Reliable
4. Defensible
5. Reflects Accountability - not accounting
6. Understandable
7. Translatable - must have the ability to be translated into a remedial action
which will be beneficial
8. Has the capacity to educate the public of their role in creating or solving the
problem
2-36
-------
9. Can be prioritized among all other indicators chosen
10. Is sensitive to change - must be able to reflect changes occurring in the
media it is reporting on
Uses of Cross Media Indicators
The group next considered the uses for cross media indicators and compiled the
following list.
1. Consensus Building
2. Problem Definition
3. Educational Tools - behavior modification
4. Agency Direction/Policy
5. Resource Allocation
6. Measuring Change in Environmental Quality Over Time
7. A Strategic Planning Aid
It is interesting to note that some of the items on the list, such as education,
resource allocation, and sensitivity to change, also appear on the list of what makes a
good indicator. These indicators translate into measures of the environment and
recommended actions at the same time, giving us indications of potential problems
and identifying our appropriate response for reacting to them.
Cross Media Indicators Exercise
The group finished by making a "first cut" at listing potential indicators which
meet the following criteria: they are cross media measures; they provide information
which will not be geographically limited in its usefulness; and, they can be used to
identify cause-and- effect relationships. The following indicators are based on topics
from the first list which also meet the two additional criteria. The list is as follows:
1. Nitrate Concentration
2. Mercury Concentration
3. Lead Measures - including blood/lead levels
4. Land Use and Demographic Information
5. Shellfish Bed Gosings - could signify coliform, eutrophication, or air contaminant
level problems
6. Percentage of Designated-Use Attainment - swimmability, fishability and
drinkability measures
7. Measures Indicating Change In Biological Diversity
8. Increase Or Decrease In Indigenous Species
2-37
-------
9. Raptor Population Size - eagles, falcons and other birds of prey
10. Water Quality And Flow
11. Sediments
12. Human Health Impacts
Summary
The consensus of the group was that identification of cross media indicators is
an extremely difficult process. The group began with the goal of organizing
environmental data in a manner that provides maximum information to the public,
while using a small number of simple, easily understood indicators. The progress of
the group was quickly impeded by the recognition of several limiting factors.
Specifically, since some indicators affect the environment and others reflect results
of human actions, our process of reducing the list of potential cross media indicators
will reach a point where further progress will be stymied.
Cross media indicators will be valued differently in different regions of the
country. Finally, cross media indicators are often general system measures which are
not suitable for establishing cause-and-effect relationships.
Also, indicators which pass these tests must be judged on whether they qualify
as a "go
-------
APPENDIX D
SELECTED REFERENCES
2-39
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS - SELECTED REFERENCES
Baker, Davici 3. Facets of Ground-Water. "Weil Vulnerability ana Nitrate
Contamination". Ohio. December, 1992.
Bauersfeid. W.R., E.W. Moshinsky and E.A. Pustav. Water Resources Data
New Jersev. Water Year 1991. Volume 1: Surface Water Data. United
States Geological Survey Water-Data Report NJ-91-1. Trenton, New
Jersey. 1992.
Bauersfeid, W.R., W.D. Jones and E.A. Pustav. Water Resources Data New
Jersev. Water Year 1991. Volume 2: Ground Water Data. United States
Geological Survey Water-Data Report NJ-91-2. Trenton, New Jersey. 1992.
Bono, Pat, Sandra Krietzman, Leslie McGeorge. Assessing New Jersey's
Drinking Water Quality 1984-1990: A Status Report on the Implementation of
the 1984 Amendments to the New Jersev Safe Drinking Water Act CA-28CT).
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Bureau of
Safe Drinking Water and the Division of Science and Research. Trenton, New
Jersey. August 1992.
Chesapeake Bay Program. Environmental Indicators: Measuring Our
Progress. Draft No. 11. September 1992.
Coastal Environmental Services Inc. "A Proposal to Conduct a
Comprehensive Assessment of New Jersey's Ambient Environmental
Indicators: Phase 1, Compilation of Ambient Monitoring Programs." Princeton,
New Jersey. September 2, 1992.
Dooley, John H. Natural Sources of Mercurv in the Kirkwood-Cohansev
Aquifer Svstem of the New Jersev Coastal Plain. New Jersey Geological
Survey, Geological Survey Report 27. New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy, Division of Science and Research.
Trenton, New Jersey. 1992.
Eagleton Poll. "New Jerseyans See Shore Going Downhill: Majority Thinks
Regional Coastal Authority A Good Idea," June 5, 1988.
Eagleton Poll. "New Jerseyans Would Extract Heavy Price from Corporate
Polluters," October 16, 1988.
Eagleton PolL "The New Jersey Shore - Pollution Concerns Subside, But
Image Still Tarnished," July 2, 1989.
Eagleton Poll. "Tracking Issues in the Gubernatorial Race: Auto
Insurance and Environment Remain Top Concerns," October 1989.
Eagleton Poll. "Earthday 1990 Promises to Involve more State Residents
than Earthday 1970," April 22, 1990.
Eagleton Poll. "Issues and Candidate Image; Voters Say New Jersey Taxes
Should be an Issue," October 10, 1990.
Eagleton Poll. "1990 Senate Elections: Pocketbook Issues Predominate,"
October 31, 1990.
2-40
-------
Eagieton Poll. "New Jerseyans Express Concern; Rate Elected
Officials." February 17, 1991.
Easleton Poll. "New Jersevans Speak Out about Taxes," Seoternber 29,
1991.
Eagieton Poll. "Economic Issues Top Public Concern, Leaders Performance
Rating Remains Low," May 3, 1992.
Eagieton Poll. "Image of New Jersey Shore Improves," May 31, 1992.
Eagieton Poll. "Economic Issues Dominate Voter Concerns: Clinton seen
as Better able to Handle Important Issues," September 22, 1992.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Strategic Assessment of
Florida's Environment: SAFE fRevised Draft. Review Indicator ManualV
Tallahassee, Florida. March 1992.
Hall, Bob and Mary Lee Kerr. 1991-1992 Green Index: A State bv State
Guide to the Nation's Environmental Health. Island Press. Washington D.C.
1991
Harriman, Douglas A. and Louis M. Voronin. Water Quality Data for
Aquifers in East-Central New Jersey. 1981-82. United States Geological Survey
Open File Report 84-821. Trenton, New Jersey. 1984.
Harriman, Douglas A. and B. Pierre Sargent. Ground-Water Quality in
East-Central New Jersey, and a Plan for Sampling Networks. United States
Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4243. Trenton,
New Jersey. 1985.
Hay, Lauren E. and William A. Battaglin. Effects of Land-Use Buffer
Size on Spearman's Partial Correlations nf T^-Use and Shallow
Ground-Water Quality. United States Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 89-4163.Trenton, New Jersey. 1990
Hay, Lauren E. and Jean P. Campbell. Water Quality Trends in New
Jersey Streams. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources
Investigations Report 90-4046. West Trenton, New Jersey. 1990.
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources. Critical Trends
Assessment Project: Analyzing Treads in Illinois. Project Overview and
Technical Workplan. Springfield, Illinois. August 14, 1992.
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality, fnitfcl Review
and Evaluation of Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Activities in the United
States with Recommendations for Needed Improvement. First Year Report.
(Draft) Washington D.C. October 22, 1992.
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. 11 hM Work
—Products of the Environmental Indicators Task Group. (Draft) Washington
D.C. November 18, 1992.
2-k]
-------
Johnson, Branden B., Ph.D., ana Michael Welsh, Ph.D. "Research Project
Summary: Public Evaluations of Reservoir Protection." New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Division of Science ana '
Research. Trenton, New Jersey. October 1992.
Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission. State of Kentucky's
Environment: A Report of Progress and Problems. Frankfort, Kentuckv
1992.
Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission. State of Kentucky's
Environment: Highlights of Progress and Problems. Frankfort, Kentucky. 1992.
Kish, George R., Eric F. Vowinkel, Thomas V. Fussillo and William A.
Battagfin. National Water Summary. 1986. "Relation of Land Use to
Ground-Water Quality in the Outcrop Area of the Potomac-Raritan- Magothy
Aquifer System, New Jersey". Reston, Virginia, ppg. 109-114.
Krueger, Henry 0., John Ward and Stanley Anderson. A Resource Manager's
Guide for Using Aquatic Organisms to Assess Water Quality for Evaluation of
Contaminants. Biological Report 88(20). US Fish and Wildlife Service, US
Department of the Interior, Research and Development. Washington D.C.
August 1988.
LaRoe, E. Setting National Goals. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Washington D.C. September 28,
1992.
Mallard, Gail E. and Stephen E. Ragone, eds. United States Geological
Survey Toxic Substances Hvdrologv Program - Proceedings of the Technical
Meeting. Phoenix. Arizona. September 26 - 30. 1988. United States Geological
Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 88-4220. "Methods of Evaluating
the Relation of Ground-Water Quality to Land-Use in a New Jersey Coastal
Plain Aquifer System," by Eric F. Vowinkel and William A. Battaglin. Reston,
Virginia, ppg. 405-410.
Mallard, Gail E. and David A. Aronson, eds. United States Geological
Survey Toxic Substances Hvdrologv Program - Proceedings of the Technical
Meeting. Monterey. California. March 11-15. 1991. United States Geological
Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4034. "Comparison of
Relations between Shallow Ground-Water Quality and Land-Use in Two New
Jersey Coastal Plain Aquifer Systems," by Eric F. Vowinkel. Reston,
Virginia. 1991. ppg. 307-313.
Moreau, David H., Ph.D. Blue Ribbon Final Report and Recommendations on
North Carolina Environmental Indicators. Raleigh, North Carolina. December
1990.
Natural Resources Defense Council. Testing the Waters: A National
Perspective on Beach Closing. July 1992.
i-ki
-------
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water
Resources, Bureau of Water Resources Management Planning. New Jersey
1986 State Water Quality Inventor-' Report. Trenton. New Jersey. Juiv 1986.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water
Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Planning. New Jersey 1990 State Water
Quality Inventors Report. Kevin Berry. Trenton, New Jersey. September 1990.
New Jersey Depanment of Environmental Protection, Water Resources
Division, Bureau of Water .Allocation. 1987 New Jersey Water Withdrawal
Report. Trenton, New Jersey. 1988.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Office of
Enforcement. Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program: Annual Report for
1991. Trenton, NJ. March 1992.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. Tne
Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act: A Status Report to the New Jersey
Legislature. Trenton, New Jersey. September 1992.
Ragone, Stephen, ed. Regional Characterization of Water Quality,
"Hydrogeo logical, Well Construction and Land-Use factors that can affect the
evaluation of Regional Ground-Water Quality". By Eric F. Volwinkel and
William A. Battaglin. Symposium Proceedings: Third Scientific Assembly of
the International Association of Hvdrological Science. Baltimore Maryland.
Mav 1989. IAHS Publication No. 182. ppg. 69-77.
Robinson, Keith. Association Between Water Quality Trends in New Jersey
Streams and Basin Activities. United States Geological Survey, Water
Resources Division. Trenton, New Jersey.
Schaefer, F.L. Distribution of Chloride Concentrations in the
Principal Aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. 1977-81. United States
Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 83-4061. Trenton,
New Jersey. 1983
Shelton, Theodore B., Ph.D. Interpreting Prinze Quality
Analvis: What Do the Numbers Mean? Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment
Station. New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Spinello, Anthony and Dale L. Simmons. Base Flow of 10 South Shore
SiTggm-^ r<|apd. New York. 1976-1985. and the Effects of Urbanization on
Base Flow and Flow Duration. United States Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigations Report 90-4205. Syosset, New York. 1992.
State of Washington. The 1991 State of the Environment Report:
Environment 2010. Olympia, Washington. July 1992.
2-ki
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Definitions for the
Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground Water Quality. Office of
Groundwater ana Drinking Water. Washington D.C. May 1992.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Workshop on
Environmental Goals. Indicators and Strategic Planning: Preserving Our
Future Todav. Chicago, Illinois. September 28-30, 1992.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA Environmental
Progress Report. Washington D.C. May 1992.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation, Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch. Environmental
Indicators: Policies. Programs and Success Stories. Workshop Proceedings.
Washington D.C. July 17-19, 1991.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish. (WH-553) EPA/444/4-89-001. Washington
D.C. May 1989.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Environmental
Indicators FY87 Summary. Seattle .Washington. January 1988.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Environmental
Indicators FY88 Summary. Seattle,Washington. June 1989.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Management
Division. Environmental Indicators FY89 Summary. Seattle, Washington.
October 1990.
Vowinkel, Eric F. and Stephen F. Siwiec. Plan to Evaluate the Effects of
Hvdrogeologic Conditions and Human Activities on Water Quality in the
Coastal Plain of New York and New Jersey. United States Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4091. West Trenton, New Jersey.
1991.
Wartenberg, Daniel, Ph.D. Comprehensive Assessment of New Jersey's
Ambient Environmental Indicators Research Proposal: Development of an
Interactive. Computerized Environmental Database for New Jersey. Rutgers,
The Sure University of New Jersey, Department of Environmental and
Community Medicine. New Brunswick, New Jersey. March 1992.
Weinstrin, Nfcl, Ph.D. Public Perception of Environmental Hazards.
Department of Human Ecology and Psychology, Rutgers, The State University
of New Jersey. New Brunswick, New Jersey. November 1986.
2-kk
-------
Summary:
Southeastern ta«MB
-------
Conference Summary and Recommendations
In conclusion, the following comments and recommendations are offered:
• A review of the products of the breakout groups and the individual responses
demonstrates broad and generally consistent agreement on the types of indicators that
should be included in the national system. Time and a lack of immediate access to
technical information prevented specific, technically correct indicators from being
developed. Further, even though the structure of the New Jersey and Florida
conferences was different with regard to the number and types of small groups, there
was generally consistent results, a heartening finding. It is recommended that future
conferences attempt to continue to incorporate the results of the New Jersey and
Florida conferences into their findings
• One of the principal reasons that EPA sponsored these four regional conferences was
to allow states to identify indicators that had special relevance to their region of the
country. As appealing as this idea is, there is little evidence found in the conferences
that would suggest that states find this distinction useful. Every one of the 8 groups
either did not include regional indicators, failed to distinguish between regional and
national indicators or, in the few cases where list of regional and national indicators
were offered, caveats were entered disclaiming the utility of regional indicators An
examination of the New Jersey proceedings similarly showed to no great result from
the distinction.
• While the reporting of data gaps was useful, with a number of important indicator data
gaps being reported in most groups, it would appear that the number of data gaps is
substantially understated. The indicators surfacing from the small groups and from the
individual work, which supposedly meet the selection criteria, are highly suspect. It is
likely that much more work is need in filling data gaps than is evident.
• There is some evidence that "comparative risk assessment syndrome" is at work.
Since the indicators selected in most of the groups tend to be the product of existing
programs, and not based upon some comprehensive and logical assessment of risk
across all environmental issues, there may be reason to believe that some important,
high risk issues are not represented poorly or not at all, and that other less risky, but
well documented, issues are, perhaps, over represented. The absence of any real
consideration of indoor air issues is perhaps indicative of this condition. In the long
term, it may be useful to structure a national indicator system around the issues
identified in a national comparative risk assessment study.
• Though the structure of the small groups was not particularly conducive to dealing
with indicators from a policy perspective,there was some diffuse pressure to produce
indicators that reflected some of the major policy positions being assumed by states
and promoted by EPA — pollution prevention, sustainability and environmental equity.
2-^5
-------
Future conferences may want to consider focusing some small group activity on
specifically developing indicators that deal with these issues
• The results plainly reflect the problems with the quality of the available data. In spite
of some considerable effort to ensure that participants focused on indicators that
reflected an environmental result, a number of program activity measures were still
offered, particularly among the individual responses. At the high end of the scale —
indicators providing direct measures of human and environmental health ~ there were
few indicators, with virtually nothing available for human health. Obviously there is
tremendous work left to accomplish in developing quality indicators.
• Of the many data gaps directly identified of indirectly inferred, perhaps two of them
should selected for immediate and intensive treatment. Human health because of its
importance as a top level type of indicator and because of the near total absence of
meaningful national data, needs priority treatment. Land use/cover because of its
overall value in setting the context for other issues and because of its use in GIS
systems for creating new indicators is prime for focused effort. The amount of
available, but presently unusable and disorganized land use/cover information, offers
the opportunity for rapid and valuable progress.
2-hG
-------
Water Quality
Water Quality is obviously a key area for indicator development because of the
overwhelming importance of water as an environmental value. This group was intended
to serve as a forum for dealing with water quality issues of all types — surface and ground
water, fresh water and salt water as well as drinking water. Given the importance, size
and complexity of this issue, it may be a candidate for further division in subsequent
deliberations. Water quality was a highly popular issue, requiring two separate sessions to
accommodate at the conferees wishing to participate in this issue.
Group Presentation Summaries
Group 1
National Indicators
Ground Water: Number of public drinking supplies violating maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs)
Surface Water: Percent of miles/acres of water bodies meeting or not meeting
designated uses.
Drinking water: Percent of population served by systems violating MCLs.
Regional Indicators
Ground water:
1. Percent of leaking underground petroleum tanks.
2. Quantities of impervious surface.
3. Number of contaminated sites.
Surface Water:
1. Fish advisories.
2. Percent of shellfish beds closed to harvesting.
Data Gaps
1. Biological indicators (surface water).
2. Ground water monitoring.
3. Storm water pollutant loadings to surface water.
4. Percent of septic tank failures.
Workgroup Comments: This workgroup provided no interpretative comments as
part of its presentation
2-A7
-------
Group 2
National and Regional Indicators
Ground water:
1. Ambient ground water quality.
2. Withdrawals/recharge rates.
3. Number of major sources of ground water contaminants.
Surface Water:
1. Bodies of water that meet ambient water quality standards.
2. Percent that meets designated usage of all water bodies chemical/physical/
biological.
3. Natural species diversity baseline index
Drinking Water:
1. Percent of public drinking water in compliance.
2. Percent population served by systems in compliance.
3. Number of advisories.
Water Resources:
1. Disturbance in the drainage basin.
2. Percent of low flow permitted by water withdrawal.
Data Gaps
1. Ambient water quality data.
2. Biological baselines for flora and fauna in the water.
Workgroup Comments
This group agreed that there is little merit to differentiating between national and regional
indicators. Nationwide standardization is needed in order to make the use of these
indicators universally acceptable.
Summary and Analysis
Reflecting the depth, diversity and complexity of water quality issues, the indicators
emerging from the results of the group and individual processes, as well as the results of
the New Jersey work, not much is generated in the way of a consistent structure of water
quality indicators. Instead, the collected information yields a rich array of indicator
possibles which may assume greater conceptual cohesion in the context a more refined
analysis of water quality issues.
Review of the work of the two work groups and of the individual work did, however,
produce some clear indications of some types of indicators that should support the water
quality issue. In general, four broad areas drew support:
2-48
-------
• Surface Water Quality:
A large number of indicators dealt, in one fashion or another, with the quality of
surface water, an amazing number of them being unique contributions. The two
commonly cited indicators in this group are:
1) Water Quality Standards Exceedances, and
2) Designated Use Measures.
• Ground Water Quality
There was considerable interest in developing measures of water quality for ground
water given its importance. However, much of the support came in the individual
responses and most of those responses seemed to be based on measures found in
Florida's SAFE document, which projects data not generally available to other states.
Nonetheless, there was substantial support for indicators that supported information
concerning violations of water quality standards for ground water. Measures
regarding septic tanks also drew attention
• Drinking Water:
Drinking water indicator recommendations had some variety as well, but there was
general consensus that an indicator based on violations of maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) was desirable
• Effects of Surface Water Contamination:
Another clear group of proposed indicators focused around the effects that surface
water pollution has upon ecological and human health values. Commonly mentioned
examples of ecologically-based environmental indicators include shellfish closings,
fishkills, biodiversity and habitat impacts. On the human health side, measures dealing
with populations affected by exposure to water contamination and public health
advisories typify the suggested measures.
A review of the water quality indicators produced by the New Jersey process seems to
indicate the same difficulty in finding a clean structure capable of organizing water quality
indicators The twenty-five ranked indicators found in their proceedings provides a useful
list of indicator potentials, but, like the results of the present analysis, requires more
refined analysis to be useful in developing a comprehensive and cohesive indicator system.
It is plain that water quality is an area where considerable additional work needs to be
done. The diversity of suggested indicators demonstrates both its importance and the
potential wealth of information that might be applied to the area. Probably more than any
other issue, water quality evoked recommendations for issues that are not directly water
measures. A number of measures were recommended that dealt with land use (habitat
change, land cover/use, drainage basis disturbances) and another group tied water quality
to measures of biological performance. Future regional conferences and the national
conference should investigate the dimensions of water quality more fully to ensure its
proper treatment.
2-kS
-------
Waste
Waste is another broad area of environmental concern that projects a number of important
dimensions: solid waste management, pollution prevention, hazardous waste management
and a variety of specialized waste issues.
Group Presentation Summary
National Indicators
1. Total and per capita generation of all solid waste.
2. Total and per capita generation of municipal solid waste.
3. Solid waste management by: type, strategy, final disposition (landfilling,
incineration, composting, recycling, and reuse), total tonnage, percentage
breakdown and per capita use.
4. Number and percentage of all sites with confirmed contamination (soil and ground
water).
5. Low level total amount of radioactive waste generation and methods of disposal.
6. Hazardous waste management by type, strategy, final disposition by total tonnage
and percentage breakdown.
Regional Indicators
1. Waste tons traveled per mile
2. Sewage generated per capita (sewage sludge) and disposal methods.
Data Gaps
1. Source reduction
Workgroup Comments
This group's concern is whether the above indicators measure ecological damage due to
waste contamination, or simply waste generation. While some of the indicators may be
ecological, most are related to waste activities alone, such as amounts of waste, where its
flowing, etc. This does not provide any indication of how the waste is affecting the
environment. The direct impacts to humans and ecosystems were discussed; however the
group could not develop any indicators to measure these impacts.
The group did not distinguish much between national and regional indicators, although the
lists above show some differences. AJ1 of the indicators above can be used at the national
or regional level. The group noted that it is important to clarify definitions in order for all
levels of government to collect the same type of data.
2-50
-------
Summary and Analysis
Since waste is effectively an artificially created construct — and not a specific resource like
air, water, land or wildlife ~ it is largely defined by the programs that have been developed
to manage its impacts. Not surprisingly, the majority of the indicators developed to deal
with waste issues have their base in relatively compartmentalized programmatic activities.
As consequence, in contrast to the previous water quality issue, waste issues tend to break
out into relatively clear and consistent groups that should make the development of cogent
clusters of waste indicators relatively simple.
A review of the group presentation summary and the individual responses indicates at least
five clear areas for indicator development:
• Solid Waste:
A review of both the individual and group responses indicates strong support for a
variety of solid waste-related indicators. At least four general types of solid waste
indicators were identified:
1) measures dealing the total and per capita amounts of waste generated,
2) measures dealing with the recycling of solid waste,
3) measures dealing with solid waste facilities (capacity, facilities causing
pollution, open dump counts), and
4) measures dealing with rates and methods of disposition of solid waste.
• Hazardous Waste:
A considerable number of responses identified a need for hazardous waste indicators,
with most of the candidate indicators focusing on either hazardous waste management
or on source reduction. While a number of waste management indicators were
offered, no clear choice was made Source reduction indicators were consistently
suggested, but the lack of data in this area prevented any serious candidate indicators
from being provided.
• Contaminated Sites:
Mirroring all of the highly visible site-based cleanup programs existing at the state
level, strong sentiment was expressed for the inclusion of measures that summarize
cleanup activity. CERCLA cleanups were the most common specific choice for an
indicator in this area.
• Toxic Releases:
Several measures were suggested involving the Toxics Release Inventory data, though
discussions in the group questioned the meaning and validity of that data source.
. Effects
As in all of the groups there was considerable concern for ecological and human health
aspects of the waste issue. A variety of measures were recommended that dealt with
the number of contaminated drinking water well, exposure levels of waste pollutants,
2-51
-------
etc. A desire for measures that correlate waste exposures with human health effects
was demonstrated, but specific indicators were not offered due to lack of data.
Other suggested indicators covered a variety of subjects including such things as
radiological wastes, medical wastes, and sewage.
Several clear data gaps did appear that are worthy of note. First, spurred by the
development of pollution prevention programs, indicators capable of providing measures
of source reduction activities were strongly supported, though the lack of data prevented
any specific candidate indicators from being offered. This is an area that is prime for some
sort of focused data collection effort. A second area deals with the lack of data capable of
associating waste source exposures to human health effects.
The New Jersey workshop results produced ten unprioritized and ungrouped indicators
which could easily be integrated into the five groups identified above or that demonstrated
a desire to develop indicators where important data gaps existed. In general, the New
Jersey results supported the results found in this conference.
2-52
-------
Water Quantity
The management of water supplies for all of the competing uses is not an issue that falls
within EPA's mission. As a consequence, indicators that reflect strictly the use or the
quantitative side of water issues are not usually at the forefront of indicator lists developed
within the EPA context. Water quantity as an independent issue is emphasized in this
conference because 1) water use is an important mission issue for many state
governments, and 2) water use is an important aspect of any comprehensive assessment of
environmental conditions.
Group Presentation Summary
National and Regional Indicators
1. Total/per capita freshwater withdrawal by use.
2. Number of public water suppliers pumping from receding aquifers
3. Number of inter basin transfers.
4. Use of reclaimed water.
5. Population affected by water restriction days.
6. Total annual average precipitation.
Data Gaps
1. Waterbed levels, flows, and inflows not meeting ecological, recreational,
aesthetic, and consumptive use needs.
2. Surface and ground water availability.
Workgroup Comments
This group thought mainly in terms of regional indicators, although these could be used
nationally, taking into consideration regional differences. During the group's report, the
question was raised as to whether these indicators would be valid in other climates, such
as arid areas. The group stated that the indicators would show some differences, but
would be appropriate overall. One attendee noted that some of the listed indicators are
"bean counts," or input measures rather than measures of results.
Summary and Analysis
The Water Quantity group produced a relatively coherent and focused set of results that
provides a good structure around which to structure indicators. Indicators clustered into
three main groups:
2-53
-------
• Water Use:
Virtually all individuals and well as the group presentation indicated support for one or
more indicators that measured use or withdrawal of both surface and ground water
usually by major sector (public supply, agriculture, industrial, thermoelectric, etc.)
Where appropriate, both total and per capita measures were suggested.
• Effects of Water Use on Water Supply:
Though the specific recommended measures were less certain, a number of individuals
identified indicators that sought to measure the effects that man's use of water had on
the water supply. Candidate indicators such as measures of flows and levels, aquifer
declines, and wells contaminated by water level declines are examples of this type of
indicator.
• Effects of Water Use on Humans and the Environment:
A similar set of proposed indicators sought to describe the impact the man's use of
water resource has had on man and on other environmental values. Stream
impairment, salt water intrusion, flows and levels impacts on wildlife, fisheries and
recreation are measures proposed that fit this type of indicator.
The New Jersey conference combined water quality and water quantity into a single
discussion issue. Only two of the 25 indicators brought forward by that workshop dealt
with water use issues.
The data gaps in this area are likely very substantial. Good information is available
through the US Geological Survey concerning water withdrawals by sector that may have
some national consistency Otherwise, while some types of data may be good at the state
or subnational level, there would appear to be a general lack of data concerning most of
the dimensions of water use identified. The collection of water use data is an area that
needs considerably more attention.
2-54
-------
Land Use/Demography/Resource Protection
Man's use of and impact on land resources is an area that is largely the responsibility of
state and local governments and of federal agencies other than EPA. A national
environmental indicator system, however, needs measures that assess these impacts
because they set the context within which almost all of the other issues are set. This group
was created to provide a focal point for the development of indicators that reflect
processes occurring in the broader society that have impacts on environmental values.
Group Presentation Summary
National & Regional Indicators, & Data Gaps (Top Six Indicators)
1. Land use by category.
2. Population shifts - growth.
3. Level of land use control.
4. Land use by ownership.
5. Identification of critical sites.
6. Chemical use and application.
Complete Listing:
Population.
Land ownership.
Land use by percent.
Chemical use - pesticides and fertilizers, etc.
Rates of visitation to public lands and parks.
What can be done with land - property rights.
Preservation/conservation - special uses.
Land use - environmental justice.
Permitting and enforcement.
Conservation - forest to other uses.
Conservation from other uses to development.
Number of cleanup sites.
Changes in wetlands.
Percent of population using sewage treatment by type.
Per capita vehicle miles traveled.
Population density/growth.
Demographics - population shift.
Environmental education programs.
Prime farm land.
Percent of land being used - industry, waste disposal.
Abandoned industrial sites.
Species control programs.
2-55
-------
Percent of urban land underutilized.
Streams and shorelines with forested buffers.
Land use in flood plains.
Planning/management/regulation that includes all air, land, water.
Government land acquisition.
Homeowner responsibilities.
Land use control via environmental protection.
Definitions.
Workgroup Comments
The land use group noted that it is very difficult to get a good grasp of this subject
because of such issues as property rights. Some indicators can be used to measure how
land is being used versus how land is being regulated. If we want to examine how land is
being controlled, this information will be difficult to obtain, since some areas have no land
use planning per se. To this group, regional and national indicators are fairly synonymous.
However, one area's definition of "industrial" may be quite different from another area's.
For this subject, clarity of definitions is very important up front.
Rather than addressing data gaps, the group was more concerned with definition
questions and such questions as what are the categories of land use that we want to use.
One attendee suggested that soil resources, specifically topsoil, should be
considered. Another suggestion was to look at land cover to measure disturbance, rather
than land use. However, how the land cover is used is also important to measure.
Another suggestion was that the urban/rural mix is important to track.
Summary and Analysis
Although there was considerable diversity in the types of indicators that were suggested,
the general areas where the participants felt that indicators should be developed were fairly
distinct. Four such broad areas emerged:
• Population
Both the group and individual responses strongly supported measures that summarize
trends in population. Common recommended indicators include: total population,
population density, urban/rural growth, and population growth rates.
• Change in Land Use/Cover
Similarly, the group response and almost all of the individual responses identified at
least one indicator of change in land use/cover as worthy of inclusion and quite a
variety of candidate indicators were provided. There seemed to be concern, however,
that a current source of data was not available.
2-56
-------
• Protected Lands
Another area of general consensus is the need for an indicator that measures the
amount of land that is some sort of protected status. Quite a number of indicators
were proposed that defined protected lands in a number of ways and it is doubtful that
any national indicator is presently available for lands other than federal. Appropriately
defined, data could be collected from state governments that could support a good
national indicator.
• Habitat
The final indicator type drawing consistent support is wildlife and aquatic habitat. As
with many of the other land use/cover indicators suggested in this issue, a consistent
data source appropriate for national use likely does not exist at the moment.
The New Jersey conference did not have a workshop that was the direct equivalent of this
group. It did have a workshop dealing with natural resource issues that recommended
several indicators dealing with land us/cover and an indicator that would summarize the
status of protected lands, measure generally supportive of the finding to this conference..
While data for a variety of demographic indicators is easily available, data associated with
land use/cover indicators is either not available or, or more likely, is not collected or
prepared in an appropriate format to support national indicators. This is an area that is
important to a national indicator system where usable data probably exists, but is not
currently available. Sizable progress could probably be made with EPA leadership in
providing nation-wide analysis of satellite information at state scale and by EPA working
with other federal agencies (Interior, NOAH, Fish and Wildlife Service) to identify useful
data.
2-57
-------
Air Quality
Air Quality rivals the two water issues as an indicator area because of its intrinsic
importance to the support of life and because of its importance to the mission of EPA.
This group was developed to capture indicators reflecting all dimensions of air quality,
including indoor air.
Group Presentation Summary
National Indicators
1. Number of people living in non-attainment areas by.
A. Income level, and
B. Ethnic group.
2. Average pH of rainfall.
3. Number of non-attainment areas nationally.
4. Mobile per capita source emissions.
5. Visibility.
6. Top ten hazardous air pollutants from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).
Regional Indicators
1.
Trends in measured pollutants from vehicles.
2.
Number of days lost at work/school from illness caused by air.
3.
Trends in criteria air pollutants emissions
4.
Number of homes/schools over the national radon level
5.
Number of major industrial facilities NOT meeting federal regulations
6.
Blood lead levels in children.
7.
Population trends.
8.
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
9.
Emissions from pulp/paper/chemical plants.
10.
Regional map of releases by chemical (bar graph).
Other Indicators:
Citizen complaints.
Acres of agricultural/forest land burned.
Emissions from newly permitted sources.
Average state ozone as percent of national emissions.
Percent of population impacted by odor.
Pollution standard index (PSI) greater than 100 or anything greater than moderate
levels.
Data Gaps
1. Epidemiology data on disease associated with criteria air pollutants.
2-58
-------
2.
Epidemiology associated with non-criteria air pollutants
3.
No health risk data available.
4.
No method for monitoring air toxics.
5.
No understanding of ozone generation.
6.
No understanding of ozone transport.
7.
No data on long-range transport
8.
Non-compliance of air quality standards.
9.
Solar radiation.
10.
Odor - short term measures.
11)
No adequate system of recording complaints.
Other Data Gaps:
Toxic release data from sources other than TRI (government facilities, utilities,
small and mobile facilities).
Ecological effects from air pollution
Economic impacts from air pollution.
Materials damage from air pollution.
Proportions of emissions from each source.
Visibility monitoring data.
Relative exposure by emissions source
QAQC improvement for each region with shared airsheds for all air pollutants.
Agriculture acres burned
Weighing of hazardous air pollutants (TRI).
Workgroup Comments
This group did not particularly distinguish between national and regional indicators,
although they provided a list for each. They agreed that many can be used at either level.
They noted the equity issue brought up in the first indicator. Creating and maintaining a
regional map of releases to show "hot spots" would be very useful.
Summary and Analysis
The air quality issue produced perhaps the best results of any of the groups. This likely
results from the strong data collection efforts that support the national programs that
define the content of the air issue Four clear areas for indicator development emerged:
• Violations of Air Quality Standards
The group response and virtually all individual responses featured at least one
candidate indicator that dealt with violation of air quality standards. These indicators
most commonly took the form of some of measure reflecting nonattainment status.
Similarly popular were indicators measuring exceedances of various air pollutants.
2-59
-------
• Emissions
Another area with strong and consistent support for indicators was air emissions.
Specifcally, emissions indicators were suggested for use with.
1. criteria air pollutants,
2. Toxic Release Inventory data, and
3) VOCs.
Presenting emissions data within the context of stationary and mobile sources was
consistently supported, where that distinction is appropriate.
• Air Quality Effects
A lot of attention was focused on identifying indicators that demonstrated the effects
or impacts of air quality A number of different types of effects were identified to
include
1. human health (blood lead levels in children,
2. damage to resources (water resources, land, biota, crops), and
3. economic productivity (work days lost, crop damage).
Closely related to the human health class of indicator is another suggested group of
indicators that would summarize levels of human exposure to various types of air
pollution (people living in nonattainment areas, population exposed to excessive
radon).
• Acid Deposition
A surprisingly weak fourth issue was acid deposition. The indicator commonly
specified was average rain pH
Several other issues gaining some attention were'
1. radon,
2. odor,
3. visibility, and
4. vehicle miles traveled.
The New Jersey workshop dealing with air issues was also strong and their results
strongly mirrored and supported the results of this conference New Jersey identified 14
issues placed into 6 groups. They are-
1. Health Impacts (equivalent to Air Quality Effects),
2. Air Conditions (equavalent to Air Quality Standards),
3. Actual Emissions (equivalent to Emissions),
4. Management Activities
5. Environmental Impacts (equivalent to Air Quality Effects), and
6. Public Perceptions and Actions (equivaalent to part of theMiscellaneous issue.)
Three distinct data gaps emerged, though a number of other were listed. They are:
1. data capable of linking air quality with human health impacts,
2. data on air toxics, and
3. data on visibility.
-------
It would appear that the ability to develop indicators appropriate for inclusion in a national
system is better for air quality than for many of the other areas. Good monitoring systems
associated with EPA air programs has insured a good database from which to develop a
good foundation of program related indicators Air suffers, however, from the same
inability to relate pollution to either human or ecological health in a direct way.
Almost totally missing from the group and the individual work is any reference to
indicators dealing with indoor air pollution, an interesting omission given its relative
importance in comparative risk assessment projects.
2-61
-------
Wildlife
Indicators of the condition of wildlife are important to include in a comprehensive
indicator system for a variety of reasons. First, they are good indirect measures of the
health of the broader environment, capable of providing a type of summary measure of the
livability of the system. Second, to the general public they are flagship indicators of the
condition of the environment, providing a visible and very understandable indicator of
environmental performance.
Group Presentation Summary
National and Regional Indicators
1. Decline/recovery of threatened/endangered species.
2. Decline/recovery of recreationally important species.
3. Decline/recovery of commercially important species
4. Diversity of wildlife species.
5. Incidence of exotic, alien species.
6. Diversity of wildlife habitats.
7. Lands set aside for preservation and conservation.
8. Health of wildlife.
9. Public commitment to wildlife.
Data Gaps
Not addressed by group.
Workgroup Comments
This group struggled with the differences between national and regional indicators and
ended up combining its list. Also discussed was a definition for wildlife, which was not
ultimately decided The group did not have time to discuss data gaps, but generally
agreed that there are a number of gaps in the indicators listed by the group.
During the group report, a discussion of several data projects occurred. The U.S.
Department of the Interior has just created the National Biological Survey, but it will be
some time before this new organization gets moving, and it is unclear just what data will
be collected. It was noted that the National Water File is a good source of data, and
although the national Audubon bird count has some data problems, it is also useful. The
EPA has had some staff to staff discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife about the use of
its data, especially as it concerns the national goal setting project which overlaps a number
of agencies. At this point it is not clear how involved other agencies will be with EPA in
setting goals and providing data.
2-62
-------
The assembly noted that collection of wildlife data is made more difficult because wildlife
constantly move. One conferee suggested that indicators should focus on ecosystems
versus lands (as in #7 above), as this would be a more holistic approach.
Summary and Analysis
This group had more difficulty than any other in getting started and in conceptualizing
their issue, primarily because of problems in achieving consensus with regard to
definitional concerns. Despite these problems analysis of the the small group presentation
and the individual responses two clusters of indicator types relevant to wildlife:
• Viability of Populations,
This group of candidate indicators seeks to focus on the wildlife themselves.
Suggestions included measures of:
1 the status of threatened and endangered species,
2. populations of key species,
3. plant and animal species diversity,
4. exotic species, and
5. physical and reproductive health.
• Viability of Habitat
A second group of proposed indicators focused on habitat. This cluster included
measures of the:
1. quality and quantity of habitat loss,
2. diversity of habitat,
3. wildlife corridors,
4. acquisition of wildlife habitat, and
5. habitat reclamation.
The New Jersey workshop on Natural Resources dealt with some potential indicators
involving wildlife populations, but the choice of species reflected regional concerns and
was not particuarly helpful to this issue.
Clearly, much work needs to be done in this area in identifying data appropriate to
creating indicators of the types idenfied above. EPA could be great help to states in
developing a database for wildlife by working closely with other federal agencies and the
responsible state agencies.
2-63
-------
Human Health
Human health is another one of those issues not considered to be part of the main
mission of EPA. It is an area, however, of such importance that it must be included in
any national indicator system. Human health indicators represent the highest form of
environmental indicator — indicators showing changes in health Further, if future
environmental management wil be based on the comparative riskassessment
methodology, then measures to chart progress in dealing with huan health issues are
required. This issue group was added with the full knowledge that there is virtually no
data capable of creating human health indicators that are compatible with the selection
criteria. In fact, the issue was included specifically because it is known that very little
usable data exists and that discussion of the data gaps is, at this stage in the process,
probably the most useful thing that could be done
Group Presentation Summary
National & Regional Indicators
1. Cancer incidence.
2. Respiratory disease
3. Water borne disease.
4. Birth defects/infant mortality.
5. Lead blood levels.
6 Fish/shellfish advisories.
7. Breast milk indicators.
Data Gaps
1. Imported foods.
2. Pesticide residue.
3. Indoor air in schools.
4. Soil samples (lead).
5. Radon monitoring.
6. National Human EXposure ASsessment (NHEXAS).
7. Reportable diseases (environmental).
8. Epidemiology data.
9. Liver tissue samples.
10. Mercury emissions/cycle.
11. Animal health comparisons.
Workgroup Comments
This group agreed that national and regional indicators in the area of human health are the
same. In its report, the group noted that, no matter how health outcomes are caused,
these results are the important things to measure. Many of the indicators listed do have
2-64
-------
data gaps, in fact, there are more data gaps than indicators. The suggestion was made
that, along with liver tissue samples, hair and nail samples are good indicators to measure
the presence of heavy metals. Another comment focused on the idea of using biomarkers
as indicators. One attendee noted that the Centers for Disease Control do not keep socio-
economic statistics on cancer incidence, but should be encouraged to do so. Another
suggestion was to use international data in some cases
Summary and Analysis
Needless to say, the session produced little in the way of specific, usable indicators
concerning human health It was quite successful, however, providing a structure for
human health indicators and it identified a useful list of data gaps. Two major areas for
focusing human health indicators emerged.
• Health Effects
This group of indicators would identify and measure specific incidences of
environmental diseases. Candidate indicators would include:
1. cancer incidence,
2. pulmonary disease,
3. birth defects, and
4. water bourne disease.
• Exposure
Another group of potential indicators includes measures of exposure to toxic materials
that creates a health risk. Candidate indicators include:
1. blood lead level,
2. ambient and food residue pesticide exposures, and
3. human tissue toxic levels.
The New Jersey conference identified 7 human health indicators, 5 of which are direct
equivalents of issues and indicators identified above. Two other — rabies and occupational
diseases — were not identified in this process.
The need, obviously, is for the development of data capable of building good indicators.
This is not an easy task. In the process of developing the SAFE indicator system in
Florida, staff was not able to identify a single indicator where there was confidence that
the health effect was related to environmental causes. If it was this difficult in one state,
the likelihood that there will be much in the way of data that can be used to build national
indicators is slight This is an issue that needs serious and continuing attention.
2-65
-------
Miscellaneous
This group was included to provide the opportunity for conference participants to correct
any oversights in the structuring of the other issue groups by identifying indicators need as
part of the national system that were not being treated in the other groups.
Further,significant issues such as energy and public perception which do not fit well with
the other groups still needed a place for examination and discussion.
Group Presentation Summary
National & Regional Indicators
1. Public perception (related to indicators of the environment).
2 Percent of unsafe levels of radon (total # of households in which radon exists).
Energy Indicators:
1. Electricity used and consumed (total and per capita).
2 Energy efficiency (loss through transmission). Efficiency/inefficiency of energy
generation (output/input)
3. Amount of energy saved in dollars (demand side management).
4. Mass transportation (data available by municipalities/states, etc ). Identify goals
and assess outcomes/incentives.
5. Industrial energy use
Food Production Indicators:
1. Energy involved in production of crops (relative efficiency).
2. Chemical use/pesticides.
3. Agricultural viability involving soil depletion.
4. Energy embodied in products and food (quantified per unit of product sales)
Data Gaps
1. The way states/municipalities handle materials. (How do you quantify economic
benefit of environmental indicators/regulation/cost?)
2. Dollar figures/health benefits of Clean Air Act.
Workgroup Comments
This group simply included indicators for subjects of concern to individuals in the group
Summary and Analysis
This group was probably influenced in its choice of "miscellaneous" indicators by
suggestions that energy and public perception might be appropriate for inclusion Not
2-66
-------
surprisingly, they were prominent, but some other issues emerged as well. Three general
dimensions emerged:
• Energy
A number of indicators of energy were offered for consideration:
1. measures of total and and per capita energy consumption,
2. measures of energy consumption by economic sector,
3. measures of transportation efficiency (mass transit, vehicle miles traveled, gas
efficiency)
• Sustainability
A group of candidate indicators were offered that attempted to measure progress
toward achieving sustainability. Indicator suggested included'
1. food production,
2. energy (renewable resources), and
3. water/soil depletion
• Public Perception
While not a direct measure of environmental conditions, measures of the public's
perception of the condition of environmental values and of the performance of society
in the preservation environmental quality is important information for decisionmakers
to know and should probably be included in any comprehensive indicator system. The
lack of any known, comprehensive assessment of public attitudes concerning the
environment is a current limitation to the development of useful indicators.
The New Jersey conference identified 11 indicators dealing with energy, most of which are
good candidates and would fit well within the energy or sustainability groups outlined
above. In addition, they identified 11 agriculturally-based indicators, several of which
clearly support the sustainability group.
All three of these miscellaneous indicator cluster are important and all three need further
examination and definition. The sustainability cluster is particularly interesting and could
take on greater meaning as the concept of sustainable development gathers momentum
2-67
-------
Summary: _
Mid-American Cemmsm
WU«~*
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
BREAKOUT SESSION: DEFINE CRITERIA TO EVALUATE AND RATE
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Moderator: Tim Mulholland
Date: Monday, January 10, 1994
Time: 2:00 P.M.
draft
The conference attendees were allowed to sign-up for one of the following four categories
for the breakout session:
Air Quality Issues
Water Quality Issues
Waste/Land Use Issues
Biological, Wildlife and Human Health Issues
This portion of the proceedings will summarize the discussions that had taken place in
this breakout session. More importantly, the results of these four breakout groups have
also been provided. Each breakout session summary generally includes but is not limited
to the following topics, although not necessarily in the following order:
Facilitator/Groups Represented/Spokesperson
Introduction
Goals of Environmental Indicators
Criteria
Environmental Indicators
Following this activity summary for each of the breakout groups, a summary is provided
of the Plenary Session. The purpose of the Plenary Session was to share the results of
each of the breakout sessions. Therefore, the Plenary Session may be considered an
abstract of the summary.
2-69
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
AIR QUALITY ISSUES BREAKOUT SESSION
Paul Schmiechen was the facilitator for the Air Quality Issues Breakout Session.
In attendance in the Air Quality Issues Breakout Session were representatives from Utah,
New Mexico, Colorado, South Dakota and Minnesota. Also in attendance was a local
government representative, a member of the Western Center for Comparative Risk, and
an EPA representative from Region V.
Dave Workman will report the results of the Breakout session.
INTRODUCTION
The charge of the breakout was discussed with the group. This session will provide
information on selecting environmental indicators. First a goal will be determined. Then
a list of potential environmental indicators will be developed. The group will learn how to
select environmental indicators and what are considered practical indicators of air quality.
Finally, the group will determine what criteria will be used to evaluate the environmental
indicators, and apply several of the criteria towards the environmental indicators
developed.
GOALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The facilitator indicated that Minnesota uses "clear, clean, odorless air" as the goal in air
quality. It was agreed that this would make a good preliminary goal. The group
discussed whether to include a section in the goal which provides a human health
interest. However, achievement of the goal would be in the interest of public health.
Therefore, public health would not necessarily be a goal of the program.
The group discussed the term undetectable air, but agreed that clear and odorless may
accommodate the term. Sustainability of the environment and sustainability of the
economy may also be a goal for which air quality environmental indicators may strive.
As for ecological issues, clear, clean, odorless air would remedy any potential ecological
threats. Therefore, of all the issues discussed, the following became the goal of the air
quality group:
"Clean, clear, odorless air"
2-70
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS DRAFT
The group developed a list of potential environmental indicators. Each indicator was
discussed and debated within the group to either delete an indicator, narrow the focus
of an indicator, or add an associated indicator. The following represents the initial list
of environmental indicators developed by the Air Quality Issues group.
Potential Environmental Indicators
Visibility - as it relates to power plants, car exhaust such as vehicle miles traveled, and
industrial sources
Volume of Emissions over Time - tons/day of stationary and non-stationary sources
Industrial Emissions
Asthma/Respiratory Problems - Number of cases
Number of People in Areas Not Meeting Air Quality Standards
Number/Size/Trends in Non-attainment Areas
Amount of Emissions Versus Product Manufactured
Welfare Effects - such as crop damage and building degradation
Traffic Congestion
Percent of Facilities in Compliance
Days Lost at School or Work due to Respiratory Illness
Number of Burn/Nonburn Days (pollution alerts)
Inspection/Maintenance Fail Rates - number of cars that fail inspections
Upset Conditions - violation of standards for stationary sources
TRI Data - in non-attainment areas
Air Quality Standards
Pollution Standards Index - synergy of ozone, PM10, emissions, etc. This index
condenses a substantial amount of information into one number.
Nuisance or Odor Complaints - number of complaints to air hotline
2-71
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Number of Areas Maintained in Attainment - for instance Moab or Price, Utah wants to
build a processing plant. Because it would be highly regulated, these cases could be
added to the number.
Exceedances Measured in Attainment Areas '***a
Climatic Conditions - pollution transport (accurate indicator because it is not ambient)
Population Trends/Futures Analysis - discussed state population growth and how some
urban areas have leapfrogged out into the suburbs
CRITERIA
The question then is whether the list above is feasible. Criteria must be defined on what
makes a good indicator. The following list of parameters were discussed which could be
used as criteria:
Is it measurable?
Does it cost?
Is there quality data?
Is it relevant to the common people?
Is it understandable?
In other words, is the public concerned. For instance, visibility in New
England may not be an appropriate indicator because the fog inhibits
visibility. In addition, we cannot have just a set of indicators for the scientific
community and then one for the public. The indicators must be understood
by each and represent a mix of concerns. They should bring in the
governor, policy-makers, and legislators.
Is there historical data or trends data?
Does the indicator show valuable information and can any conclusions be reached?
(Relevance to stated goals)
Is the data application to different areas?
Can we get more bang for our buck?
Is the collection of data mandatory or voluntary?
Will regulators respond to a problem, or have any thresholds been tripped
which makes response necessary?
Who collects the data?
2-72
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs. Colorado
Is the data collection and use a resource drain?
Is there funding available?
Is collecting the data feasible?
Can you act on what the indicator says?
This includes both political and scientific.
Is the indicator politically correct?
We must keep in mind that even in the regional sense we are dealing with
many different people from a variety of backgrounds, for example the prairie
versus the deserts.
Do you believe the data? (data credibility)
Can success be measured and communicated?
Is the indicator a direct measure or an indirect measure?
EVALUATION OF THE INDICATORS
The facilitator requested that four criteria be selected to evaluate the list of environmental
indicators which we had listed. The four that were chosen included the following:
Is the indicator measurable? - To be represented with an "M" for measurable, and "non-M"
for not measurable.
What is the cost? - To be represented with an "E" for expensive, and "non-E" for
inexpensive.
Is the indicator relevant? - To be represented with an "R" for relevant, and "non-R" for
irrelevant.
Is the indicator a direct or indirect measure of air quality? - To be represented with an "D"
for direct, and "I" for indirect.
The following chart illustrates evaluation of eight of the environmental indicators with the
captioned criteria.
2-73
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs. Colorado
Indicator
Measurable
Visibility M
Emissions M
Asthma/Res- M
piratory Cases
People in M
Non-attainment
Size of M
Non-attainment
Areas
Efficiency M
(prod v emiss)
Welfare Non-M
Effects
T raffic M
Congestion
Cost
E
Non-E
Non-E
Non-E
Non-E
Relevant
R
R
Non-R
Direct Comments
D Regional
I
D
Not a direct
measure
of quality
Correlate
w/air qual.
— -» J A
Discussions regarding visibility included whether it was a regional problem, such as in the case
of regional haze. How would a visibility indicator be defined or measured was discussed and
the five levels of indicators were discussed. For example, Level I includes regional action, Levels
III includes emission sources, and Level V includes body burden uptake. The measure of
visibility is a direct indication of air quality and is quite inexpensive, but an analysis of the source
of visibility problems is when the process becomes expensive.
The group reviewed the list of environmental indicators that Tim Mulholland of Wisconsin had
compiled, specifically the definition of direct and indirect indicators. This definition was used to
determine whether the indicator chosen was direct or indirect.
When discussing the number of people in non-attainment areas, it was noted that a distinction
needs to be made as to whether a person lives, or works, or both in the area, and that non-
attainment is very regional. The environmental indicators in this segment of the exercise are in
a very gray area. This indicator would include attainment trends and the number or size of non-
attainment areas. This indicator may need to be discussed further.
2-7*4
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
As the session was concluded, a suggestion was made by the facilitator that the next step would
be to go back and reevaluate the indicators. For example, if an indicator was expensive, but
measurable, relevant, and direct, should the money be spent to use the indicator? It was
decided to revisit these indicators in tomorrow's breakout session which will also focus on the
worksheet compiled by Tim Mulholland. Then we will compare our thinking with the other
regions.
2-75
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994. Colorado Springs, Colorado
WATER ISSUES BREAKOUT SESSION UH/
Doug Johnson was the facilitator for the Water Quality Issues Breakout Session.
In attendance in the Water Quality Issues Breakout Session were representatives from Colorado,
Montana, South Dakota, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Also in attendance were
representatives from the Eight Northern Indian Pueblo Council, Colorado School of Mines, and
EPA Headquarters.
Kim Devonald will report the results of the Breakout session.
INTRODUCTION
The group began by identifying goals for water programs, proceeded to identifying possible
indicators to measure those goals, and ended by identifying criteria for evaluating those
indicators. There were also several general comments and observations made about the list of
example regional indicators developed by Tim Mulholland and about the possible use of
indicators.
GOALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Surface Water
"Fishable and swimmable" should be included as a goal because this language is used by the
Clean Water Act. The group noted that "fishable and swimmable" could be considered "readout"
indicators. For example, if fish are in the stream, it must be fishable. Other goals suggested by
the group included the following:
Is the water supporting the designated use?
How much water is there? Does it support human capacity?
Restore/enhance/improve biological integrity.
Preservation/Conservation/Protection.
Ground Water
The goals for ground water seemed to closely parallel those of surface water and included the
following:
How much water is there? Does it support human capacity?
Protect beneficial uses of nation's ground water:
Involves quantity and quality.
2-76
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rale Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
iVlid-Amcrica Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
f^ l*^F*
Drinking Water Supply Monitoring Data Ljfi. f" f
(tends to be more widely available than aquifer monitoring)
Number of User Days and/or Number of Advisories
CRITERIA
The group suggested the following criteria for evaluating environmental indicators.
Single Variable Versus Multiple Variable - Either or both may be appropriate in different
situations. However, it is important to note that a single variable (i.e., oxygen content of water)
may give a very narrow, incomplete, and sometimes misleading picture of the overall situation
(e.g., water quality of a stream)
Communicable - Indicators must be easily understandable to all interested parties including the
general public and policy makers.
Goals/Indicators May Be Needed on a Regional/Ecosystem/Ecoregional Basis - Political
boundaries such as state lines may not make the most sense in evaluating an environmental
problem, (e.g., Great Lakes wildlife reproductive indicators).
Adequate Spatial and Temporal Sampling Design - The sampling should reasonably represent
conditions in a geographical area.
Reflects Risk - Ecological integrity including human.
Doability - Are the resources available? Is the political support there?
Quality of Data/Standard Measurement Methods/Reproducability
Sustainability - Indicators should measure sustainability.
One group member noted that the indicators included in Tim Mulholland's example regional
indicator list seemed to be primarily point-source measurements. Few measurements addressed
the non-point source problem. The measures in this list also seem to be "bean counts." For
example, the number of contaminated sites is not really an environmental indicator but measures
an activity.
The number of leaking underground storage tanks should be reported instead of the percent of
leaking underground storage tanks. The number of leaking underground storage tanks
discovered is constantly increasing. It would be more informative to report the total number
discovered and the percentage of those cleaned up. Also, it might be helpful to report the
percentage of tanks meeting the new standards. This indicator would help identify the potential
problems prevented. It is difficult to quantify but is important in the regulatory field. The group
noted that this is an activity measure. However, to capture prevention, activity measures may
have to be used.
2-77
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12. 1994. Colorado Springs. Colorado
rvo A £!T
States may or may not have set uses or standards. $
The group noted that some of these goals may actually cross over into the indicators area.
Other Considerations Discussed
The group also had suggestions on issues that need to be considered in developing goals and
indicators.
The goals/indicators should provide a framework which shows whether
legislation/regulations are effective at improving ground water and surface water quality.
Goals should account for human carrying capacity.
One goal of an environmental indicator effort should address data gaps. The group
agreed that the lack of data could have a significant impact on any environmental
indicator effort.
LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The group suggested the following indicators for surface water and ground water.
Surface Water
Production of Bass, Trout, etc.
Indicator Species of Various Kinds
Contaminant Levels in Fish
Amount of Water
(supply issues) - instream flows
Transient Variables
(e.g., succession, global change)
Stream Habitat Quality/Riparian Condition/Wetlands
(cross reference to wildlife/biological group)
Ground Water
Maintaining Fossilized Ground Water Sources
such as the Ogalalla Formation. This indicator is similar to the
surface water indicator to maintain instream flows.
Good Data for Particular Aquifers
but not comprehensive nationally
2-78
Breakout Session January 10, 1994 - 2:00
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators OK Air 1
January 9 - L2, 1994, Colorado Springs. Colorado
The group questioned whether the Water Resources category on the example indicator list is
actually necessary. Group members commented that this area seemed to be sufficiently covered
by water quality and quantity.
The group discussed whether water indicators would be sufficiently covered under surface water
and ground water categories. Some group members expressed an interest in having a third
category, drinking water, because of the different set of regulations applied to drinking water.
This issue was not resolved in the group discussion, but relevant points were raised.
The group offered suggestions on potential uses for environmental indicators. Those included:
Indicators can be used for interdiction.
Indicators can identify previously unidentified problems, for example, mercury in fish
populations in Florida.
Indicators can help decide what interdiction may be appropriate.
2-79
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - L2. 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
LAND USE/WASTE ISSUES BREAKOUT SESSION r>'!; A CH
Howard Roitman was the facilitator for the Land Use/Waste Issues Breakout Session.
In attendance in the Land Use/Waste Issues Breakout Session were representatives from
Nebraska, Colorado, South Dakota, Missouri, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Also in attendance was
a local government representative, a member of the Florida Center for Public Management, and
a Corps of Engineers representative.
Elizabeth Browne will report the results of the Breakout Session.
INTRODUCTION
The 10-person team established an indicator selection process for national land use and waste
issues. After two breakout sessions, one on Monday, January 10, and one on Tuesday, January
11, the team concluded with a particular order in which the process must follow. As indicated
in the following figure, this is a cyclic process which promotes opportunities for continuous
improvement.
paste graphic
Consistent reference to goals, issues, and criteria is vital during the indicator selection process.
This is to ensure proper focus during group discussion.
Team building methods were used in order to obtain general consensus and positive discussion
among team members. Consensus prioritizing was essential in order to rank the established list
of criteria and indicators.
The following outline is a record of this breakout session which was primarily a practice session.
During this session the team became acquainted with the indicator development process.
The second day, increased team consensus was recognized and the criteria and associated
indicators were redefined and consolidated.
2-80
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
GOALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS OP A f
The following goals were designed to be important, specific, measurable, and achievable:
Wasfe Minimization
Integration of Land Use
Best Land Use
Minimize Land Conversion from Natural
Revise Land Conversion Standards
Environmental Clean-up
Protect/Improve Ground Water
CRITERIA
The following list of criteria represents the factors which will be used to evaluate the
environmental indicators:
Measurable
Importance to Environment(direct, indirect)
Quality of Data
Accessibility, Availability, and Cost of Data
Data Understandable to Audience(s)
Spatial (geographical, regional)
Historic Baseline
Public Value
Indicators should be inexpensive, easy to use, and provide meaningful information. However,
this criteria should not prohibit the need for more expensive and difficult measurements in order
to obtain desired results for key environmental goals.
Quantifying risk reduction was recognized as a constant criteria for any indicator selected.
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The group suggested the following indicators for waste and land use:
Waste
Heavy Metals
VOC's
Percent Solid Waste Recycled/lncinerated/Placed in Landfill
Point of Origin Distribution (import/export)
Human/Ecological Risk Reduction
2-61
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mill-America Conlerence 011 Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Land Use OiO A CT
i
Percent Absolute Change in Use
Soil Loss
Percent Protected Land
Population Shift
Indicators are not always a direct measure of environmental conditions. In most instances,
indicators are, in fact, and indication of improvement or degradation of the environmental goal.
After the criteria and indicators were established they were then placed in a matrix for consensus
prioritizing. (See Attachment 1)
2-82
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rale Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
BIOLOGICAL, WILDLIFE, AND HUMAN HEALTH ISSUES
BREAKOUT SESSION U/a
Dick Sumpter was the facilitator for the Biological, Wildlife, and Human Health Issues Breakout
Session.
The Biological, Wildlife, and Human Health Issues Breakout Session group was represented by
participants from Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as the Eight
Northern Indian Pueblo Council Tribes, The U.S. Geological Survey, and The Western Center for
Comparative Risk. A wide variety of backgrounds were evident, with biologists being well-
represented.
Amy Owen will report the results of the breakout session.
INTRODUCTION
The session began with a discussion of the definition of "biology" and "wildlife." It was decided
by the group that the term wildlife was to mean biota, or more specifically, flora and fauna. The
group then discussed what would be considered good indicators, as well the difficulty of making
an accurate assessment of indicators related to biological, wildlife, and human health issues.
LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The preliminary list of environmental indicators related to biological, wildlife and human health
issues developed is as follows:
Abundance of Species
Abundance of Indicator Species
e.g. sensitive or keystone species
Landscape/Physical Habitat
Reproductive Ability
Population Viability
Health of Population and Individuals
e.g. presence and concentration of toxics
The group also developed a preliminary list of indicators for human health which proved to be
considerably easier than those for biological and wildlife issues:
Air-borne Disease
Water-borne Disease
NAAQS Data
Blood-lead Levels
Contaminants found in blood, tissue, and organs
Advisories
Hospital Admittances During Exceedances of Air Quality Standards.
2-83
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
CRITERIA
The group then discussed the following criteria to be used to evaluate the environmental
indicators:
Does it answer the question or address the goal?
Is it meaningful in relation to the environment?
Is it measurable?
An indicator should be both measurable AND meaningful, with low
error, not ambiguous, sensitive and specific to the question.
Feasibility in relation to cost, time, and available technology.
For instance, the cost, time, and technology it takes to collect the
Is it spatially and temporally linked to the question or goal?
Relative Importance • Is the indicator interpretable/communicable, and of interest
to all stakeholders?
Is it a surrogate for the value identified in the goal?
Is the trend data feasible and available?
chemical concentrations in ecological resources
body burdens of chemicals
data.
2-84
Breakout Session
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators
January 10, 1994 - 2:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
BREAKOUT SESSIONS: ANALYSIS OF EXAMPLE REGIONAL INDICATORS
Moderator: Paul Riederer
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 1994
Time: 10:00 A.M.
The conference attendees returned to their respective breakout groups, which pertained
to one of the following issues:
Air Quality Issues
Water Quality Issues
Waste/Land Use Issues
Biological, Wildlife and Human Health Issues
This portion of the proceedings will summarize the discussions that had taken place in
this breakout session. More importantly, the results of these four breakout groups have
also been provided. Each breakout summary generally includes the following topics,
although not necessarily in the following order:
Facilitator/Groups Represented/Spokesperson
Introduction
Goals of Environmental Indicators
Criteria
Environmental Indicators
Following this activity summary for each of the breakout groups is a summary of the
Plenary Session. The purpose of the Plenary Session was to share the results of each
of the breakout sessions. Therefore, the Plenary Session may be considered an abstract
of this summary.
2-85
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
AIR QUALITY ISSUES BREAKOUT SESSION fYO T
Paul Schmiechen was the facilitator for the Air Quality Issues Breakout Session.
In attendance in the Air Quality Issues Breakout Session were representatives from Utah,
New Mexico, Colorado, South Dakota and Minnesota. Also in attendance was a local
government representative, a member of the Western Center for Comparative Risk, and
an EPA representative from Region V.
Kate Fay will report the results of the Breakout session.
INTRODUCTION
Today's breakout session reviewed the indicators developed yesterday and reviewed the
air quality indicators on Tim Mulholland's list of example regional indicators presented this
morning. We have also been assigned with a review of the miscellaneous indicators on
Tim Mulholland's list of indicators. This group is charged with the complete development
of a list of indicators for both air quality and miscellaneous issues that meet all of the
criteria by the end of this session.
GOALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
First the goal was reviewed and again agreed upon by the group:
"Clean, clear, odorless air"
CRITERIA
Then the criteria was reviewed and revised:
Data - must be available, of good quality and quantity
Relevance - must be directly relevant to the stated goal
A discussion pursued on political funding, whether this should enter into our
criteria. What would we do about resources, communication problems, policy
requirements, usefulness of the indicator, feasibility of the solutions, and whether the
knowledge of a degradation could lead to action?
Communicability - specifically with the public
Cost and Resources - should we let this restrict our thinking at this stage of
the exercise? The reality is that, depending upon the persuasion factor, the
cost may or may not be a problem. If the right people were sold on the
2-86
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-Amcrica Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
measure, then it could be made a reality even with high cost. This may not
be a sufficient criteria for evaluating an indicator, but should it be listed as
a thought?
Can it lead to an action? - or will it lead to no action?
Is it measurable? - can the indicator be measured in a causality situation,
for instance, can the information be obtained? What about effects that are
observable but not measurable? Could obtainability mean measurability?
The group discussed the difference between data and measurable. Having
data available means that it is measurable.
Is it important? - does "importance" fall under the "relevance" criteria? The
group decided they were not the same and kept the criteria, is it important,
and added 'who cares.'
Final Criteria for the Air Quality Issues Group
Is the data available on the indicator of high quality and adequate quantity?
Does the indicator have direct relevance to the stated goal?
Is the indicator easily communicated to the public?
Can the indicator lead to action?
Is the indicator measurable?
Are there available resources to support costs?
Is the indicator important? Who cares?
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The following two lists of air quality environmental indicators have been produced:
Tim Mulholland's list of environmental indicators which was provided to
each of the conference attendees for comment.
The list of air quality environmental indicators produced by this group in
yesterday's breakout session.
The group decided to review the list of indicators developed by Tim Mulholland first. The
air quality section of this list is provided below with the results of the conference attendees
voting process. A high score listed under the national or regional indicator column
reflects an agreement that the environmental indicator would be an adequate measure of
air quality. A negative number indicates that the item would be a poor air quality
2-87
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs. Colorado
environmental indicator. It was agreed by the group that all negative numbers would be
automatically deleted from consideration.
Each of the following indicators were reviewed. Under each indicator is a comment,
which is preceded by an asterisk, summarizing the conversations which resulted.
INDICATORS
AIR QUALITY
National
Regional
DATA?
Air Quality Indicators
14
15
12
1
Number of people living in non-attainment areas by:
6
7
3
A Income level; and,
7
3
3
B. Ethnic group
'This will be changed to Population Exposed to Non-
attainment Areas. Income and ethnic groups are not an
indicator of air quality.
15
11
a
2
Average pH of precipitation.
•Surface Water Issue
22
12
15
3
Number of non-attainment areas nationally.
'Included as Data on Ambient Trends.
7
13
6
4
Mobile per capita source emissions.
'Include with Quantities of Emissions under mobile sources,
such as vehicle miles traveled.
10
14
2
5
Visibility.
'Group compared this to criteria and accepted it as an
indicator.
7
6
11
6
Top ten hazardous air pollutants from the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI)
'Include with Quantities of Emissions.
8
13
8
7
Trends in measured pollutants from vehicles.
'Include with Quantities of Emissions
8
13
-13
8
Number of days lost at work/school from illness cause by air.
'This will be changed to Human Health Effects Trends, and
include worker/school productivity, children's blood-levels,
asthma cases, etc.
17
17
10
9
Trends in criteria air pollutants emissions.
'Include with Trends Data.
12
13
-2
10
Number of homes/schools over the national radon level.
'Should be an indoor air issue.
10
12
8
11
Number of major industrial facilities NOT meeting federal
regulations.
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
2-88
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators \-.J j
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
*lnclude with Trends Data.
19
20
1
12
Blood lead levels in children.
"Include with Health Effects.
9
14
10
13
Vehicle miles travelled (VMT).
"Include with Quantities of Emissions.
3
5
3
14
Emissions from pulp/paper/chemical plants.
"Include with Quantities of Emissions.
1
8
4
15
Regional map of releases by chemical (bar graph).
*Not an indicator, just a presentation method.
1
5
-2
16
Number of person-hours of exposure to NAAQS violations.
"Include with Trends Data.
5
11
6
17
Pollution standard index.
"Include as a subcategory under Trends Data.
14
14
9
18
Emissions by type.
"Include with Trends Data
0
10
6
19
Percent of vehicles failing emissions testing.
"This is an issue which requires analysis of public perception.
Everyone must learn that it is all miles driven and not blame air
quality problems on the 10% that do not pass emissions
testing. This is not a direct measure of air quality.
7
13
-6
20
Crop damage.
"Should be a wildlife indicator and is not related to any aspect
of the goal.
-4
-1
-1
21
Amount of emissions trading.
"Not considered.
-6
-4
-3
22
Amount of expenditures for controlling or buying offsets.
"Not considered.
8
10
1
23
Asthma health statistics - number of individuals affected.
"Included under Health Effects.
7
6
2
24
Acres of agricultural/forest land converted.
"Should be a Wildlife/Biological indicator.
3
6
4
25
Emissions from newly permitted sources.
"Included under Quantities of Emissions.
-3
-3
1
26
Average state ozone as percent of national emissions.
"Not considered.
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
2-89
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conlcrcncc on Environmcnlal Indicators i f"" -
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs. Colorado " ^
3
7
5
27
Pollution standard index (PSI) greater than 100 or anything
greater than moderate levels.
included under Trends Data.
2
3
-1
28
Biomonitoring of sensitive spp (lichens, moss, etc)
Moss is one of the main indicators of air quality and points to
historical trends because they are stable and slow growing.
Therefore, add an Ecological Health Effects which will include
biomonitoring of sensitive species
1
1
-1
29
Damage to natural vegetation
*lnclude with Ecological Health Effects.
1
1
0
30
Emissions trends of persistent, toxic, bioaccumulative
pollutants.
^Include in Quantities of Emissions.
1
1
-1
31
Emissions/unit production by source.
included under Quantity of Emissions.
After consideration of the above indicators, the list of indicators produced yesterday
was reviewed to either be placed into the resultant list under an already existing
category, or to be added as a new category.
The following is the resultant list of environmental indicators developed by the Air
Quality Issues group:
Population Exposed to Non-attainment Air Quality
Ambient Air Quality Trends
Pollution Standard Index
Emissions Trends Data
Mobile
TRI Data
Visibility Impairment
Health Effects, Trends Data
Ecological Health Effects
The group then reviewed the Miscellaneous Indicators on Tim Mulholland's list. These
indicators were compared to the criteria and discussed as to their significance,
relevance, and importance. The following is the list of Miscellaneous Indicators:
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
2-90
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
i***' i ^ j a
INDICATORS
MISCELLANEOUS
National
Regional
DATA?
Miscellaneous Indicators
8
12
-6
1
Public perception (related to indicators of the environment).
6
7
-3
2
Percent of unsafe levels of radon (total # of households in
which radon exists).
17
18
13
3
Energy used and consumed (total per capita).
10
4
9
4
Global energy use relative to US energy use (by type and
total).
6
7
1
5
Energy efficiency (loss through transmission). Efficiency
/inefficiency of energy generation (output/input).
3
6
3
6
Amount of energy saved in dollars (demand-side
management).
12
11
4
7
Recoverable/renewable energy as percent of total.
8
8
-1
8
Energy conserved.
7
9
3
9
Waste-to-energy conversion.
-4
1
1
10
Waste disposal costs per energy type.
7
7
7
11
Growth in energy production vs. population growth.
4
8
7
12
Mass transportation (data available by
municipalities/state/etc.) Identify goals; assess
outcomes/incentives.
5
7
5
13
Industrial energy use.
1
1
1
14
Population growth and density
1
1
0
15
Energy Efficiency - Energy use/GNP
The final list of Miscellaneous Environmental Indicators divided the individual indicators
listed above into four groups. The only indicator not included with the final list of
miscellaneous indicators that is listed above is the Radon Levels indicator which
should be included with indoor air issues. The following is the final list of
Miscellaneous Indicators:
Public Perception/Education
Measured by polls and surveys
Public Willingness to Pay
Willingness to pay monetarily and also in changes of habit
Energy Sources, Use, and Consumption
Waste of energy
Conservation
Renewable energy resources
2-91
Breakout Session January 11, 1994 - 10:00
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
-------
Mid-America Conlcrcncc on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Mass Transportation
Land use issues
Air quality issues
Energy use issues
The consensus of the Air Quality Issues group was that the above indicators should
not be considered miscellaneous, and that separate categories should be identified for
these very relevant issues.
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
2-92
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994. Colorado Springs, Colorado
WATER ISSUES BREAKOUT SESSION
Doug Johnson was the facilitator for the Water Quality Issues Breakout Session.
In attendance in the Water Quality Issues Breakout Session were representatives from
Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Also in
attendance were representatives from the Eight Northern Indian Pueblo Council,
Colorado School of Mines, and EPA Headquarters.
Kim Devonald will report the results of the Breakout session.
INTRODUCTION
The group reviewed the material developed on Monday in the Breakout Session,
Define Criteria to Evaluate and Rate Environmental Indicators, and made changes as
appropriate. This included adding some indicators and reorganizing criteria. The
goals identified by the group on Monday remained the same. The group considered
what would be appropriate regional indicators. The group also discussed the possible
use of indices as environmental indicators.
The charge of the group was to review the indicators relating to water issues on the
list presented by Tim Mulholland and to make recommendations on appropriate
regional indicators.
INDICES
Group members seemed interested in the use of indices as environmental indicators.
One member commented that it would be convenient to have a Water Quality Indices
similar to the current Air Quality Indices. Other general comments about indices
included the following:
An index of ecological integrity may be do-able. To be meaningful, it would
have to be regionally calibrated.
Water Quality Indices would provide a great deal more information than a single
parameter. The difficulty would be that it could not be successfully applied in all
locations. Also, the use of this type of methodology is very controversial.
Indices may be helpful in communicating the concept of ecosystem health to
the public.
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
2-93
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-Amcrica Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
CRITERIA A f r
J ^ U \J J
The group refined the criteria developed on Monday by grouping it into four major
categories. Those categories are as follows:
Scientific/Engineering/Measurability
Spatial/Temporal Sampling Design
Do-ability (resources available)
Quality of Data/Standard Measurement Methods/Reproducability
Does It Represent Important Aspects of the Ecosystem
Does it represent all components that should be there, single variable vs.
multiple variable?
Is it sensitive to that ecosystem and calibrated to it?
Communicable
Make scientific information readily understandable to the general public.
Public Policy/Relevance
Indicators should be relevant to goals.
Reflect risk to ecosystem (including humans).
Measure sustainability.
Political do-ability.
The group discussed differences in approach to ecosystem indicators. Some
individuals prefer a few aggregated measures while some do not.
LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
In preparing to identify appropriate regional environmental indicators, the group
reviewed the list of indicators developed on Monday. Through the process, the group
divided the surface water and ground water indicators into quality and quantity sub-
groups. Further, the group identified some additional indicators for consideration.
Surface Water
The group determined that the following indicators from Monday's session should be
considered indicators which deal with surface water "quality."
Production of Bass, Trout, etc.
Indicator Species of Various Kinds
Contaminant Levels in Fish
Transient Variables
(e.g., succession, global change)
Stream Habitat Quality/Riparian Condition/Wetlands
(cross reference to wildlife/biological group)
2-%
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators i'=»A ""
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Through discussion, the group added the following indicators to assess surface water
"quality."
Bodies of Water Meeting Standards - (lakes, rivers, wetlands, etc.) This would
be based on enforceable criteria (chemical plus those biocriteria that exist).
Bodies of Water Supporting Beneficial Uses - based on biological information as
well as chemical data if available. Includes BPJ.
Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Reproductive Success
Geomorphological Conditions - The group noted that this is do-able, but little
data is currently available.
Index of Ecological Integrity - (ecoregion based)
Amphibian Population Trends
Index of Biotic Integrity - (ecoregion based - fish communities)
Toxics in Fish Tissue
The group identified the following two indicators to assess water quantity:
Amount of Water - Supply issues, instream flows (identified in Monday's
session).
Amounts of Diversion - (identified in Tuesday's session).
Ground Water
The group proposed the following as detailed indicators for ground water quality:
Plant Community Health - in discharge/shallow groundwater zones
Drinking Water Standards Met - (e.g., number of user days, number of
advisories per year)
Other Beneficial Uses Supported - including recharge to surface water
that needs to support ecological health and industrial use
Number of Contaminated Sites - including leaking underground storage
tanks (number identified and number mitigated), landfills, and mining
waste
The group proposed the following indicators to address the quantity/supply issue:
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
2-95
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environment Indicators
January 9 - 12. 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Maintaining Fossilized Ground Water Sources - such as the Ogalalla Formation.
This indicator is similar to the surface water indicator to maintain instream flows.
Energy Consumed Per Retrieval at Various Aquifers - This would be an indirect
measure.
Overall Environmental Indicators
The group discussed three different ways to organize environmental indicators related
to water issues. First, they discussed the organization started on Monday and carried
into the breakout session on Tuesday. That is, looking at quantity and quality
indicators under surface water and ground water. Second, the group discussed
dividing the indicators into different levels. This breakout might be habitat level,
chemical level, and biological level. The third option suggested was to identify the
detailed indicators needed to support an overall indicator, for example, "To support
beneficial use." The group decided to proceed with the third option and developed the
following overall indicator.
Bodies of Water Supporting Beneficial Uses (rivers, streams, lakes, aquifers,
wetlands) - 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
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
2-96
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
LAND USE/WASTE ISSUES BREAKOUT SESSION r\:fj A r -r-
UsiAr i
Howard Roitman was the facilitator for the Land Use/Waste Issues Breakout Session.
In attendance in the Land Use/Waste Issues Breakout Session were representatives
from Nebraska, Colorado, South Dakota, Missouri, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Also in
attendance was a local government representative, a member of the Florida Center for
Public Management, and a Corps of Engineers representative.
Dave Bedan will report the results of the Breakout session.
INTRODUCTION
The 10-person team established an indicator selection process for national land use
and waste issues. After two breakout sessions, one on Monday, January 10, and one
on Tuesday, January 11, the team concluded with a particular order in which the
process must follow and selected a final set of environmental indicators
Consistent reference to goals, issues, and criteria was vital during the indicator
selection process to ensure proper focus during group discussion. Team building
methods were used in order to obtain general consensus and positive discussion
among team members. Consensus prioritizing was essential in order to rank the
established list of criteria and indicators.
The following outline is a record of this breakout session in which increased team
consensus was recognized and the criteria and associated indicators were redefined
and consolidated.
GOALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The following goals were designed to be important, specific, measurable, and
achievable.
Waste Minimization
Integration of Land Use
Best Land Use
Minimize Land Conversion from Natural
Revise Land Conversion Standards
Environmental Clean-up
Protect/Improve Ground Water
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
2-97
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
•:r5vo ^ "T
CRITERIA s
The following criteria was developed to be used to evaluate the environmental
indicators:
Impact to Health
Direct
Indirect
Administrative
Data
Measurable, Applicable
Spatial, Temporal
Quality, Availability, Consistency
Public
Understandable
Perception, Values
LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Listed below are the final environmental indicators selected for the Land Use/Waste
Issues Breakout Session.
Solid Waste
Environmental indicators for the solid waste portion of this issue include the following:
Type and Source of Generation
Total
Per Capita
Type of Waste Management
Roadside Dumps
Percent Cleaned-up
Number Cleaned-up
Facilities in Compliance
Subtitle D and other Regulations
Public Perception of Management Programs
General Hazardous Waste
The following is a list of environmental indicators which could be used for the general
hazardous waste category:
2-98
Breakout Session January 11, 1994 - 10:00
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994. Colorado Springs, Colorado
Type and Source of Generation O A XL ";r"
Total Aj i
Per Capita
Type o/ Waste Management
Facilities in Compliance
Facilities Location/Demographics
Facilities Under Clean-up
Releases/Accidents per Mile
Hazardous Mining Waste
The following is a list of environmental indicators which could be used for the
hazardous mining waste category:
River Miles Impacted
Ground Water Impacted
Percent Total Acres Disturbed/Reclaimed
Population Impacted by Non-reclaimed Sites
Land Use
The following is a list of environmental indicators which could be used for the Land
Use portion of the Land Use/Waste Issues Breakout Session:
Changes in Land Use (urban sprawl)
Changes in Land Use by Cover
Forest
Wetland
Grassland
Rangeland
Agriculture
Population Shifts
Acres of Land in Protective Status
Soil Loss
Natural
Anthropogenic
2-99
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12. 1994. Colorado Springs, Colorado
Households on Septic Systems FVO A
Density of Households iHu -4
Number of Households
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
2-100
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-Amcrica Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
BIOLOGICAL, WILDLIFE, AND HUMAN HEALTH ISSUES BREAKOUT SESSION
Dick Sumpter was the facilitator for the Biological, Wildlife, and Human Health Issues
Breakout Session.
The Biological, Wildlife, and Human Health Issues Breakout Session group was
represented by participants from Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, and
Wisconsin, as well as the Eight Northern Indian Pueblo Council, The U.S. Geological
Survey, and The Western Center for Comparative Risk. A wide variety of backgrounds
were evident, with biologists being well-represented.
Stephen Porter will report the results of the breakout session.
INTRODUCTION
The group chose to discuss the ecosystem approach and to try to pare down the
previous day's list of criteria to that which would be considered communicable and of
interest to the public. Some areas of regional interest were discussed, as well as
topics of specific biological and scientific importance.
GOALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
The goal of the Biological, Wildlife, and Human Health Breakout Session environmental
indicators list was the following:
The long-term health and viability of living systems
CRITERIA
The following is the final list of criteria with which the group evaluated the
environmental indicators:
Is the indicator a meaningful measure of health and viability?
Is the indicator measurable? Is it unambiguous, low in error, sensitive
and specific to the goal?
Before listing indicators, the group began a short review to identify threats to living
systems by three categories:
Physical: Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss (destruction, alteration,
and simplification)
Chemical: Contaminants
2-101
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12. 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Biological: Introduction of alien species and communicable disease
RAFT
LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
By using the list of indicators provided by Tim Mulholland, the group voted on those
that each member thought followed the chosen criteria. The resulting list was then
shortened to delete entries with common linkages. Due to the complexity of choosing
indicators from this category, the list was not prioritized.
Flora/Fauna
The Number of Keystone and/or Sensitive Species and Recreational
Species
The Number of Species Becoming Threatened/Endangered - (emphasis
was placed on those species that are currently listed)
Diversity of Habitat - the percentage of habitat loss, fragmentation, and
alteration
Species and Genetic Diversity
Incidence of Exotic Species
Land Set Aside for Preservation and Conservation
Wildlife Health - deformities, cancers, reproductive success, contaminant
concentration
The Number and Extent of Natural Community Types
Human Health
Cancer Incidence
Respiratory Disease
Water-borne Disease
Birth Defects/Infant Mortality
Measured Contaminant Concentration in Humans - (breast milk, blood-
lead levels, etc.) This also relates to real or potential exposure, for
example, the number of people exposed to MCL violations
2-102
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Mid-America Conference on Environmental Indicators
January 9 - 12, 1994, Colorado Springs, Colorado
DRAFT
NAAQS Data - Also, the number of hospital admittances during
exceedances in air quality control standards, which is also related to real,
or potential exposure
Occupational Health Data - it was not discussed what those data were to
be
Food Safety/Pesticide Residues
2-103
Breakout Session
Analysis of Example Regional Indicators
January 11, 1994 - 10:00
-------
Summary:
-------
The Western States Environmental Indicators Conference
— 1 I I ¦ I ¦ — — II "" ^ »J _j|.^ ~ — !¦ ,1
There is no question that the formulation of a
National Indicators Program has the potential
to characterize our environmental progress,
engage the public and change the future
direction of our planning. There is also no
question that a National Indicators Program
will require significant ongoing discussion
among all the States, careful scientific
analysis, and considerable political will all
exercised over a long period.
Eight western States including Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada,
Oregon and Washington, came together on
January 6 and January
7 in Sacramento,
California to discuss
their common interest in
this subject.
These States represent
almost 800,000 square
miles of land and the
interests of over forty-five
million people. It is hard
to imagine a more
heterogenous group of
geographic entities. The
highest and lowest points
in the United States are located here. The
Northern-most and Southern most points in
the country are in this region. The most
densely populated and the least densely
populated areas are here. The coldest and
the hottest spots in the Nation are here.
Several hundred floristic provinces give
witness to the incredible biodiversity of this
area which is home to an ever increasing mix
of peoples of different races and ethnic
origins.
From the first day of planning this meeting it
was clear that the Western States group faced
a monumental task. How could two people
from each State come together to construct a
meaningful two-day dialog that addressed the
most important issues associated with finding
common measures of the condition of this
diverse region?
Over a period of three months,
representatives from these States met six
times to explore the direction this conference
was to take. What emerged was a program
that spanned topics ranging from goal setting
and public involvement to scientific
accuracy, management effectiveness and
environmental justice.
Eventually seventy people joined the dialog
in Sacramento.
Their time was split
between hearing
distinguished
speakers address
technical, management
and social concerns and
meeting in small groups
to discuss their own visions
and concerns. The results
that follow are taken
directly from the
summaries of these discussion sessions.
They do not represent a consensus but they
do suggest the issues which rose to the top in
facilitated meetings.
The Vision
The dominanant vision of the role of a
national indicators program as seen by the
majority of participants at the conference can
be summed up as follows.
To promote long term planning for sustaining
a healthy environment and a high quality of
life that cuts across political, geographical,
racial and ethnic boundaries by:
2-105
-------
Involving the public in the decision
making process
Improving environmental education,
information sharing and
communications
Establishing environmental protection
priorities using a variety of decision
making tools
Developing standardized and
comprehensive methods for measuring
success and failure based on the best
available science and social criteria
Challenging the status quo of
environmental management and
regulation.
Standards for Indicators
Communication
Easy to Communicate/Understand
Targeted to the Audience
Free of Politics
Worthy of Public Trust
Supportive of Community Involvement
Supportive of Community Consensus
Management
Relates to Environmental Goals
Directs Action
Can be Done with Limited Resources
Addresses Sustainability
Provides for Easy Review/Verification
Commands management commitment
Can be "Institutionalized" for Continuity
Indicators
The only consensus clearly reached at this
meeting was that group was not ready to
recommend a palette of indicators that would
suit the needs of the Western States. While
there was enthusiasm for the concept,
representatives agreed that far more work is
needed in the areas of goal development,
consensus building and scientific
consideration before such an undertaking
would be realistic. Nevertheless, the group
did offer the following indicators. The
group's caveat was that these only be used
for stimulating the further discussions which
must follow:
Air
Number of Unhealthy Air/Person/Days
Quantity of Energy Used/Person
Quantity of Gasoline Used/Person
Exeedence of Air Quality Standards
Water
Water Meets Drinking Water Standards
Fresh Water Consumption/Person
USGS Water Consumption Surveys
Exeedence of Water Quality Standards
Biodiversity
Rate of Habitat Alteration
Land Use/Land Cover
Endangered Species Listings
Waste
Quantity of Waste Produced/Person
Waste Disposition
Toxic Release Inventory
Science
Employs Credible Data Collection Methods
Generates Objective Data
Suggests Causality of Condition
Can be Integrated with Other Systems
Is Useful to a Broad Audience
Economic
Cost/Benefit of Regulations
Measures of Amenity Values
Quality of Life Indicators
Traditional Economic Vitality Indicators
Document produced by; Mita McCoy, Program Ditector
University of California. Davis, Extension
Lotid U» and Environment!I Pfaiuiinjf Unit
(916) 757-3890 2"lr6
nKmccoy@ucdavis.edu
-------
Summary:
Homework Assignment
-------
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 sec 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)
• Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) violations for drinking water (10)
2-107
-------
• Contaminated groundwater sites (10)
Excccdanccs of surface water quality standards (8)
• Bcnthic and fish abundance (8)
• Exceedanccs 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)
• Incidence of "sick building syndrome" (1)
2-108
-------
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 excccdances (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)
2-109
-------
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)
. 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)
2-110
-------
3
-------
-------
The Nuts and Bolts of Environmental Indicators
Definitions
Parameter
A property that is measured or observed.
Indicator
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.
Index
A set of aggregated or weighted parameters or indicators.
Source: Group on Environmental Performance, OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reveiws, Synthesis Report By the Group on the State of the Environment,
October 15, 1993, pg.6.
What Makes A Good Indicator?
Selection Criteria
1) National Applicability: The indicator deals with an issue that is national in scope and has equal application among all 50 states. The environmental
issue reflected by the indicator generally has the same meaning and consequences for all states.
2) Data Consistency: The collection of the data is consistent across all states. Collection methodologies, frequency of collection and the scope of
collection arc sufficiently consistent among states to insure that the indicator means the same thing in each state.
3) Data Quality: The data supporting the indicators arc adequately supported by sound collection methodologies, data management systems and quality
assurance procedures to insure that the indicator is accurately represented The data should be clearly defined, verifiable, scientifically acceptable and easy to
reproduce.
4) Importance: The indicator must measure some aspect of environmental quality that reflects an issue of major national importance to states and to EPA
in demonstrating the current and future condition of the environment. Ideally the indicator should be related to existing, important policy objectives.
5) Results: The indicator should measure a direct environmental result (an impact on human health or ecological conditions). Indicators expressing changes
in ambient conditions or changes in measures reflecting discharges or releases arc acceptable, but not preferred. Process measures (permits, compliance and
enforcement activities, etc.,) arc not acceptable.
6) Understandibility: The indicator should be simple and clear, and sufficiently nontechnical to be comprehensible to the general public with brief
explanation. The indicator should lend itself to effective and appealing display and presentation.
7) Availability: The indicator should currently exist and should reflect a reasonable cost/benefit ratio to use.
8) Trends: The data for the indicator should have been collected over a sufficient period of time to allow some analysis of trends. The indicator should
show reliability over time, bringing to light a representative trend, preferably annual.
9) Causality: The indicator should be responsive to a cause and effect relationship. The indicator should reflect the environmental effect of some other
activity or identify sonic activity that causes a known environmental effect.
10) Aggregation: The indicator should aggregate information to a level appropriate for making policy decisions. Highly specific and specialized
parameters, useful to technical staff, will not likely be of much use to policy staff or management.
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM ' ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
J-ilLeFaarckf of
This is how we measure environmental change
Administrative
Environmental
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
Actions by
EPA/State
Regulatory
Agencies
-
Responses o*
the Regulated
Community
1 Changes in 1
^ I Discharge/ 1
1 Emission 1
| Quantities |
1 Changes 1
~1 in Ambient i-i
I Conditions 1
I Changesjn ;fl
~1 Uptakeand/orl-*
I Assimilation 1
Bji(SLanges-in I
lp:;Hea!th;f:l
T /EcoJogy,-or 1
1 Other Effects |
BLUE CRAB
TOTAL PHOSPHORU
i
TOTAL NUTR/EnfT
L OAD INVENTORY
Sus. 0*S%
Potom.
CSC.£PA?A'3.7/M
-------
T—T"
Levels of Indicator Usage
Benchmarks
Agency Management
Environmental Monitoring
Program Performance
Administrative Performance
-------
Management Related Uses of Environmental
Indicators
Agency Evaluation
Strategic Planning (and Budgeting)
• Setting Goals and Objectives
• Source Data for the Strategic Analysis
• Basis for Measuring and Communicating Progress (Monitoring the Results)
• Fundamental Budget Decisions
Program Planning (and Budgeting)
Public Information and Public Relations
Environmental Education
-------
Strategic Planning and Indicators
Environmental Agency Strategic Plan
Indicator Use
Indicator Use
Mission-Level
Evaluation
Source Data
Measuring
Progress
Strategic
Monitoring
Base Data
+ Goals
Objectives
Goals «
Objectives
Base Data
Strategic Analysis
Goals
Objectives
Strategies
Goals
Objectives
Strategies
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Figure 5
Summary of Short-Term Indicators* by Environmental Issue6
PRESSURE
STATE
RESPONSE
Issues
Indicators of
environmental
pressures
Indicators of
environmental
conditions
Indicators of
societal
responses
1.
Cimota change
Emissions of CO,
Amospteic coneentrafcre of
greenhouse gases
Gbbaloean tmp&rwm
Ei»f
2.
Stratospheric ozone
depletion
Appssm consumptnn oi CfCs
Amosphenc concentration of
CFCs
3.
EutophicaJion
Appaent corsirrotioc of
feriizflre, nwastrad si N,P
SOD. DO, N and P in selaaBd
mars
4oipopuiai>ort
ooraacw! to waitB
waer SBasrwm pans
4.
AodHicaton
emssbns of SOx and NOx
ConoesraDons b arid
prBspnatons pR SO,, NOJ
Exaendftutsbrair
position abawrtenl
S.
Tore contamination
Generffibi of hazardous waste
Concersrsiofi of lead,
cadmium, chromium, copper in
selected riven
Matetihanacf
aileaded pemi
6.
Urban environmental
quality
Concerosirans of SOj, NO,.
partajlates in selected crass
7&B
Biological diversity and
landscape
land use changes
Threatened w exfirc! species .
as % ol known species
frosaed areas as % of
Maf&sa
9.
Waste
Generation o! municipal,
tnduscia!. nudear, hazardous
waste
not applcabie
Expenditure on waste
coUacson and traaensnt
Waste recydi^i r®ss
{paper and glass)
10.
Water resources
Sffinsity of use of water
resources
11.
Forest resources
Area, ratme and dtsSftwtisn oi
tofBSB
12.
Fish resources
fish caches
13.
Soil degradation
(desertification and
erosion)
.land use changes
14
General indicators, not
attributable to specific
Esues
Popiialon growth and Sen say
GDP growth
Industrial and agric. production
Energy supply and smjeture
fioad traffic and vehicle stek
not applicable
PoBuim abatement end
oared K^endautB
Putfe ccrton en S»
anwonmara
a) Only indicators which are available in the short errr, si nsmabonaJ level are shown in this table. See Chapter 3 lor other mdeanrs. Ths
table oentmes key elements oi indicators e: ths win'. no rtonmaisaoon witn resoae* to GDr. sooulalan. at c suggested. See Crtapiar 3
on use o) indcasrs tor a dscusswr:
b) For a brief dscussion olea^i indivsoua! issue, see Cnaate: 3.
3-6
-------
TOWARD A TAXONOMY OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
50 NATIONAL INDICATORS
Environmcnial
Categories
Sub Headings
Issue/Area
Specific Indicator Examples/Clusters
Regional, Coastal,
Great Lakes
Additions
Water (8)
Quality (5)
Quantity (3)
Groundwater, rivers, lakes, marine
nonpoint source
Use, supply, flows
Stream miles fishable/swimmable, Pand
Nin lakes, etc.
Total, sector, Per capita
Air Quality (8)
Indoor (3)
Atmosphere (5)
Source-related
Greenhouse gases, acid prccip
Radon, lead paint, woodstoves
Criteria air pollutants
S02, NO,, C02, Ozone
Natural
Resources (8)
Land (3)
Biota (5)
Land use/land cover, wetlands conservation
lands, species
Game, non-game, rare & endangered
Habitat
Acreage, change over time
Bald eagles, waterfowl, pine martens etc
Nesting areas, foraging areas etc.
Environmentally-
Related Human
Health (8)
Direct Exposure (4)
Ambient Emissions/
Discharges (4)
Drinking water, recreation, food
Radiation, toxics, pesticides
MCLs, swimming bans, shellfish closures
Dioxin, VOCs, cancer incidence
Waste (6)
Hazardous (2)
Solid (3)
Generation, storage/disposal, source reduction
Generation, disposal, facilities, recycling
By sector and/or geography over time
By sector and/or geography over time
Energy (6)
Resource/rescrves(2)
Use (3)
Production, consumption
Economic sector, Per capita, mobile/stationary
Electricity from fuel source
Measures of efficiency
Suslainability (6)
Economics (3)
Ecosystems/Biodiversity (3)
Rcncwablcs - fisheries, forestry, agriculture
Non-renewablcs - mining/metals
Change in Natural Systems
Production measures, inputs measures,
species compposition, NRA
Total species, genetic diversity viability
-------
Water Withdrawal By Use
Public
Agricultural
Comm.-lnd.
Domestic
Thermoelectric
1950
170
365
290
50
2051
1955
319
510
1300
38
510
1960
530
683
760
110
1700
1965
710
1750
900
150
1934
1970
884
2129
927
169
1 690
1975
1146
2931
940
203
1 696
1980
1361
3057
781
251
1855
1985
1677
2979
709
259
652
1990
1925
3895
770
299
732
-------
Commercial-industrial
Self-supplied Water Withdrawal
Million Gallons Per Day
400%
Percent Increase
oo
i
VT)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
349%
1 300
290
760
900 927 940
42%
2%
781 7Q9 770
•16%
-10%
11%
300%
200%
100%
0%
-100%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Year
-------
Commercial-industrial
Self-supplied Water Withdrawal
VwO
I
Million Gallons Per Day
Percent Increase
400%
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
349%
t
927 .. .940
290
781
709
770
-16%
-10%
11%
300%
200%
100%
0%
-100%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Year
-------
% Freshwater Withdrawal By Use
Percent of Total Withdrawal
100%
75%
50%
25% -
0%
'"S! ' "j '• '¦ '^y-'K-.' • ££: :T$ ¦''S: *
v:. '¥" '¦¦<¦ :¦¦¦¦ -iy:* , "W?*-. '<
S % /' ' ^ tA """ ¦" •* '
s ' \ Ay f, s' / ' /
- - - •<: • ox-a-j .¦-¦ .
V/.'". ..%V.V\ .'.v.v.v/' ,.V./*, '.\v ^ . ».AV,
¦" - > ¦
¦%zwmW,'f;
wm<
**•/&?&&
¦¦vf V. <> ¦¦ s s s *' s J s s s % ' *
' N s
' \
O :s£
is- 4 ' ?*>4\
'v? ^ *" *
Ayvt\ *4' ¦* ^
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Public ED Agricultural Bcomm.-lnd. HI Domestic B Thermoelectric
-------
Water Withdrawal By Use
Million Gallons Per Day
8000
6000
V^>
I
ho
4000
2000
h'/' *
Sfr&c.. ..
„ -s i iai KS ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
*¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦»>
-¦I
••
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
EH'" blic [jj Agricultural Hcomrr "nd. ^Domestic ® Thermoe'^ctric
-------
Irrigation
Public Supply
Industrial
Self-supply
Thermoelectric
Power
Generation
Uses of Water
Withdrawn and Consumed
Water
Withdrawn!
and
Returned
Water
Withdrawn
and
Consumed
Thermoelectric
Power
Generation
19%
Public Supply
21%
Industrial
Self-supply
22%
Irrigation
38%
Water Withdrawals
11,160 Million Gallons per Day
Water Consumption
590 Million Gallons per Day
Great Lakes
Groundwater
Inland Surface Water
Sources of
Water Withdrawals
Water Withdrawn
and Returned
Water Withdrawn
and Consumed
3-13
-------
SOURCE
DISPOSITION
8%
SURFACE
WATER
36%
60%
2,228 Mgal/d
28% \
GROUND
WATER
64%
4,048 Mgal/d
Includes 17 Mgal/d
of saline ground
water treated for
freshwater use.
36.5%
USE
PUBLIC
SUPPLY
27%
1,677 Mgal/d
Includes 17 Mgal/d
of saline ground
water treated for
freshwater use.
DOMESTIC 21%
SELF-SUPPLY
"100% 4% 79%
11% 259 Mgal/d
COMMERCIAL-
INDUSTRIAL
11%
709 Mgal/d
AGRICULTURAL
IRRIGATION
48%
2,979 Mgal/d
THERMO-
ELECTRIC
10%
651 Mgal/d
CONSUMPTIVE
USE
43.5%
2.730 Mgal/d
WATER
RETURNED
TO THE
SYSTEM
56.5%
3,546 Mgal/d
Includes
conveyance
FIGURES MAY NOT ADD TO TOTALS BECAUSE OF INDEPENDENT ROUNDING.
Figure 8.—Source, use, a- isposition of freshwater in Florida, 1985.
-------
4
-------
Group on Environmental Performance
OECD Core Sew Indimorst^
Environmental RERiORMATNiE^Reiiiwi
Synthesis moBBttoCmsoBmrn
S.TAT^OBTH.gEmaSME#'!!
*flfa|
¦ "I-,rJB" £371r.
1 . ¦1 Zf—*,!*T- . ~v -,«jbi i^Y— ^irmrB ctvfa
-------
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC
CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE
ENVIRONMENT POLICY COMMITTEE
RESTRICTED
Paris, drafted: L5th-Oct-1993
OLIS:
dist.:
Scale D
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Or. Eng.
GROUP ON ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
OECD CORE SET OF INDICATORS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS
SYNTHESIS REPORT BY THE GROUP ON THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
COMPLETE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE ON OLIS IN ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Note by the Secretariat
This report was endorsed by the Group on the State of the Environment at its meeting on
30th September - 1st October 1993. It incorporates the amendments and comments made by the Group at
the meeting on the earlier version of the report [ENV/EPOC/SE(93)6] and is transmitted to the OECD
Group on Environmental Performance.
The report combines:
- the results of three OECD workshops on indicators for use in OECD environmental
performance reviews held in February, May and September 1993;
-- input provided by a number of countries through their written contributions on specific issues
as well as by the informal steering group (including Canada, Germany, the Netherlands.
Norway, the United States) who met at several occasions to prepare the individual workshops;
~ elements of more detailed work on specific indicators carried out in the context of other parts
of the work programme on environmental indicators.
k-2
-------
Introduction
ENV /EPOC/GEP(9 3)5/ADD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
1. Terminology and framework 5
1.1 Definition and functions of environmental indicators 5
1.2 Indicators in the Pressure-State-Response framework 5
1.3 Structuring elements: environmental issues and economic sectors 11
2. The use of indicators in environmental performance reviews 16
3. Indicator development by environmental issue 20
Issue ]; Climate change 21
Issue 2: Stratospheric ozone depletion 22
Issue 3: Eutrophicarion 23
Issue 4: Acidification 24
Issue 5: Toxic contamination 25
Issue 6: Urban environmental quality 26
Issues 7&8:BioIogical diversity and landscape 27
Issue 9: Waste 28
Issue 10: Water resources 29
Issue 11: Forest resources 30
Issue 12: Fish resources 31
Issue 13: Soil degradation (erosion and desertification) 32
General indicators, not attributable to specific issues 33
"i-3
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
INTRODUCTION
Demand for the development of environmental indicators by OECD has been expressed along two
complementary lines. Fust. the OECD Council in 1989 called for farther wort to integrate environment
and economic decision-making. This was reiterated in consecutive G-7 summits and led to the approval
of an OECD Council Recommendation on Environmental Indicators and Information by OECD
Governments in 1991. Second, the OECD has been entrusted by its Member countries to launch a new
programme of environmental performance reviews with the principal aim of helping Member countries to
improve their individual and collective performance in environmental management. Reviews are conducted
under the auspices of the Group on Environmental Performance and evaluate individual countries'
environmental performance in respect of environmental quality, national objectives and international
commitments. One year after the UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro, with several new conventions
adopted, this international dimension is of particular relevance.
These demands are reflected in the OECD work, programme on environmental indicators,
comprising indicator development for the integration of environmental concern into seaoral policies,
environmental and narural resource accounting and the development of indicators for use in environmental
performance reviews (see also section "uses of indicators" below).
During the meeting of the Group on Environmental Performance on 15-16 April 1992, the
Delegations of the Netherlands, Norway and the United States proposed to hold several workshops
concerning environmental indicators to support woric on environmental performance evaluation. The Group
on Environmental Performance and the Group on the State of the Environment welcomed these suggestions.
The main objectives established for this work were:
~ to contribute to the harmonization of the many individual initiatives of OECD Member
countries in the field of environmental indicator;
— to prepare, in an OECD context, guidance for the use of environmental indicators in
connection with the evaluation of environmental performance;
~ to stimulate, within the OECD programme on environmental indicators, the development of
a core set of selected and/or aggregated indicators (so-called Indicators), thereby giving
priority to the development of a limited set for international use.
The present document is organised accordingly:
— Harmonization: Chapter 1 presents the common framework and terminology adopted by the
OECD Group on the State of the Environment; the development of a common set of
environmental issues and indicator proposals also contributes to the harmonization of
individual countries' initiatives;
— Guidance: Chapter 2 proposes general guidelines for the use of indicators in the context of
environmental performance reviews and presents examples from reviews already carried out;
— Core set of indicators: Chapter 3 summarises the discussion on the development of a core set
of indicators, each indicator ranked with respect to data availability and measurability.
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(92)5/ADD
Chapter 1
TERMINOLOGY AND FRAMEWORK
1.1 Definition and functions of environmental indicators
In a very general way, an indicator can be defined as a parameter or a value derived from
parameters, which provides informarion about a phenomenon (see Table 1). The indicator has significance
that extends beyond the properties directly associated with the parameter value. Indicators possess a
synthetic meaning and are developed for a specific purpose. This points to two major functions of
indicators:
- they reduce the number of measurements and parameters which normally would be required
to give an "exact" presentation of a situation. As a consequence, the size of a set of indicators
and the amount of derail contained in the set need to be limited". A set with a large number
of indicators will tend to clutter the overview it is meant to provide. Too few or even a single
indicator, on the other hand, may be insufficient to provide all the necessary relevant
information. In addition, methodological problems related to weighting tend to become
greater with an increasing level of aggregation:
— they simplify the communication process by which the information of results of measurement
is provided to the user. Due to this simplification and adaptation to user needs, indicators
may not always meet stria scientific demands to demonstrate causal chains. Indicators should
therefore be regarded as an expression of "the best knowledge available".
As indicators are used for varying purposes it is necessary to define general criteria for the
selection of indicators. Three basic criteria have been used in OECD work: policy relevance, analytical
soundness and measurability. Table 2 offers a more detailed presentation of these general criteria.
1— Indicators in the Pressure-State-Response framework
The Pressure-Stale-Response framework
There are several frameworks around which indicators can be developed and organised. There
is no unique framework that generates sets of indicators for every purpose. Also, a framework may change
over time as scientific understanding of environmental problems increases, and as societal values evolve.
In the context of the work of the Group on the State of the Environment, the Pressure-State-Response (PSR)
framework has been used. The PSR framework (Figure la) is based on a concept of causality: human
activities exert pressures on the environment and change its quality and the quantity of natural resources
(the "stale" box). Society responds to these changes through environmental, general economic and sectoral
policies (the "societal response"'). The latter form a feedback loop to pressures through human activities.
In a wider sense, these steps form part of an environmental (policy) cycle which includes problem
perception, policy formulation, monitoring and policy evaluation.
While the PSR framework has the advantage of highlighting these links, it tends to suggest linear
relationships in the human activity-environment interaction. This should not obstruct the view of more
complex relationships in ecosystems and in environment-economy interactions.
k-S
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Tabic 1. Definition of Terms
Indicator A parameter. or & vriue derived firoro parameters, which points tc/provkks information
abouvdescribes the sate cf apbeoomeiujo/eovironineTS/Sarea with a significance extrodmg beyond
fear directly associaffid with a parameter value.
Index A set of aggregated or weighted, parameter or indicators.
Parameter A property that is measured or observed.
Indicators of enttbonmentajl cosDmoNs
Correapogd to 'state* box of fee Pressnrc-Stste-Response Sraniework. They comprise
eoYHonmenial quality and sspeos of eaetity and TVIK0N"MENTAL1NDICAT085
Comprise al indicators in the Prcssffe-Stfie-Respoose framework, ie, iadicaiors of
envsorane&al pressures, condtkais and responses.
Indicators
Within the PSR framework, three broad types of indicators can be distinguished:
a) Indicators of environmental pressures correspond to the "pressure" box of the PSR framework.
They describe pressures from human activities exerted on the environment, including the
quality and quantity of natural resources. A distinction can be drawn between indicators of
proximate pressures (pressures directly exerted on the environment, normally expressed in
terms of emissions or consumption of natural resources) and indicators of indirect pressures
(background indicators rcflecnng human activities which lead to proximate environmental
pressures).
b) Indicators of environmental conditions correspond to the "state" box of the PSR framework
and relate to the quality of the environment and the quality and quantity of natural resources.
As such they reflect the ultimate objective of environmental policy making. Indicators of
4-6
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
environmental conditions should be designed to give an overview of the situation (the state)
of the environment and its development over time, and not the pressures on iL In practice,
the distinction between environmental conditions and the pressures may be ambiguous and the
measurement of environmental conditions can turn out to be difficult or very costly.
Therefore, the measurement of environmental pressures is often used as a substitute for the
measurement of environmental conditions.
Table 2. Criteria far Indicator Selection*
PaScy rzteraxct tad udHty for users
An environmental mdicator shoeld:
provide a representative picture of environmental cocdieofls, pressmes on the environment ar
society's responses;
• be ample, easy to interpret and able to show treads over time;
be responsive to changes in the eavirenment and relaxed human activities;
provide a baas fbr international comparisons;
~ be either national a scope or likable to regional enviroBSMQta] issues of aatknal significance:,
have a threshold or reference value against wtudi to compare h so that users are abie to assess
the significance of the values associated vith k.
Anatjtkzl icundaess
An environmental mdicafor should:
be theoretically weD founded in technical and srieatifk: terms;
be based on international, standards: and intEraarional conseasas aboat as valMity;
lend itself to being linked to economic models, krecaaing and.mfbiHjatkHi systems.
M*assrdbHjty
The dmaxeqfflred to support the indicator shodd be:
• readily available cr made available at a reasonable cost/benefii ratio;
* adeqaateiy docaiaented. aod of fagwa qaaBrr,
*¦ updated at jcguiar intervals iit accordance wah reliable procedaes.
*Thc*e uitaia describe the "IdeaT indicator «nd not lE of there wiil be rod. in practice.
c) Indicators of societal responses correspond to the "response" box in the PSR framework.
Societal response indicators are measurements which show to what degree society is
responding to environmental changes and concerns. Societal responses refer to individual and
collective actions to mitigate, adapt to or prevent human-induced negative impacts on the
environment and to halt or reverse environmental damage already inflicted. Societal responses
h-1
-------
ENV/EPOOGEP(93)5/ADD
also include actions for the preservation and the conservation of the environment and natural
resources.
Compared to indicators of environmental pressures and many indicators of environmental
conditions, most indicators of societal responses have a shorter history and are still in a phase
of development, both conceptually and in terms of data availability. This must be taken into
account in their use to avoid misinterpretation. Two more specific points arise with societal
response indicators.
First, the distinction between indicators of environmental pressures and indicators of societal
responses may become blurred when response indicators capture the feedback effect of
society's responses on environmental pressures. A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions or
improvements in energy efficiency could, for example, be interpreted both as a pressure and
as a response indicator for climate change. Ideally, the response indicator should reflect
society's efforts in tackling a particular environmental problem.
Second, as indicators are of a quantitative nature, societal response indicators are limited to
responses which are measurable in quantitative terms. Responses which can only be
expressed in qualitative terms (e.g. whether an international environmental agreement has been
ratified or not) are therefore absent in the present set of indicators. In a number of cases,
responses may be measurable in principle but are too specific or too numerous to be measured
in practice. A case in point is the area of technology-related regulations and standards with
comprehensive, detailed rules which are difficult to express in a concise way or to compare
internationally. In performance reviews, qualitative and scientific information typically
supplements the quantitative indicators.
Use of uutiaitors
Different users of environmental indicators have different needs. Thus, the appropriate set of
indicators depends on their particular use. In the work of the Group on the State of the Environment four
major categories of use are present;
- measurement of environmental performance;
- integration of environmental concerns in sector policies1;
- integration of environmental and economic decision-making more generally (e.g. through
environmental accounting2);
- repotting on the state of the environment.
1 Indicators for integration of environmental concerns in sectoral policies art, in the OECD context, specialized
sub-sets covering the whole range erf indicators for use by sectoral decision-makers.
3 Although indicators of environmental pressures, conditions and societal responses provide input for work on
environmental accounting, frameworks different from the PSR model underlie the work on environmental accounting.
h-8
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Conceptually, indicators for these specific purposes (performance evaluation, reporting on the state
of the environment) should be distinguished from specific tvpes of indicators, i.e. indicators of
environmental conditions, pressures, societal responses (see Figure lb). There is no one-to-one
correspondence between indicators distinguished by their nature and indicators distinguished by their use:
for each type of use, background, stress, environmental quality, natural resource, and response indicators
are of potential relevance. For example, indicators for state of the environment reporting could well be
drawn from all types of indicators - pressure indicators, indicators of environmental conditions and
response indicators.
Similarly, a set of indicators would be selected from all types to meet the specific needs of policy
performance evaluation. Indicators for performance evaluation would encompass indicators of
environmental pressures, conditions and societal responses. What characterizes such indicators would be
that these indicators are used to evaluate performance, mainly by putting them into the context of national3
and international goals, objectives and targets.
1 This may include sub-national issues of national significance.
h-S
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Figure 1a
Pressure - State - Response Framework
PRESSURES
STATE
RESPONSES
krfamaaan
Pressuras
Econoffic and
Emrroflmental Agents
Stus of the Environment
and of McuraJ Rasourcas
Natural Resourcas
Waer
Scceiil Raspcnsas (Docsions ¦ AcXcrs)
Figure 1b
Nature and Use of Environmental Indicators
EMVRCNUENTAL WXCATORS Cf:
Ptbssupm from aggregate
and seaoraf acjvrfas
KWCATORSOf
BMRCNUENTAL
PRESSURES
<=v>
Eiyircnrwnai ?iiity,
and auamty of
nnun nsoureas
KWCATORS OF
BfYmOMUENTAL
CCNtXTlOKS
-> sacaraf tovd
-> national tev^l
-> tntBmaaonaJ tovsl
WDtCATORSOf
SOCETA1 RESPONSES
USED FOfi;
tha irrtagrsion of
•mirari mental concsms
into
Mdoralpoicin
tfM avahxocn of
anvronmanal
pwfonTtancs
tha irrtBgralion of
awrcn mental concam* rto
•coramc policies
mora generally
tha raporuig on
thattata of
tha environment
*4-10
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
1J Structuring elements: environmental issues and economic sectors
Environmental issues
The Pressure-Stale-Response framework structures and classifies types of indicators. The broad
categories following from the PSR framework (indicators of environmental pressures, environmental
conditions and societal responses), give, however, insufficient guidance for the choice of the specific
environmental areas for which indicators need to be developed. In its February workshop, the Group on
the State of the Environment identified a list of issues which reflect current environmental challenges.
These issues represent the first structuring element By necessity, they depend on changing and sometimes
conflicting perceptions. The list of issues is not necessarily final nor exhaustive. In fact, the list is flexible
and new issues can be incorporated or old ones abandoned according to their environmental relevance. The
purpose of the list is to serve as a focus for indicator development; Figure 2 shows how indicators of
environmental conditions, pressures and responses can be associated with individual issues.
Broadly spoken, issues 1 to 9 can be considered "sink-oriented", dealing with issues of
environmental quality, whereas issues 10 to 13 are "source-oriented", focusing on the quantity aspect of
naniral resources. Not all indicators can be directly associated with a specific environmental issue (e.g..
population growth, economy-wide environmental expenditure or public opinion on the environment). A
coiezory of general and/or not attributable indicators has therefore been introduced in the framework in
Figure 2.
Sectors in the Pressure-Staie-Response framework
In principle, pressure and societal response indicators can be considered at a sectoral level. Data
availability permitting, such a disaggregation is one tool in analysing the environmental pressures exerted
by sectors such as agriculture, industry, energy or transport. Similarly, for societal responses, government
responses could be distinguished from those of the business sector (including agriculture, energy, industry
etc.) or private households (see Figure 3). Indicators at the sectoral level are therefore a useful tool in the
context of environmental performance reviews for reviewing the integration of environmental and sectoral
policies.
There exists a direct link to the woik of the Group on the State of the Environment on indicators
for the integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies. So far, work has been undertaken in
the areas of energy, transport, forestry and agriculture4. Selected indicators from these activities can
provide a direct input to the core set of indicators for use in environmental performance reviews.
Sector disaggregation can be earned out in
-- a functional sense (relating to sources of pollution): sectors relate to specific, environmentally
relevant activities. The transport sector, for example, would comprise all transport activities,
irrespective of whether they are carried out by manufacturing industry, private households or
specialised transportation firms;
4 See "Indicaiors for the integration of environmental concerns into energy policies" [ENV/EP0QSE<92)4/REV1]; "Indicators
for the integration of environmental concern* into transport policies" [ENV/EP0C/SE<91)17/REV1]; "Indicator* for the integration
of environmental concerns into agricultural policies" (ENV/EPOQ5E(93)2); "Indicators for the integration of environmental
concerns into forestry policies" [ENV/EC/5E(91)16].
*4-11
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Figure 2 Structure of Indicators by Environmental Issue
PRESSURE
STATE
RESPONSE
Indicators of
environmental
pressures
Indicators of
environmental
conditions
Indicators of
societal
responses
Issues
works/wp
May 1993
workshop
February 1993
workshop
May 1993
1. Climate change
2. Ozone layer depletion
3. Eutrophicarion
4. Acidification
5. Toxic contamination
6. Urban environmental
quality
7. Biological divenity
8. Landscape
9. "Waste
10. Water resources
11. Forest resources
12. Fish resources
13. Soil degradation
(desertification and
erosion)
14. General indicators, not
anributable to specific
issues
4-12
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Figure 3: Sectors in the Pressure-State-Response Framework
Mcaon of Mcaort at Manf* of
iwcnirwnMI wwunwiul ko«i1
1.
2. Qzan* isyw gunon
13. Sari Mgraoason
- ¦*—-*
it;
tnvTcnrwn-ecDromy
Inwjituon
an institutional sense (relating to economic acrivity): seoors relate to the primary activities of
economic establishments or firms. In this sense, the transport sector would be restricted to that
part of the service sector dealing with transport services as a primary activity. Transport activities
carried out in conjunction with manufacturing would be recorded in the sector "manufacturing
industry". Industry classifications such as ISIC (International Standard Industry Classification)
are based on this principle.
The following lists show seoors organised along the two approaches:
4-13
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Institutional approach (economic sectors):
Functional approach (sources of
pollution):
Agriculture
Forestry
Fishery
Mining and quarrying
Manufacturing
Electricity generation
Agriculture
Forestry
Fishery
Mining and quarrying
Manufacturing
Energy (extraction, production,
distribution, use)
Transport
Tourism
Other services
Transport services
Other services
Private households
Private households
It should be noted that private households are included as a sector. This category differs from
the other seoors as it does not have a significant impact as a sector of production, but underlines the role
of households as consumers. According to the specific question under consideration, sectoral sub-divisions
can be developed either in a functional or an institutional sense. If double-counting is to be avoided,
however, consistency of use (functional or institutional) needs to be assured. Also, with a view to
combining data on seooral pressures and economic activity, environmental data and economic data need
to be collected and applied in a consistent manner.
Issue-profiles
In principle, it is possible to establish a systematic link between environmental pressures and
different sectors in the form of issue-profiles5. An issue-profile consists of the contributions of relevant
sectors to a particular environmental pressure (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions) which in turn can be linked
to an issue (e.g. climate change). Figure 4 presents a stylised issue-profile. Issue-profiles could help to
identify the economic activity causing a particular environmental problem and, combined with information
on sectoral responses, provide useful information for performance reviews. At present, however, problems
of data availability and measurement severely constrain any systematic development of issue profiles at the
international level.
Futxirt development
As a medium-term perspective, further integration of economic and environmental information
should be possible with a view to fostering sustainable development strategies. Pressure indicators could,
for example, be related to parameters reflecting economic activity thus providing an analytical tool for the
integration of economy and environment in decision making.
'Conceptually, issue profile* are distinct from the approach taken in other OECD work on indicators far the integration of
environmental concern into sectoral policie*. The latter ire broad ted of indicators covering the whole interface between sectoral
policies (energy, transport, agriculture etc.) and environment. Issue fro files would be more constrained in the sense that they only
deal with one particular environmental issue and that they focus on environmental pressures. On the other hand, they permit the
systematic allocation of environmental pressures across sectan - a feature not present in other work on sectoral indicators. Also,
ixsue profiles can be organised along economic sectors. Le~ in an institutional sense whereas the work on indicamrs for the
integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies follows a functional approach.
4-114
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Figure 4 Issue-profile by sector
Agriculture
Mining and quarrying
Energy
Manufacturing
*
Households
- .¦ V vvN-> v<;Ni •ysWw'
'¦,'•S*' .. •. xV^-:¦*:,\'.««s**¦
.. .... -.r-v v.-. >. •» «>»ss ^n'«os>x»VV.",*:vs'~*>\nn?\
k.?* ¦»*••• • vn<>•; .-:•<.•¦ • >«
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Chapter 2
THE USE OF INDICATORS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS
Efforts of the OECD programme of environmental performance reviews are directed ar promoting
sustainable development, with the principal aim of improving the individual and collective performances
in environmental management. Environmental performance reviews are structured to further the following
principal goals6:
reducing the overall pollution burden and managing natural resources in a sustainable way;
integrating environmental and economic or sectoral policies;
strengthening international co-operation.
Environmental performance is to be assessed by comparing achievements or progress with;
national objectives;
international commitments;
absolute levels of environmental quality, taking account of each country's physical, human
and economic context.
Seven principles apply for the use of environmental indicators in performance reviews. This
chapter briefly discusses these principles and presents examples of the use of indicators in environmental
performance reviews.
1. Indicators provide one of the iools in the process of performance evaluation and need to
be supplemented by other quaiitaive and scientific information.
Indicators have the advantage of being concise and having a meaning thai goes beyond the simple
parameter value. However, there is a danger of misinterpretation if indicators are presented without
appropriate supplementary information. Such information is particularly needed to explain driving forces
behind indicator changes which in turn form the basis for any assessment of environmental performance.
Box 1 presents an example from the review of Iceland where indicators of air emissions are embedded in
supplementary information about the source of emissions.
2, There is no unique normalisation for the comparison of environmental variables across
countries: where possible, aormahsaricn by unit of GDP should be shown in parallel with
a normalisation by the number of inhabitants. Other possibilities ssch as total surface exist
for nomnflaatioa and may be appropriate for specific environmental pressures.
When comparing emissions across countries, the outcome of the assessment will depend greatly
on whether GDP or population size are chosen as denominator. Although standardisation is needed to
facilitate cross-country comparisons, absolute values may be the appropriate measure where, for example,
international commitments are linked to absolute levels of emissions.
4 Aj Jet forth by the OECD Environment Minister* in their 1991 communique on the "OECD Environmental Strategy for the
1990*".
k-16
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
3. The set of indicators developed in the series of workshops of tbe Group on the Stale of the
Eavironmeju is acoreset- Enthe coraenaf performance reviews, this core set is common
to an or most Member countries, and will generally be supplemented by more detailed,
country-specific indicators.
Boxes 1 and 2 are examples of this principle put into practice: core indicators on air pollution
(Box 1) provide a cross-country comparison but are confined to a particular point in time. In addition, air
pollution in Iceland is shown for a larger number of pollutants and for several years. Similarly, in the
review of Germany (Box 2) types and evolution of waste water treatment in Germany are shown in detail
to supplement the cross-country comparison provided by the core indicator on the percemage of the
population connected to waste water treatment plants with biological and/or chemical treatment
4. For performance evaluation, indicators must be reported and interpreted la the
appropriate context* taking into account the ecological, geographical, social, economic and
structural features of cotnaiies.
In performance reviews, this principle is followed in two ways. First, the text directly
accompanying the indicator contains a certain amount of contextual information (see, for example, the first
paragraphs in Box 1 and Box 2). Second, in every performance review, an introductory chapter deals with
the overall physical, demographic, economic and administrative context of the respective country.
5. Not everyarea of assessment lends itself to the use of quantitative information. Certain
policy areas may be assessed in qualitative terms. Thus, the issues covered by
environmental indicators are a subset of the issues covered by performance reviews.
6. in conceptual and In empmcai terms, indicators of societal responses tend to be less
advanced, than indicators of environmental pressures or indicators of environmental
conditions. Haas, parikslar cautkm needs to be applied when interpreting and using
mdicaiois of sodeiai responses.
More generally, key Information on meihodcrtogy for fodfeasar derivation should accompany
£bc ase of indicators in Derformaoce reviews.
7. There is no necessary one-to-one conespocdance between environmental issues and the
indicators identified; a specific indicator can be relevant for more than one environmental
issue.
h-17
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Box 1. The Use of Indicators:
Example from the Environmental Performance Review of Iceland
Air palistJoo
Although Iceland'* per ctpia coruianpticm of energy is high and a Higher than that of any other OECD country,
is amstaBy hrjh proportion of hydro -tod geothomal energy ooriribuan snbctantially to maintaining pollution u k>w levels.
Tool primary energy supply (TPES) per unit of GDP in 1990 was 84 per cent above the OECD average and 69 per csnt
above the average for &e other Nordic countries. T?£S per capita wis 71 per cent greater than the OECD average and 57
po oatt higher than the average for odier Nordic countries. The Icelandic authorities successfully reduced oil consumption
through substitution of renewable resource*. Electricity a gewxued almost executively from hydropower, and gectbermal
energy contributes a high share of apace healing.
Context and supplementary
information
Counay-ipecific indicators
and data
Core indicator
Assessment
Ttands in
-MVS -mo *•
li 4.4 U C Iti
1U It-T J27
au 9J iti 4U 72T
U M U U IU
• 0tc eJO 1 t_I
SbBhbBs i
OWMM*
.
» jd m m m wd
The implication* of these iigwa in certain pollution emission* for human health and ecotyttcm* may be minor
due to the assimilative capacity of the environment. For ouropk, m spite of the shup expansion in NOx eraiwdoss. the level
of depositions is at least three time* lows' than in any European country. Tims, the Icelandic authorities have cfrawn special
attention to the need to ctxssider pollution conceffiratioos and ambient level* in implemeiaing international commitments.
4- 18
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Box 2. The Use of Indicators:
Example from the Environmental Performance Review of Germany
Surface water
The authority to establish waier quality objectives in surface or ground water tcss with the Ltader. The goal af
the western Ltader is to aclfleve Quality Class H in til riven, Le. Moderate Pollution, the third from highest quality in
Gamany's seven-rieied water quality ranking lynem. Class 11 a defwed *k water jetakms with moderate poBction and
good oxygen supply. > very wide variety of species and dense colonisation by individual algae, snails, entomostracans and
insect larvae; aquatic plants covering large arras: and fertile fishing waters. No date has been set for achieving this overall
goal.
Context and supplementary
information
/
Country-specific indicators
and data
» * ;\
i *7
1
t
i
/ -«
\A
\
tWT%
*1*
t*
14
Core indicator
\
Assessment
Major improvements in the quality of surface waters have occurred in western Germany, particularly with respect
to oxygen-demanding substances and toxic compounds such as heavy metals. Hie* improvement! can be explained both
by the progressive equipment of municipalities with aowage treatment plants providing relatively efficient biological and
advanced treatment of waste waters and by impressive progress in the installation of treatment equipment at industrial
facilities. This has led to significant improvements ia the waters of the Rhine, Danube, Ntckar Bid Main overs.
*.-19
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Chapter 3
INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT BY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
This chapter summarises the work on indicator development, carried out during the workshops
of the Group on the State of the Environment. In addition, a number of lead countries provided
specific input for the different issues. In this sense, significant pans of the indicators or elements of
indicators described below represent an interim consensus. None of them should, however, be
perceived as final or necessarily exhaustive in character they may change as knowledge and
perception of environmental problems evolve, they still require detailed technical descriptions and they
may be of varying relevance for different countries.
In this chapter, first-choice indicators are highlighted and placed in white boxes. Where these
are not readily measurable, one or several proxy indicators are added in grey fields. Grey fields also
contain supplementary indicators to round up the picture provided by- the core indicator or its
substitutes. All indicators or elements of indicators are classified according to their availability: "S"
for indicators measurable in the shon-term; "M" for indicators which require additional empirical work
and data collection efforts and which are therefore only measurable in the medium term and "L" for
indicators measurable oniv in the long term because they would need significant data development
work. All the indicators measurable in the short run are brought together in the overview in Figure 5
at the end of this chapter.
The treatment of indicators for each environmental issue comprises the following elements:
a) a table summarising indicators and classifying them by degree of measurability;
b) a short description of the environmental concern and policy relevance of the issue with
reference to major international agreements or conventions (e.g. Agenda 21, the Montreal
Protocol);
c) a brief discussion of the indicators of environmental pressures, environmental conditions
and societal responses where possible;
d) a note concerning the data availability for each category of indicator.
*4-20
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issue 1: Climate Change
Summary of Indicators
indicator
Hsaasafciiy
ErarocsnflGia! pressures:
• Indu of GHG missions
SM
\ 0 - Emma d CQ
S
0 ECTEsioa&dO^ ,
aw
0 Apparent consimytioa of
&C It and 12; haiorg
sm
O EasuionsofNp
u
Enworaartal coedfons:
• Atmospheric concsntotion of
pmwouss gssss
s
• Global matn tamperatura
s
Societal wsponses:
• Enargy slficiancy
MA
C Eoargy irtsnsSy
s
0 fapidt and «xpfic2 tax on
«argy,COj.
MA.
0 at energy «Sdency,
U
dtaig* rasaarcJi
'Apparent cortsumpaon « produebon plus impcrB minus axpora.
TTm environmental concern and poflcy relevance: in
recent decades, the balance in the radative energy budget
of the earth-atmosphere system has been disturbed by the
addition of gases generated by human activities. An increase
of the atmospheric concentration of these greenhouse gases
changes the radative energy balance and leads to
temperature and dim ate change.
One of the major international agreements which emerged
from 1992 *Earth Sun nut" in Rio de Janeiro was the UN
Framework Convention on CSmatB Change. A number of
countries have made commitments to reduce their emissions
of greenhouse gases over the coming years.
Indicators of environmental pressures: four Afferent
radtatefy active gases have drect effects on dimate change:
carbon doxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons. The
indicators of environmental pressures relate to gross
emissions, i.e., they do not consider sinks of greenhouse
gases. For an aggregate indicator of greenhouse gas
emissions, afi four gases should be taken into account
Aggregation supposes a weighting scheme, based on global
wanning potentials (GWP) as proposed by the
Intergovernmental Panel on CimatB Change. To date,
however, major uncertainties exist about the size of these
westing factors. Until definitive weighting factors are put
forward, it is proposed to consider each greenhouse gas
indvidually. In the future, it may also be necessary to indude
emissions of substitutes for CFCs with high GWP.
Data availabfl'rty: CC2 emissions are well covered, in
part'aiar emissions from energy use (Source: OECD/IEA).
For CFCs, apparent consumption is monitored under the
Montreal Protocol. Estimates on methane emissions exist
but country coverage is smaler and there are wide
dvergencss between estimates from dHferent sources
(Source: OECD). Information on haions is very limited.
Significant measuement probiems exist with NjO.
Indcators of environmental conditions: the atmospheric
concentration of greenhouse gases and the changes in gicfcal
mean temperature are common indicators for dimate change.
These indicators remain of imited drect use fcr
environmental performance reviews as they cannot be related
to a particular country's environmental performance.
Indicators of sodetal responses: efforts to reduce GKG
emissions indude a large number of individual actions and
poHc/ instruments (taxes, regulations, subsidies etc.), mostly
designed to improve energy effia'ency. The afferent efforts
are affiait to capture in a single rdcator. It is therefore
proposed to employ an irxScator of energy efficiency,
reflecting, at least party, society's efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Si^piementary indicators such
as energy and C02 tax rates and environmental expenditure
should help to trace individual policy instruments. As always,
expendture data need to be put into the right context tor
appropriate interpretation.
Data availability: measures of energy efficiency are not
readiy available. As a first step, it is therefore proposed to
use energy intensity meastxes (Source: OECD/IEA),
although they reflect structural (actors as we8 as changes in
energy efficiency. Data on government R&D expendtue on
energy efficiency and alternative energy sources are partly
available (Source: EA); implicit and expfiat tax rates on
COj have also been evaluated (Source: OECD), although
country coverage Is incomplete.
4-21
-------
ENV/E?OC/GEP(93)5/A£)D
Issue 2: Stratospheric Oione Depletion
Summary of Indfcatora
kvScsior
fetaaKsaesiy .
immafiBtetpreGases:
• Index ot
consume tic tr" of ason*
dmsHHag subsanat
W
0 parent arsjaptm d
CFC*
J- -T.
JaKHS
s
y
: EnwoHBWBSal caednons:
• Atmcsphtric ssnemtntien
ef aw-depMng
tuktancat
• UV-3 nattier $i ground
itrui
w
M
: O Ateoschwxccncant^se d
CFC*'
; 0 Sfca&GchMeasttfewb
orer laiadac areas
S
&H
Sode&rKsporass:
:
• CFC r$cov0y rrt»M
u
C Ejpan^luaiorCFCjBCovwy •
and Rckenmed
C Caz&m'ocrsribtij&s-lo B»
i*roa Fund ¦ooca}sd#6ti
UnMootrss Proton?
L
U
'Apparent Bjnsurption totals producUx pta rccrs
minus axucrts.
Enrtwrwntai concan and policy rwYina: n 1974 ft
was (fiscovered that crtorireHsmaaing sufcst&ncss pass a
threat to tiia ozena layer. Ozone fcs mainly fouid in an
atmospheric iayer at stratospheric attitudes, between 20 and
40 Mcmetres, and acis as a shield against hamrfd solar
utra-vioJet radalm
In 1985, the Vtenra Convention for the PrcBCfcn of the
Ozena Layer was signed, followed by the Montreal Protocol
and Lordon and Copenhagen Amendments an Substances
that C-apetE the Ozena Layer.
Indicators of wvirt-nnwrrtU pressurw: principal among
the ozone-de clefrig substances are CFCs, haiens, methyl
chloroform and carbon tstraciTlonde, and HCFCs, plus metiyt
fcrxrade. fcwwiai substances *ary considerably in their
azone-deptesig capacity. To reflect tie conbnec depletion
capacity, the apparent consumption of each incfivwiiaj
subsance has to be weighted in proportion lo its ozone-
depleting potential revive to CFC-11.
Dafe availabtsty: CFC-11 and CFC-12 account for hart of the
ozone-depleting sufcsances and are Svrefors proposed as
par^neters. Aciial enissicrts cf CFCs are difcJI to
measure but produdon or apparent consunpfcn can be
used as a proxy. Data on halons are tess reatSy avoiiatte
so tat a steiWur indcaar wit be confined to CFCs
(Sajrca: QECO}.
Indicators of environmental conditions: first choices fcr
an indicator of environmental conditions are the gtobal
atmospheric concentration of ozone-depleting subssncss.
and, cioser to effecs. the radiation of UV-B at ground level.
Changes in the concentration of CFC-11 and CFC-12 he® to
tracx tie magnitude and ratB of change of the atmospheric
reserrcir of She most abuxant czone-depieting substances.
As in the case cl greenrouse gases, the indcator remains of
limited use in the specific context of environmental
pericrmance reviews as it cannot be reiafed to a parScular
country and its environmentai performance. A second
indicator, more dosety associated with particular countries, is
the trend in stratospheric ozone tevels over selected
measurement points.
Cata availability: informafcor on $coai atmospheric CFC
concentrations is readily available Trend data of ozone
rancartrator.$ fcr inovidual monitoring stations are available
lor 19 OECD csuitnesu
Indicators of sodetal responses: recovery rates of CFC
and society's expenditure for tat purpose as well as for
replacement technologies are possible indicators. Important
contextual information 'is the extent to whicft a country has
ccnuriltBd itsaif to the phasing-out ol CFCs. These targets
add tfien be compared to envirormentaJ presses in terms
of production andfcr consumption of CFCs. A Afferent
indcator fer governments' specific efforts at the international
level are countries' contributions to the frrtBrim Multilateral
Find associated with the Montreal protocol. The fund, which
was established on a pSot basis for three years, aims at
helping developing countries to adopt replacements for
CFCs.
Daa availably Irtomaix on CFC recovery rates is
scattered 3rd wrtally no data aje curBntly obtairable for
Mpenbrture on CFC recovery or rafJaesrnenL
k-Z2
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issue 3: Eutrophication
Summary of hxflcators
. indicator
Man iji jfccty
•&R*orwwBlalp»wsur«:
• Eiriuiont of N and P Into
L
watarand toll
0 Apparent oorauraptfen of
S
faioizacs, swasursd » HJP
0 ws&a discharges
It
0 trasiscfc&esiiy
SAA
EnvsQtswgal coedtions:
• BCD/DO, eoncantratlon of N
tnd P in inland tnd
S/M
mama wtltrs
Ml
Soc&ai jwpooies:
• Pareantaga of population
csnnactad to aawtga
Ml
traatmant wfth biotoqical
tnc.vr chemical tnatrmnt
0 Psrogagscf papulation
aeneclBd <0 waste w^ar
S
taafrnent
i 0 Uw ciargre tor*astBW^«r
u
0 UaffcsdhsBdphcsphate-
feMdaEorgmte
sm
Envfrocmental concam snd poflcy relevance: The
consequences of over-nourishment of aquatic plants
(eutrophicatjon) has become a major problem of water
pollution in Member countries, affecting strfacs water,
grouidwatBr and marine waters. Excess nutrients can also
be found in sol and sediments. The annual mean
concentration of nitrates has, for example, been measing at
the downstream frontiers of rivers, mainly as a reflection of
pollution from agricultural origins such as animal manue or
excess feraizers.
Acceptable levels of dissolved oxygen and nutrient levels in
receiving waters have been estabished in national and
international standards and agreements such as the
International Joint Commission Agreement on Great Lakes
Water Quality in North America.
todcators of environmental pressures: a complete set of
pressure indicators would comprise emissions of nitrogen and
phosphate from manure, fertilizer, domestic and industrial
waste water, sewage sludge, dredge spoa and soOd waste,
corrected for the absorption of phosphates and nitrogen by
crops. This could be further extended to reflect a proper
nutrient balance.
Data availability: at the international level, few data are
available for the entire range of emission sources of
phosphorus or nitrogen as well as for the absorption of
phosphates and nitrogen by crops. Currently, measurements
are confined to the apparent consumption of fertilizers arx:
general information on waste water discharges. Aggregate
amounts of fertilizers must be measured in terms of N or ?
to account for different types of fertilizers. Livestock densir/
provides a rough but measuabte proxy for potent^
eutrophication from manure.
tndcators of environmental conditions: direct ffxflcaxrs
of the extent of eutrophicatjon relate to the phosphate anc
nitrate contents of inland and marre waters. B'ologicsj
oxygen demand of water bodies or the degree of dissolves
oxygen can also be considered indcative of eutrophication
Measuring excess nutrients in soil complicates matters
significantly. The focus of indcators is therefore on water.
A general problem related to indicators of ambient quality is
how to carry out spatial aggregation to present meaningful
national figures: forming averages is seldom a satisfactory
solution so that often data of representative sites are shown
rather than national figures.
Data availability: at the international level, data are available
for BCD, phosphate and nitrate concentrations for selected
rivers in QECD couitries (Source: OECD).
tndcators of sodetal responses: several indcators would
appear useful to show society's efforts towards reducing
eutrophication and excess nutrients: the extent of chemical
anc'or biotogjcai waste water treatment the extent to whicn
levies on sewage water treatment cover actual costs, the
martet share of phosphate-free detergents. For non-port
sources, in particular agricultural ones, an indicator reflecting
best farming practices could be introduced.
Data availability: for OECD countries, data on the share of
the popiiation connected to sewage treatment plants are
available in the short run (Source: OECD). ^formation on
the type of treatment and on waste water charges remains
partial. Data on the martet share of phosphate-free
detergents should be avaJaWe more easily (Source: industry
associations).
4-23
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issue 4: Acidification
Summary of Indicators
todfaaior
'MoEtsabfity
Enwccmeebip<86sut«:
• indue ofadefifying
Ml
aubatancas
0 EBHUxwdSCxindNOx
S
amrmraac
«
Enwoecwoiai coodifaa:
• Exeaadanca of tha critical
SM
bada of potantial idd in
warn trtd toil
0. Cooc9G&a&on««ai
pncpitatioos (pH, SO,, NQj
S
O Total tiapcsiioRS of acsfiymg
It
ftubstancss
Societal responses:
• Panantaga of car ftaat
S/M
aquippad with atiiytic
csmanars
• Capacity of SOx and NOx
abattmant aquipmant of
Ml
atationary toureas
0 E^wxSiwforairpofetion
abatorwni
S
Environmental concern and poiicy relevance: in the
ionosphere, emissions of sulphur and nitrogen
compounds are transformed into acidifying substances
such as sulphuric and nitric acid. When these
substances reach the ground, acidification of soil,
water and buildings arises. Soil acidification is one
important factor causing forest damage. Acidification
of the aquatic environment may severely impair the
life of plant and animal species.
Problems of acidification have triggered several
international agreements to reduce emissions, e.g., the
1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air
Pollution and the 1985 Helsinki Protocol on the
reduction of sulphur emissions as well as the 1988
Sophia Protocol on the control of emissions of
nitrogen oxides.
Indicators of environmental pressures: as sulphur
and nitrogen compounds are at the source of
acidification, emissions of SOx, NOx and NH3 provide
meaningful indicators of environmental pressures.
Data availability: international data on SOx and NOx
emissions are immediately available (Source: OECD):
information on NH, is more difficult to obtain at the
international level.
Indicators of environmental conditions: there are
several possibilities to reflect the state of acidification
of soil and water a) by means of an indicator of acid
precipitations and/or depositions (exceedence of the
critical loads of potential acids in soils and waters);
b) by means of the direct indication of the pH-value of
lakes or soil: c) through indirect measures such as the
crown density of forest.
Data availability: for the short-run, only
concentrations of acidifying substances in precipitation
can be measured at the international level (Source:
OECD). Data on depositions, exceedence of critical
loads and measurements of pH-values in surface
waters and soil are available in a number of countries
(Source: EMEP, OECD) but further efforts to improve
data collection and harmonization are needed
internationally.
Indicators of societal responses: physical and
expenditure data on the capacity of equipment to abate
SOx and NOx emissions provide meaningful indicators
with respect to industry's efforts. Households' efforts
could be reflected through the percentage of the car
fleet equipped with catalytic converters. More
generally, efforts of environmental policy could be
captured through comparison between ambient
standards for SO] and NO, concentrations.
Data availability: currendy, data on pollution
abatement expenditure are only available for air
pollution abatement as a whole, including expenditure
for non-acidifying air emission abatement (Source:
OECD). Partial information is at hand for physical
equipment, in particular for utilities. A comparison of
ambient air standards necessitates further work to
make them comparable across countries.
k-2k
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issue 5: Toxic Contamination
Summary of Indicators
fodca&r
Moacurafcfty
Enwowsefai praEsaes:
• Emissions of fmary matais
MA.
• Emissions of organic
compounds
1
C Coftsuaap&nofPb^CdJJi
S.W
0 Apparent cooMH^tioa oi
pBe£d5e&
&M
waste
dWTPBaectai eosations:
• CaxMitriUon of heavy
L
matais and organic
compounds in
mvrironrmrtM mada and
tiring spaces
; C Conoamtoftoffeadr
SM
caaraure, draaium, copper is
men
Societal nspottss:
§ Chang** of toxic contacts in
L
products and production
processes
0 Rehabatrrfed areas as
LM
percaeaged total areas
jdetfiSed as ccotamirBted
0 Marie* share of tefeatfed
S
patrol
a) See notes below concerning problem* of measurement
and comparabsty.
Envtronnwrtal caocam and poficy retovwca: human
activities lead to emissions and accumiiation of toxic
substances in environmental meda and living species and
present danger to human and ecosystem health. A number
of international agreements extend to the control of toxic
substances (e.g. 1989 Basel Convention on hazardous
wastes). Agenda 21 also refers to the safer use of toxic
chemicals and the management of hazardous waste.
Indicators of environmental pressures: the large number
of toxic substances necessitates a selection based on risk
assessments and quantities of individual substances. To the
extent that such selections already exist they could be
examined for their relevance to performance reviews. Two
major types of toxic substances could be considered: heavy
metals and organic compounds, inducing pesticides.
Currently, no bitemationaJy agreed list of substances with
appropriate weighting factors exists, tndcators relate
therefore to the consumption of selected individual toxic
sistances. Among heavy metals, consumption of leaa.
cadmium, menxry and nickel can be traced. Among organic
substances, the consunption of pesticides is a first step
towards a more comprehensive indicator. It is, however,
important to recognise the deferences among pesticides
concemrg toxicity, persistence and mobflity. A less direct,
but more readly measurable, indcaor of potential toxic
contamination is the generation of hazardous waste.
Data avaiiabiSty: data on the apparent consumption or
pesticdes (measured in tonnes of active ingredients) exist lor
a number of countries (Sowca: OECO) although problems
of international ccmparabifity remain significant; there are
data on the use of lead for many OECO countries (Source:
OECO); information on the use of cadmium, mercury anc
nickel is more scattered. Data are available on the
generation of hazaroous waste (Souce: GECD).
todcators of •nviranmentai ccndtlons: irwcators
concerning the conation of toxic contamination of the
environment should show ambient concentrations of the
various toxic substances in different environmental media and
living species.
Data availability: short-run data availabflity confines empirical
evaluations at the international level to indications of
concentrations of key heavy metals "r inland waters (Source:
OECO).
tndcators of sodetai responses: many of society's
responses concerning toxic contamination consist of
regulations concerning notification, treatment and use of toxic
sistances. Typically, such responses are dffioit to reflect
in concise and rtBtnationafly comparable indcators. A first
choice to measure society's response are the changes in
toxic contents of produtis and production processes,
although such an indcator would need further elaboration.
A more specific response concerning soi is society's actions
and decisions to identify, assess and dean up contaminated
sites. An associated indicator is the percentage of
rehabilitated areas in the total area identified as
contaminated. Another partial but measurable indicator is the
martet share of unleaded petrol.
Data availability: in the short run, only data the on maricet
share of unleaded petrol are avaiaWe.
4-25
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issue 6: Urban Environmental Quality
Surenary of Intflcators
indicator
Wamrrabciy
€nwa*sadal prwsiMs:
• Urtsm ttr ttrtttiont:
M
SCx, HCx, VOC
0 TmictiKxtf
SAf
0 Payee triantntion
aw
Btaoeemal coGtsSons:
§ Escturt of population to:
•4Jr peHuttntt
w
-noim
s
• Amount wattr sonHSom in
M
umantnu
0 Coondraton of «r pc&sarSs
s
. SOC)03 J8600nS83t
C Cfcangee h-peee spac»3sa
Ml
parcsctege oi total Brian
wban pcpdaoon
0 Begsa&ra on OQtsscra and
U
aoiu tads for raw tan
0 eewnfflhsaoowaar
SAl
ttwrwrt and noisa
jfctiacwrt
Envtronmertal concern and policy rrtevanca: an
increasing pan of the popiiation of OECD countries is iving
in urban areas. Most pollution sources are found in or near
urban areas, and other forms of environmental degradation
also tend to ccoi with greatest seventy in urban areas. As
a result of fie combination of these factors, the greatest
potential for (xrnan exposure to deteriorate environmental
conditions ccxrs in urban areas.
The promotion of sustainable human settlements, in particular
man ones, is an item expficHy considered in Agenda 21.
indicators of invtronrrantal pressures: in principle, most
environmental pressures apply, although at an urban scale.
As the first choice for indcators, it is proposed to focus on
key environmental pressures, U., air emissions (NOx, SCx
particulates, CO) and noise. Noise, which can be considered
both a pressure and a condtion, is dealt with under
environmental conditions. These proximate pressure
indcators are accompanied by selected indicators of indirect
pressures such as traffic density (measured e.g. through car
hoksngs per capita) and tie degree of urbanisation
(measured e.g. through percentage of popdation living in
dies with more than 1 milion inhabitants).
Data avaiabfiity: for emissions, data avaSabii'rty at the
ffUemational level is constrained by the need to collect
information at the urban level. Data on traffic densrty is
ready available for country averages and for many individual
dies (Source: OECD). Information on the degree of
ircanisation can be obtained from other international
sources.
Indicators of •nvlronmental conditions: indicators of
ucan environmental conditions cut across the various meoia.
They induce the quality of urban air, drinking water, ambient
suiace and ground water. Whereas the chanty of drinking
wHsr is an important factor in the urban quality of life, it only
party reflects environmental conations as high-quality tap
water can simply reflect an efficient treatment system. First
choice indicators of environmental conations relate to the
exposure of population to ak pollution and to noise. The
quality of ambient stafacs and ground water is also a first
choice indcator. It reflects environmental conditions ana
often, the pre-treatment quality of drinking water.
Data availability: internationally comparable data exist for
concentrations of major air pollutants (Souce: OECD) but
information on expo sire is more scattered. Additional efforts
of data collection are also needed to obtain comprehensive
information on ambient water quality in urban areas.
Indicators of societal responses: indcators of societal
responses to urban environmental problems cut through the
whole range of measures so that there is no single first
choice indcator. Key areas for indcators are traffic
(regulations on emissions and noise levels for new cars) and
green space (with changes in green space compared to total
urban area). Expendtue on noise abatement and water
treatment complete the picture.
Data availaWity: due to definitional problems, data on green
spgcg is not availac« in an intemationaSy comparable form,
brformation on car regulations and expenditure should be
available with some additional effort
U-26
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issues 7 and 8: Biological Diversity and Landscape
Summary of Indicators
tedfc^or
MearanHty
EmAwwaelalpfSEasas:
• Hahtsl attention and
L
conversion of land from Its
natural rtita
\ 0 Landuuchanges
S
0 feffoducSoftsfnewr genetic
• mstanai sad tpcoos
I
: &ws*mflGjal coxftions:
t Threatened or extinct
epeciea aa a share of known
s
apeciea
Socntai responses:
• Protected trait u »
percentage of total ana
s
by ecosystem typa
L
0 Proteessd apedes as a
UL
peroadage of.feMteoad
tpOC83
Environmental concern and policy relevance: biological
dversity can be defaied as the variabsrty among Svng
organisms from ail sources inducing terrestrial, marine and
other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of
which they are part this indudes diversity within species,
between speces and of ecosystems. An ecosystem is a
dynamic complex of plant animal and micro-organism
communities and their non-living environment interacting as
a functional unit
The broad and complex nature of bodversty would, idealy,
suggest a treatment at three dfferent levels:
a) the ecosystem level, deafng with the combination of
physical and bioio$cal elements; b) the popuation or
species level dealing with the change in the number of
species due to alteration of tving condtions by man;
c) genetic diversity withn species.
One of the major outcomes of the United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development in 1992 was the signing of
the Convention on Biological Diversity by over 150
governments.
Landscape: Specific types of hunan land use. such as
certain agricultural pracaces, road and house building,
hydropower projects, drainage of wetland, forestry and mining
may pose a threat to ecosystems, and thus a form of
environmental pressure on landscape. In addtion, landscape
can be seen as a part of environmental quality as such,
Important to humans for ethical, aesthetic and cultural
reasons. Thus, degradation of landscape entais both a loss
of natualness and historic cutoxal values. So far, no
imemationaJy agreed definition of landscape exists and no
attempt has been made to develop landscape indicators in
the report
Indcators of environmental pressures: three types of
pressures on biodiversity have been identified: physical ones
(e.g. habitat alteration); chemical ones (e.g. exposure to
contaminants); biological ones (e.g. release of alien species,
fishing). The main chemical pressures are covered by
issue 3,4 and 5. Some of the biological pressures are
captured in issues 10 and 11, some of the physical pressures
appear, tor example, In issue 13. Here, Indcators are
focused on additional physical and biological pressures.
Indicators of habitat alteration and the conversion of lane
from its natural state would reflect such pressures.
Increasing use of land for agricultural purposes is suggested
as a measurable proxy for environmental pressure.
Data availability: there are internationally comparable data
on land use changes (Source: FAO, OECD).
Indcators of environmental coodtJons: the most
frecuently used indcater of the state of biodversity is the
number of threatened or extinct species over the number of
known species.
Data availability: international data exist for threatened or
extinct species as a percentage of Known species (Source:
OECD).
Indcators of societal responses: responses to protect
biodversity and landscape indude measures to protect
areas, ecosystems and species and to create biosphere
reserves representative of dfferent ecosystems. The
suggested indcators of societal responses are therefore the
size of protected areas by type of ecosystem and the number
of protected species.
Data availability: Information on the number and extent of
protected areas is avaSabe (Soiree: IUCN) but comparability
Is not sufficient to provide coverage of dfferent types of
ecosystems. Data development work is also necessary to
quantify the share of protected species.
h-21
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issue 9: Waste
Summary of hdJcators
faidicator
Mtarurafcaiy
6wj«afl^al pre6«s«:
• Wui» Qmtntion:
- municiptJ wrists
S
- tnduitriMi wuta
S
- nuduinsta
s
- hMOfdeui «Mts
S/M
Erwrofflwoiaf coBdOons:
fiot appfcafcte
: Sociffiai aepcraos:
• Wuts minimisation ifforts
I
0 for waste dspcsai
U
0 EssreJima oft waste
cotecoor* #nd treatawrt
s
0 WasW receding and recovwy
tates
s
EnvtrcnmentaJ concern and policy relevance: afferent
types and quantities of solid waste are generated by human
activities in OECD countries: municipal waste (mairjy from
households), industrial waste, nudear waste and other types
inducing waste from energy production, agricitural
production, mining, and demolition as well as dredge spoils
and sewage sludge. The quantity of wastes produced in
OECD countries has been steatiiy increasing. Wastes have
potential impact on human health and the environment and
waste management issues are at the centre-stage of many
countries' environmental concerns.
Several international agreements and nies exist for tie
transfrontier movements of hazardous waste: Directives of
the European Community, OECD Decisions and
Recommendations, the Lom6 IV Convention and the Basel
Convention. Management of sofid waste and sewage is also
an item explicitly considered in Agenda 21, endorsed by
UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
bxScators of •nvtronmental pressures: waste presents a
potential environmental presstre for soil, water, air and
landscape. The actual environmental pressure depends,
however, afrnost exdusively on the waste handing and
deposition practices. Any indicator on the amounts of waste
generated is therefore only a first approximation of
environmental pressue and more information will be needed
on fie actual environmental pressure, h addition, the
composition of waste wil influence its potential environmental
impacts. Total amounts of waste generated should therefore
be broken down by principal source, Le^ municipal, industrial
and nudear waste. It should be noted that the indicator on
¦generation of hazardous waste' is present both under the
"waste" issue and the issue on toxic contamination.
Data availabifity: waste generation by major source can be
evaluated for most OECD couitries (Sours: OECD). Many
ircertainties concerning the quality of waste data and their
international comparability do remain, however.
Indicators of environmental conditions: waste acts as a
pressure on the environment: no indicators of environmental
conations can therefore be directly assocated with the issue
•waste". Changes in environmental conations due to waste
are reflected in various other issues such as toxic
contamination (Issue 5) or landscape (Issue 7).
tndcators of societal responses: society's responses
have been mainly drected towards the collection, treatment
and disposal of waste. Increasingly, waste management
efforts are aiming at waste minimisation. Tfts is reflected in
the first-choice indicator. Charges for waste disposal are an
indcator for an instrument to incite waste minimisation. Total
expenditure on waste collection, treatment and disposal
provides a general indcation of society's finandal efforts to
deal with waste. hdcators on rates of waste recycling and
recovery and charges for waste disposal complete the
picture.
Data availability; data on waste recydng and recovery are
available at the international level (Source: OECD), aithougn
father efforts wil be necessary to complete international
coverage and comparabt&ty.
k-2 8
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issue 10: Water Resources
Summary of Indicators
Motor
Miururfrfty
; Swronmeeial praests«s:
• brtmsity of urn of watar
mourcM
S
: O Sh» cdtfecRaqjedTKastB
in
vottriB ware
Erwronmadal copriifcra:
• Fraquancy, duration and
M
axtant of wattr ahortagu
\ Sobrta responses;
• Watar priest and user
cnarpM for vasta water
M
traavmnt as pareantaga of
cost
Environmental concern and policy reievanca: fresh water
resources are of major environmental and biological-
importance because water is a basic si^port element tor
human life and ecosystems. Water withdrawal can be a
major pressure on freshwater resources: in more arid
regions, water resources may at times be limited to an extent
where the demand for public water supply, agricultural
purposes or industrial processes can be met only by going
beyond a sustainable use of the resource in terms of quantity
and possibly of quality. Information available for OECD
countries suggests that water withdrawal has increased over
the past two decades, contribute both to quantity and
quality problems of water supply. Although the quality and
quantity aspecs of freshwater resources are interiinked, the
present issue deals primarily with the quantity aspect of the
resource.
The protection and the preservation of fresh water resources
is an item explictly considered in Agenda 21, endorsed by
UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
Indicators of •nvtronmental pressures: a necessary
condition for sustainable use of water resources is that the
withdrawal of water does not exceed the renewal of the
stocks over an extended period. An indicator tracing the
intensity of the use of water resources is therefore the
appropriate measure. This indcator would be defined as the
(gross or net) withdrawal of water resources, divided by the
renewal of water resources. As opposed to net withdrawal,
gross withdrawal accounts for total water withdrawal without
deducting water that is reinserted into the natural
environment after use. Whereas the use of a figure
representing net withdrawals focuses on the quantitative side
of water use, the use of gross withdrawals has a qualitative
component even if water is reinserted into the natural
environment, it tends to be of inferior quality after use.
At the same time, it must be kept in mind that a measure of
intensity based on a national average may be misleading, in
particular for large countries: major deferences in regional
water use may ret be adequately reflected in the national
indicator.
Data avaiabdity: information on the intensity of the use of
water resoucas is available for most OECD counties
(Source: OECD).
Indicators of anvironmental candflons: water resources
are characterised by a significant variance of stocks, during
different times of the year as wei as between different years.
These variations are fkefy to affect water quality and
ecological equilfcria. An Indicator to measure these
variations would take into accourt the duration and the extent
of a shortage of water supply. At its extremes, in the form of
droughts and floods, the question of regularity also presents
a specific dimension of environmental risks.
Data availably: none of the ind caters of environmental
conditions are immeciatety available at international level.
Indcators of societal responses: society's efforts to
reduce irsustainable water use consist of either measures
constraining fie quantities of water available or measures
Increasing the price of water to encourage efficient use. The
price of water and the charges for waste water treatment are
therefore proposed as suitable indcators. Put in relation to
actual cost of water treatment and supply, the resulting ratio
gives an irxScation of the direct accountability of consumers
of water for the use of the natural resource.
Data availability: data on water prices and user charges are
only partly avaiable (Source: OECD) and need further
development
k-23
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issue 11: Forest Resources
Summary of htflcatore
fadcator
Jtassabay
&a«omwnmi pampas:
• Short-fun natvnmi
ykWacbul hanut
aw
EraroBBwnlricoBdffiara:
• Ant/volum* tnd
Attribution of fonsts
s
0 Sftare of
fcRstfcttai.fcxgsl area
MA.
Societal responses:
0 Parcectaoeoitavttstarea
~acsssfiMy ngtneoterf gnd
natural regeneration) or
aflorasted
MA.
0 P«c8efeg»ol protected forest
*w intoiaftorwtasa
U
Environmental concern and policy reJevanca: forests are
among the most diverse and wideswead ecosystems on
earth. Forest resources have many functions: they provide
timber; they provide ecosystem services induing regulation
of soi, air and water quaity; they provide recreation benefits;
they are a reservoir for biooversity and act as a carbon sink.
There is general concern over him an impact on forest health
and the natural processes of forest growth and regeneration.
Combatting deforestation to preserve sols, water, air and
biological diversity is an item expictly considered in Agenda
21, endorsed by UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
tndteatofs of •nvtoonmentaJ pressures: the harvest rate
set by any country is a function of the size of its forests, the
proportion of the forest area dedcated to timber production,
the productivity of the forest and the age tiass structure of
the forest and management objectives and sustained yield
polices of the country. The indicator relating sustained yield
to actual harvest expresses the relative balance between
forest growth and harvest considering forest characteristics
such as age dasses. The sustained yield in North America
wo iid reflect aggregate alowabie annual cut and in other
OECD countries could reflect arrant growth rates or
increments of forest estate.
Data availability: information on short run sustained yield is
available for many OECD countries, or can be derived with
standard form lias.
Mcatore of environmental conations: the state of forest
resouces can be represented through a measure of total
forest area orvolune. This information can be supplemented
by more precise rxacators incorporating speces groups,
maturity classes, and rates of dsturbancs by natual and
anthropogenic forces such as forest fires.
Data avaiabiiity. data on the area, volume and distribution
of forests and the types of disturbance are madly availarte
(Source: OECD/FAO/UN-ECE).
Indcators of societal responses: a ma^or societal
response to preserve forest resources relates to the efforts
of regeneration and afforestation of harvested areas. The
protection of forest areas is also an element in the overall
conservation effort although it applies at least equally to
concerns about the bss of biodiversity.
Data availability: data on total protected forest areas are
available for a significant number of countries, although a
breakdown by iUCN category necessitates adtitionai data
development work. Simiarly, more data development is
needed before efforts of regeneration and afforestation can
be presented in an internationally comparable way.
*i-30
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issue 12: Fish-Resources
Summary of Indicators
indfcaor
MBOturatiity
• Rthatcfm
S
ErrarorawaafcoeriSora:
• Stza of spawning stocks
M
0 tortshod areas
M/L
Soasufftsponses:
0 f|fatnber o(«tsda.ng«tedby
quotas
U
monitoring
ill
Environmental concern and policy relevance: by the end
of the 1980s, marine fisheries yielded between 80 and 90
million tonnes of fish, with an overall trend that has been
increasing by over 40 percent during the past two decades.
Many of the more valuable fish stocks are overfished, and
the steady trend towards increased global fish landngs is
achieved partly through exploitation of new and/or less
valuable species. Coastal development has also turned out
to be a significant pressure on fish stocks. Over-exploitation
can be found both with freshwater and marine fish stocks.
As with other natural resources, the quality of fish resources
(existence of diseases, contamination etc.) is in itself an
important tacar tor the quantity of the resoucas. The current
issue on fish resoutes focuses on marine fish resources but
extends to freshwater fish resources. Stocks associated with
aquacutture are, however, expicHy exduded from current
considerations.
The protection and sustainable management of oceans to
prevent over-fishing and degradation of coastfines and coral
reefs are items explicitly considered r Agenda 21, endorsed
by UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In adcStion, there are
a number of international agreements such as those reached
under the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.
Motors of environmental pressures: OECD countries
play an important role in world fisheries and the trend in
national fish catches is a primary indicator for the pressure
exerted on fish stocks. As it is (Sffiait to alocate fish stocks
to national boundaries, it is not possible to calculate ratios of
sustainable use (fish catches over growth of stock) on a
national basis. Nonetheless fsheries and environment
remain relevant topics for environmental performance
reviews. Where national quotas exist fish catches can be
related to fem to get an indicator of potential over-
exploitation.
Data availabflity: fish catches and production data are
available at significant detail and tor most OECD countries
(Source: OECD/FAO).
Indicators of environmental conditions: the size of
scawrang stocks is a relevant indicator tor environmental
conations if it can be related to a measure of sustainabuity.
Denning and measuring sustainabifity remains, however, a
afficut task. A afferent indicator woiid present overfished
areas, although tfts inocator needs fwther elaboration.
Again, it is dffiait to associate fish stocks with a particular
country.
Data availaMity: data on the size of major fish populations
exist but are scattered across national and international
soiree's.
Indcators of sodetaJ responses: a comprehensive
inocator tor countries' efforts to protect fish stocks would
incude information on the various types of expenditure for
this purpose as we9 as information on restrictions on landngs
of fish. Supplementary indicators for societal responses
indude expendtue for the monitoring of fish stocks. Other
responses such as the use of environmental friendy fish-
catcning methods are important but dffikxit to make
operational in a single indicator.
Data availability: no data are readily avaiatte on the
expenditure for the protection of fish stocks.
**-31
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issue 13: Soil Degradation (Erosion and Desertification)
Summary of hdfcators
fttfcaor
Momunftiay
&rwDB0wnlat pressures:
• Erosion risk: potmtitl and
actual urn of toll for
agricuttvn
L
0 Land use changes
S
EflMRHMtfal awfifions:
• Dap* of top mil lost**
M
: Societal flBGpQRsas:
0 RahabiBtatad anas
Ml
Environmental concern and policy relevance:
desertification and erosion are processes of physical land
degraoation caused by human impact and by changes in
climate. Soil erosion arises when the rate of new soil
formation is inferior to soil losses. When soil quality and
mots&JB content dedrie, a productive semi-arid region can
be converted into a desert, a process Known as
dsscrit^iori. Tha environmental problems of erosion and
desertification are large. Seventy percent of the world's
arytands are already affected by degradation. This is one
quarer of the world's land. Although the problem is most
severe in the developing world, a number of OECD countries
are equally affected. Soil degadation is not fimited to
physical degradation but encompasses problems such as
toxic contamination, excess nutrients, salintsation and
acxSfication. These prottems of soi quality are dealt with
inter the respective issues.
The promotion of sustainable land management practices to
prevent erosion and soil degradation as wel as combatting
desertification and droutfit are two prominent terns in
Agenda 21. endorsed by UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
Investors of anvtronnuntal pressures: primary factors in
erosion and desertification are unsustainable land use,
induing farming and grazing. Land use changes as for
instance from forest to agrioJtura, could therefore be a
mearingfii, though general, indicator for the danger of
erosion and desertification. A more specific indicator would
be tr. fiomwnson between potential and actual use of land
for agroituraJ puposes. To ths extent that the actual use
of land for agricuftue exceeds the carrying capacity of land,
this provides an indication for the risk of erosion and soQ
degradation.
Data availability: data on the actual use of land are available
throughout OECD countries (Source: OECD). information
on the risk of erosion and on potential use of land is stiD very
scarce and does not permit indcator development in the
short run.
tndcitors of environmental conditions: the degree and
extent of erosion is best indicated through the degree and
extent of top soil losses, terrain deformation and overblowing.
Data avaiaWity: at present data on the degree and extent
of soil degradation are avaflabie but not at a national level
(WRl htemational Soil Reference and Information Centre).
indicators of sodetal responses: it is (SfficaJt to pinpoint
all specific efforts to comeat erosion and desertification. One
relevant and measurable effort to counter sol degradation is
the size of rehabilitated areas; It is suggested as a first-
choice and though general indicator in this context which
woiid need further specification. Indicators could also be
developed related to best management practices in
apicdture.
Data availability, data on rehabilitated areas are at present
not available at the international leveL
4-32
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Issue 13: Soil Degradation (Erosion and Desertification)
Summary of indicators
tadkaftor
JtaasuofciSy ;
&woGB»nlaf pressures:
• Erosion risk: potarrtia/ and
actual uaa otaeS for
apiculture
L
0 Land use changes
S
.EtMRXBMrtat coafifions:
• Dap— el top aoil leasts
M
Socislat rapansas:
• RahablBtatad arwaa
MA.
Environmental concern and policy relevance:
desertification and erosion are processes of physical land
degradation caused by human impact and by changes in
climate. Soil erosion arises when the rate of new soil
formation is inferior to soil losses. When soil quality and
mois&je content ded'ffie, a productive semi-arid region can
be converted into a desert, a process Known as
desertification. The environmental problems of erosion and
desertification are large. Seventy percent of the world's
drylands are already affected by degradation. This is one
quarter of the world's land. Although the problem is most
severe in the developing world, a number of OECD countries
are equally affected. Soil depadation Is not Bmited to
physical degradation but encompasses problems such as
toxic contamination, excess nutrients, saJtrisation and
abdication. These problems of soi quafity are dealt with
irder the respective issues.
The promotion of sustainable land management practices to
prevent erosion and soil degradation as wei as combatting
desertification and drought are two prominent items in
Agenda 21, endorsed by UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
erosion and desertification. A more specific ircScator would
be the comparison between potential and actual use of land
for agriaitural puposes. To tie extent that the actual use
of land tor agriaiture exceeds the carrying capacity of land,
this provides an hdlcation for the risk of erosion and sod
degradation.
Daia availability: data on the actual use of land are available
throughout OECD countries (Source: OECD). Information
on the risk of erosion and on potential use of land is stiD very
scarce and does not permit racator development in the
short run.
Indicators of environmental conditions: the degree and
extent of erosion is best racated through the degree and
extent of top soil losses, terrain deformation and overblowing.
Data avaiabflity: at present data on the degree and extent
of sal degradation are avaiaote but not at a national level
(WRl htemationaJ Soil Reference and Information Centre).
Indcaters of societal responses: it is tffficdt to pinpoint
ail speefic efforts to comcat erosion and desertification. One
relevant and measuabie effort to counter sol degradation is
the size of rehabfiitated areas; It is suggested as a first-
choice and though general indicator in trts context which
woiid need further specification, tndcators could also be
developed related to best management practices in
agriaiture.
Data availabifity: data on rehabilitated areas are at present
not available at Ihe international leveL
Indicators of environmental pressures: primary factors in
erosion and desertification are unsustainable land use,
inducing fanning and grazng. Land use changes as for
instance from forest to agricutture, could therefore be a
meaningful, though general, indicator for the danger of
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
General Indicators, Not Attributable to Specific Issues
Summary of Indicators
' Indicate!
Uaastfafcafy
Emdrcrawtfal pwwures:
• Papulttioc growth >nd
S
dtnsity
• GDP growth
S
• Industrial production
s
• Energy supply
• Structure of srmrgy supply
s
• Rosd traffic votumu
5
• Rotd vthids stock
• Agricuttuni production
S
SoatfaEmponsss:
• Environmental sxptndHun
M
• Public opinion
S
: D Pofabon abatement and
cor&oleqjendiurs
S
environment it is a useful indicator for the financial efforts
undertaken by society to mitigate or abate poBution; b) public
opinion on environmental issues: this indicator aims at
capturing one of the major factors in triggering scc'esj
responses by government, business and households. A
third, more general, area suggested for indicator development
is environmental Information: examples of these sociesi
responses are the introduction of eco-labels or regular
reports on the state of the environment
Data availability: many OECD countries collect data on
environmental expend tire, although they are often limited to
pollution abatement and control activities. Such data
been compfled by OECD. SimSarly, information on pubii:
opinion in Member csintries is available from OECD. At
OECD level, no comprehensive and internationally
comparable information exists currently as to the use of ecc-
labels.
Indicators of environmental pressures: general indicators
of environmental pressures consist mainly of indicators of
indirect pressures (background indicators). The indcators
presented here are the ones most commonly used and
readily available at the international level. The main function
of these indicators is to provide contextual information - a
key feature of environmental . performance reviews.
Achievements in polution reduction, for example, must be
seen in the context of economic growth: assessments will
cfiffer when reductions in pollution are achieved during
periods of weak or dedning economic activity rather than
Airing phases of strong economic growth.
Data availability: most data for these indicators are
accessfte without difficulty for a large number of OECD
countries.
Indicators of sodetaJ responses: two major genera)
indcators of sodetal responses are suggested:
a) environmental expenditure at the national level and for
broad economic sectors (public sector, business sector,
households): although expenditure, when considered by
itself, does not provide any information on the state of the
-------
ENV/EPOC/GEP(93)5/ADD
Figure 5 Summary of Short-Term Indicators* by Environmental Issue*
PRESSURE
STATE
RESPONSE
Issues
Indicators of
environmental
pressures
Indicators of
environmental
conditions
Indicators of
societal
responses
1.
Cfrnaa change
finasiom d C03
JUnxspheec caxansaaona ol
peaenouae pus
Steal aeen anssrsure
Energy riecsfcy
2.
Smasshenc szorw
datMucn
A^nM caraumpaon oJC?Ca
Atmosphere eercansaoon of
CFCs
3.
Eutopneaaon
Apparara corwai^oon cf
ferdaara, maasrad « N,P
9CD. DO, K and P h seiet&d
men
SdpcpulaBcn
corBflCsd » wart
*bw ttaatmera jiarrts
4.
Smaiona d SQx and NCx
£xpen&un tor air
-pcifficnsteBmerU
AtitSfxuDon
prsasajapj cpi, SC„ NC^i
5.
Tccc snamrawn
Sanaraioe ol haaroous *astt
Ccncansaaoe d isad.
cacraaa, chraraum, copper in
aeiecSBd mere
Uariwtshan ol
adeadad pa?d
S.
Urban environmental
quarty
ConcHcZaxcs oi SO, NQ, .
paxubss'a saiacad caes
718
BioiogicaJ awrsity and
luxscaoe
Land ute changes
Thrusnad or arinct secias
as % d known joarias
Proeead areas as % of
total area
9.
Waata
Gensrason ol muncpal.
indisriaJ, nudaar. haaroous
VSSB
not acpucabie
Expenditure on wasia
csfetiiofiaftd nascent
W»ta recrc^ig ra»s
(papar and giasi)
10.
Wfflar msouxas
iasnsiiy of usa d wa®r
naourcas
r.
Forsst nascurcss
Area, name and (Ssaiwcn ol
toasts
12
ran resources
fishcttiw
13.
Soil degradaoon
{dasettfieaBonand
arajon)
Unduut changes
14.
General inacattrs, not
Btrtuttbto id specific
itsuaa
Popdaiionflrwrtt and density
GDPgrowti
todussial and a^nc. producaon
Energy md OTrm
fioad Jatffc and vehicle stock
ret acpfciele
Polutm aba Smart and
oonflol Ugandan
Pubfc opnon cn
anvsovnaa
a) Oruy racason wfudi are availabia in tha short Brm at ftamaDcnal level are shown in hi table. Sm Chapter 3 for other indicator?. This
table identifies ksy siamsna oi indicators: at this point no nomtaijuson wfi redact to GOP, popuiason, etc. it suggested. Sm Chapter 3
on um d indicators tor a dbaojcn.
b) For a brief discussion d each individual ajua, ste CKastar 3.
*4-35
-------
5
-------
Presentation Overheads from
"How Does It All Fm
A Federa l£ersre»im==
mtBm ¦Pr«
'MftlL
-------
Environmental Indicators
National Meeting
on
Environmental Indicators
New Orleans, Louisiana
February 2-4,1994
-------
What Progress Has Been Made
Environmental Indicators Have Been Important Tools
For Several Decades
• Simple - Visibility, Noise, Fish Kills, Burning Rivers
• Improved - Criteria Air, Water Chemistry
• New Directions - Biological Diversity, Health and
Ecological Effects
Increasing Capability To Define Environmental Status
• Parts per trillion • River reach • Biological Survey
• Land cover • Per Capita • OECD Country Survey
• Watersheds • Loadings
-------
A Continuum Of Information Available
Activity Measures
i
Actions by
States/EPA
examples:
revise SIP,
issue permit,
^ issue grant
Actions by
Sources
i
i
examples:
install control
equipment, change$
feedstock
Environmental Indicators
Indirect Indicators
Direct Indicators
* Quantified
Pollution
Prevention
Measures
Emission/
Discharge
Quantities
Ambient
Concentrations
1
t
Uptake/
Body Burden
Risk Estimates
Based on
Emissions Dati
Risk Estimates
Based on
Ambient Data
Uil
Risk Estimates
Based on
Body BurdenDati i
Health Effects
-~
Ecological Effects
V
Preferred Data
Activity Measures and Environmental Indictors are both Important
-------
General Agreement
—I HI
Environmental Indicators Are Critical Tools
• Identification of Problems
• Measuring Status and Trends
• Geographic Targeting
• Resource Allocation - —Planning
• Communication --Up, Down, and Sideways
• Assessing Strategy Effectiveness
• Selecting Between Alternative Strategies
• Setting Environmental Goals
and Measuring Environmental Progress
-------
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
-------
Projecting Future Trends
100
Base Case
LEVEL
0
1980
1990
2000
2010
1970
-------
Progress Towards Goals And Selection Of Strategies
100
Goal
Base Case
LEVEL
0
2010
1970
2000
1980
1990
TIME
-------
Moving Towards Sustainable Development
100
Goal
Sustainable
Development ?
Base Case
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
-------
There Is A "Model" For Putting It All Together
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
RISK BASED PRIORITIES
MEASURABLE
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
MULTI-YEAR STRATEGIES
AGENCY THEMES/TOOLS
ANNUAL PLAN
BUDGET FORMULATION
IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRESS
REPORTS
PROGRESS
MEASURES
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS
-------
It Is Only A Model If We Don't Make It Run
j.-udwwsA* *-•> :v f -x> -r**r'¦*»-*>«*$£v
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
RISK BASED PRIORITIES
MEASURABLE
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
MULTI-YEAR STRATEGIES
AGENCY THEMES/TOOLS
LONG-TERM
ANNUAL PLAN
BUDGET FORMULATION
ANNUALLY
IMPLEMENTATION
QUARTERLY
PROGRESS
REPORTS
¦? ASSESSMENT OF
! ENVIRONMENTAL
j.STATUS & TRENDS
ASSESSENT
OF PROGRAM
ACTIVITY
PROGRESS
MEASURES
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS
iSrMfl'*+r'J969¦>
\ji
O
-------
Questions We Need To Address
~
Where are we going?
Where have we been?
How well are we doing compared to ?
Are there other factors that are causing changes?
What is the "appropriate" environmental
indicator?
-------
Is There A Concept Of Core Data ?
Local
State
National
International
N
-------
Different Levels Of Goals Need To Be Considered
~
Hierachy of Environmental Goals
TIER 1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12
1 1
I I
TIER 2.
TIER 3.
Water
Air
SW
HW
Toxics
etc.
I 1 I
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
Water
Air
SW
HW
Toxics
etc.
Cross-program
Environmental
Goals
Program Specific
Environmental
Goals
Strategy-Activity
Goals
-------
EPA Project To Set National Environmental Goals
• Have begun to hold public meetings in each of the 10 regions.
• State, industy and NGOs will be part of the process.
• First round, identify the issues.
• Second round discuss MEASURABLE environmental goals.
Costs, strategies, and agencies part of the discussion
• Process needs to proceed at a regional and state level.
A critical process to provide a focus for indicator
selection.
-------
Looking At The Future
i
MEASURING CHANGE
ui
Environmental
Indicators
POTENTIAL
FUTURE
DESIRED
FUTURE
.
rrj-
•' V "TQDAY
-------
Broadening The Range Of Indicator Analysis
n 1111
-------
What are the possible set of environmental indicators we
all can use?
How can they be best collected?
How should data be displayed -- issues of aggregation?
What are the barriers that need to be addressed?
Is there a role for state, regional, and national "environmental
report cards"?
Where do we need to go over the next year?
-------
6
-------
Setting National Goals for
Environmental
Go A LfrftJSffiEL ORMEM
U.S. Emi'mmmm PmrnminFrMssm
-------
SETTING NATIONAL GOALS
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Goals in Development — For Public Review and Discussion
United States Environmental Protection Agency
January 12,1994
6-1
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.. 1
.. 2
. 3
.. 5
. 7
. 9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
Contents
Introduction
Guiding Principles for EPA
Goals in the Laws Administered by EPA
Clean Surface Waters
Clean Air
Stratospheric Ozone Layer Protection
Climate Change Risk Reduction
Ecological Protection
Prevention of Wastes and Harmful
Chemical Releases
Cleanup of Contaminated Sites
Prevention of Oil Spills and Chemical Accidents
Safe Indoor Environments
Safe Drinking Water
Safe Food
Worker Safety
Improved Understanding of the Environment
6-2
-------
Introduction
By launching the National Environmental
Goals Project, the Environmental Protection
Agency has signalled its commitment to action
and accountability on behalf of our shared
environment.
The project is designed to produce by Earth
Day in April 1995 a set of ambitious, realistic and
measurable environmental goals to be achieved
by early in the next century. Administrator Carol
Browner has made successful completion of this
task a top priority because she believes that
government action must be linked to measurable
indicators of environmental improvement, and
that setting goals will inspire cooperation and
action by all Americans.
Environmental goals must not only be
grounded in the best science and analysis
available, but should also reflect the visions,
hopes and expectations of all the nation's
citizens and organizations. What are our most
important problems, and what are we willing to do
to resolve them?
To. generate broad national input into the
process, EPA is sponsoring a series of public
meetings around the country in the first half of
1994. Then, between June 1994 and April
1995, goals will be developed, reviewed by the
public in a second round of meetings, finalized
and released. This report is intended to provide
a startino point for our engagement with the
public about what our goals might look like.
The federal government is not alone in this
endeavor. A number of states are also
developing environmental goals. At the 1992
U.N. Conference on Environment and
Development, the community of nations agreed
to develop goals and plans for sustainable
development, and Canada, Norway, New
Zealand, the Netherlands, and several other
countries are already well along in that process.
The Clinton Administration is committed to
learning from these efforts and moving forward
to fashion an agenda for our nation's
environmental future. This project is the first
step in that process.
Because EPA shares responsibility for
environmental protection with other federal,
state and local government agencies, we are
seeking their participation. The goals will not be
limited to any agency's statutory obligations.
Indeed, the goal-setting process should help us
assess the adequacy of our statutes and
regulations for sustainable development, and it
will provide a more coherent basis for conducting
a results-oriented dialogue with the Congress.
The project is being coordinated with the
President's Council on Sustainable
Development to ensure that the goals
announced on Earth Day 1995 reflect America's
expectations for both a healthy environment and
a vibrant economy.
Ultimately, the goals will contain three "tiers"
of measurable targets. Insofar as possible, Tier 1
goals will specify a condition of the environment
the nation is seeking to achieve by a certain year.
Tier 2 objectives will specify reductions in
pollutant loadings or other source-related
causes that must be achieved to reach a Tier 1
goal. Tier 3 "action targets" will identify the
specific work that EPA and others must
complete to accomplish the overall goal.
The three tiers of goals will provide direction
for the design of more effective, efficient
government and private programs to fulfill
national priorities. They will improve
communication between the Executive branch,
the Congress, businesses, environmental
advocates, the public and other nations about
what our environmental policies are designed to
accomplish, what kinds of choices we are
making, and whether our strategies are working.
The goals, together with our Congressional
mandates, will "drive" EPA's planning,
management and budgeting.
This report. To help get the public dialogue
going. EPA drafted goal statements for thirteen
environmental issues we judge to be of
paramount national importance, and for which
EPA has significant federal responsibility. They
include: clean surface waters, clean air and
healthy ecosystems; global climate change and
stratospheric ozone depletion; cleanup and
prevention of wastes and other toxic
contaminants; safe food, drinking water, indoor
air and workplaces; and better environmental
information for everyone.
The draft goals and accompanying
information are presented on the following
pages. We may add or delete goal topics after
the public disussions and interagency
deliberations. For example, should we have a
separate goal for conservation of water and other
natural resources that could be achieved
through recycling and waste minimization?
The goal statements are unfinished - they
are intended to represent the kind of "outcome"
goals we want to develop. As you will see, many
of them do not yet contain explicit measurable
targets. We will prepare more precise targets as
we proceed. EPA is looking forward to your help
in developing them.
6-3
-------
Guiding Principles for EPA
One Ecosystem protection and sustainable development go
hand-in-hand. The point is not to choose between environmental
and economic or social goals, but to practice all forms or
enterprise in ways that remain environmentally supportable over
tiiTiS.
Two Environmental justice is a foremost national value. The
distribution of environmental risk is important as well as its level.
No specific group should be more at risk or environmentally
constrained than are other groups due to factors beyond their
control.
Three Pollution prevention is the preferred approach to
environmental protection. It is generally less expensive and
complex than is treatment or cleanup. Preventive behavior on the
part of citizens is as much a key to environmental health as it is to
medical health. In the prevention mode, EPA is as much an
enabler as an enforcer.
Four The full use of science in making strategic decisions for
environmental protection is essential. Science must be viewed as
an impartial resource, and the use of existing data is important as
well as the generation of new information. Research need not
achieve certainty to be useful.
Five Building partnerships among all agencies and levels of
government and between public and private groups is essential to
achievement of a healthy environment. Partnerships should go
beyond cooperation and coordination to collaboration -- to yield
programs and results that individual groups cannot by themselves
achieve.
Six An outcome orientation has more value to achieving goals
than procedural compliance. The question is not how many
permits we have issued, fines levied, or brochures printed. The
point is whether our air, water and land are getting and staying
cleaner.
G-k
-------
Goals in the Laws Administered by EPA
Thirteen major statutes form the legal basis for the programs of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Several of them contain explicit environmental goals.
The Pollution Prevention Act states that it is the policy of the United States that "pollution should
be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should
be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be
prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and
disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be
conducted in an environmentally safe manner." No environmental goals.
The Clean Air Act gives states specific deadlines for meeting the air quality standard (up to 20 years
(or 2010) for ozone in Los Angeles) and requires states and the Federal government to make
constant progress in reducing emissions. It requires technology controls on air toxics to be achieved
within 10 years of enactment (2000). It requires a permanent 10 million ton reduction in sulfur dioxide
emissions from 1980 levels and a 2 million ton reduction in nitrogen oxides from 1980 levels. It
establishes dates for phasing out ozone-depleting substances: 2000 for CFCs, halon and carbon
tetrachloride; 2002 for methyl chloroform; 2030 for HCFCs.
The Clean Water Act. "The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In order to achieve this objective...
(1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by
1985;
(2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on
the water be achieved by July 1, 1983;
(3) it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited..."
The Ocean Dumping Act declares that "it is the policy of the United States to regulate the
dumping of all types of materials into ocean waters and to prevent or strictly limit the dumping into
ocean waters of any material which would adversely affect human health, welfare, or amenities, or the
marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities." No environmental goals.
The Safe Drinking Water Act directs EPA to develop national drinking water regulations for public
water systems, underground injection control regulations to protect underground sources of drinking
water, and groundwater protection grant programs for the administration of sole-source aquifer
demonstration projects and for wellhead protection programs. No environmental goals.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. "The
Congress hereby declares it to be the national policy of the United States that, wherever feasible, the
generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Waste that
is nevertheless generated should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to minimize the present
and future threat to human health and the environment." No environmental goals.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act
(Superfund) provides for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous
substances released into the environment and the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal
sites. The 1986 amendments to the Superfund law required EPA to begin physical, on-site cleanup
of at least 175 new (after 1986) sites by 1989, and at another 200 sites within the following two years.
There are no deadlines for finishing this work. No environmental goals.
6-5
-------
• The Emergency Planning and Community Rlaht-to-Know Act requires local planning to
cope with chemical emergencies and ensures that responsible officials are provided with information
from local businesses about their activities involving hazardous chemicals. The Act mandates the
development of a national inventory of releases of toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities. The
purpose of the Toxics Release Inventory is to provide information to the general public about
chemicals to which they may be exposed. No environmental goals, although EPA uses the TRI to
implement its "33/50 Program," in which industry is challenged to voluntarily reduce releases and
transfers of 17 high priority chemicals by 33% by 1992 and by 50% by 1995.
The Toxics Substances Control Act states that "authority over chemical substances and
mixtures should be exercised in such a manner as not to impede unduly or create unnecessary
economic barriers to technological innovation while fulfilling the primary purpose of this Act to assure
that such innovation and commerce in -such chemical substances and mixtures do not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." No environmental goals.
The Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticlde Act was enacted by Congress "to
regulate the marketing of economic poisons and devices, and for other purposes." No environmental
goals.
• The Environmental Research. Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act
authorizes all EPA's research and development programs. No environmental goals.
• The National Environmental Education Act. The stated policy is "to establish and support a
program of education on the environment...through activities in schools, institutions of higher
education and related educational activities, and to encourage postsecondary students to pursue
careers related to the environment." No environmental goals.
The National Environmental Policy Act. The purposes are: "To declare a national policy which
will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the
health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural
resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality...It is the
continuing responsibility of the Federal Government...to improve and coordinate Federal plans,
functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may--
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to
health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;
(4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain,
wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice;
(5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of
living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and
(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling
of depletable resources."
6-6
-------
1 Clean Surface Waters
Goal All the lakes, rivers and bays of the United States will be clean and safe for human
recreation and they will support healthy and edible fish, shellfish and wildlife. By
, at least X percent of the surface waters of the United States will fully meet
standards set by the states to protect aquatic life and human health. (For drinking
water, see goal #10)
Background States roughly estimate that well over half of the lakes, rivers and coastal waters
that they assessed in 1991-92 fully met their "fishable and swimmable" standards.
Pollution enters the nation's waters from point sources, nonpoint sources
and air deposition. Point sources are distinct "points" of concentrated pollution,
such as pipes from factories and sewage plants, which- may contain toxic
substances, bacteria, viruses, acids, oxygen-demanding compounds, and
nutrients.
Pollutants carried in runoff from "nonpoint sources" account for more of the
nation's remaining water quality problems than point sources. Rainwater carries
sediment, animal wastes, and agricultural chemicals from farms, cities and
suburbs, highways, construction sites and logged areas into nearby streams.
Agriculture is the most commonly reported nonpoint source category.
Another source of water pollution is polluted air -- for example, acid rain. Toxic
substances, nutrients and oxygen-demanding compounds may also enter the
water from the air. Principal sources of air-deposited pollutants are power plants,
industrial facilities, motor vehicles, and windblown chemicals from farms.
EPA's Roles Under the Clean Water Act, EPA works with states and municipalities to control all
types of water pollution. In most cases,'states determine the "designated uses"
of their waters (usually swimming, habitat for fish and other aquatic life, or
agricultural and industrial uses) and set water quality standards to protect these
uses. EPA regulates (or gives authority to states to regulate) the amount of
pollution that point sources can discharge. EPA provides scientific criteria for
these limits, backs up states with inspections and legal enforcement, and helps
fund state and municipal water quality programs, including sewage treatment
plant construction. To reduce pollution from nonpoint sources, EPA provides
grants and loans through states to farmers, municipalities and others to facilitate
their adoption of "best management practices" to control the runoff of pollutants.
EPA is accelerating work to diminish air deposition. New regulations affecting
power plants and motor vehicles will reduce emissions of pollutants that acidify
and deplete oxygen in water. EPA also is coordinating intensive efforts to restore
high-value, threatened waters, including the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay,
and the Gulf of Mexico. The comprehensive, watershed protection approach to
managing these waters and the land surrounding them is now being encouraged
throughout the country.
Roles of Others EPA has delegated responsibility to most states for setting standards and issuing
and enforcing permits. Municipalities also have important roles, especially in
operating sewage treatment plants and requiring industries to "pre-treat"
pollutants before they are discharged into sewers. State and local governments
usually also have the lead roles in assessing nonpoint source pollution and
correcting it with technical assistance from federal agencies.
Numerous federal and state agencies are responsible for managing fish and
aquatic wildlife. In particular, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
National Park Service work with EPA and state programs to protect water quality.
The Department of Agriculture is assuming a growing role in working with farmers
to prevent water pollution from cropland and livestock.
6-7
-------
Reported Attainment of Uses for Rivers and Streams
¦ 20
«
WO
2
3
a
HO
c
:
60
X
*
a
40
x
*
20
0
(Rough
Estimates)
I
I
1992
Goal
Year
e.g., 2020
3 Aquitic Ufa
3 Fish Consumption
S Swimming
Reported Attainment of Uses for Lakes
(Rough
Estimates)
]
1992
Goal
Year
e.g., 2020
Reported Attainment of Uses for Estuaries
«
120
S
D
100
a
c
I
SO
X
m
60
a
X
40
c
3
cr
20
*
0
(Rough
Estimates)
il
1992
Goal
Year
e.g.. 2020
Source: USEPA Office of Water, 1993
Statistical Quality: Relative, qualitative information not currently
consistent enough for year-to-year comparisons.
Scientific Validity: Poor to Fair due to state-to-state differences.
Areas the indicator Does Not Address: Coverage is limited. In
1992, assessments covered 21 % of river and stream miles, 46%
of lake acres and 74% of estuary square miles in the U.S. The
assessed waters are likely not representative of all waters in the
U.S. Also, not all states are using biological techniques and
thus are likely not detecting some problems.
Stream Water Quality, by Pollution Indicator, 1980-1989
Diuoived tolids
Nitrate
Toul pho*phorui
Suspended icdimenu
Diuolvcd oxygen
Fecal coliform baciena
0 10 20 W 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of NASOAN luuons
S3 Upward trend ~ No trend Demrwud tread
Source: DOIVSCS. National W®ter Summary (1993).
Statistical Quality: Extensive efforts have been carried out to assure the best possible statistical quality in these
measurements, including selection of the best possible underlying data at USGS stations, advanced statistical analysis
techniques, and good quality laboratory practices.
Scientific Validity: Each of these water quality parameters is associated with aspects of water contamination by well-
known cause and effect relationships that are documented in the scientific literature.
Areas the Indicator Does Not Address: There exist other additional aspects of water contamination that are not
reflected in this set of parameters, for example contamination by heavy metals or pesticides. Although data of the
latter type may be available selectively, a national synthesis is not possible with this set of measurements.
6-R
-------
2 Clean Air
Goals
Background
EPA's Roles
Roles of Others
The entire nation will have healthy air that meets all Federal Air Quality Standards.
By the year 2000, the number of areas not meeting air quality standards will be
reduced from 190 to 15. These areas will have healthy air by 2010. Visibility in
the eastern U.S. will improve by 25 percent by 2005. Air in scenic areas with poor
visibility at present will be increasingly clear, and there will be no worsening of
visibility in currently clear scenic areas, such as National Parks.
Air pollution threatens the health and welfare of people and ecosystems in many
areas of the country. Ozone at ground level, particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides cause a variety of human health
problems ranging from eye and throat irritation to permanent lung damage. Lead
in the air can cause brain damage, especially in children. Sulfur oxides and
nitrogen oxides combine with water vapor to form acid rain, which harms lakes,
streams, and forests, while ground-level ozone damages forests and crops.
The emissions of all these pollutants, except nitrogen oxides, have been
reduced substantially over the past twenty years. Lead emissions reductions
have been especially dramatic--98 percent since 1970. Nonetheless, EPA's
most recent information indicates that 54 million people live in counties where
federal air quality standards are still violated for one or more of the six pollutants.
Air pollution from factories, motor vehicles, and other sources also reduces
visibility throughout many urban areas. Pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and
particulate matter can reduce visibility hundreds of miles from their sources.
Sulfur dioxide from power plants is the primary cause of poor visibility in the
eastern United States, while carbon particles play an important role in the
northwest.
EPA has established "National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (NAAQS) for six air
pollutants that are believed to pose the greatest threats to human health and
welfare: ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, and lead. By law, NAAQS are set so that attainment of the standards
protects human health and welfare.
Prior to 1990, EPA's efforts to enhance visibility focused on controlling air
pollutants to meet the NAAQS and conducting enhanced reviews of major new
pollution sources locating in clean areas. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
strengthen EPA's role by establishing an acid rain program that will further reduce
emissions of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. The Amendments give EPA
direction to address impairment of visibility caused by long-range transport of
pollutants to scenic areas, such as National Parks and National Wilderness Areas.
The Clean Air Act assigns to the states the basic responsibility for ensuring
compliance with the NAAQS. Each state develops a plan to meet the NAAQS.
Once EPA approves the plan, the state is responsible for enforcing it. States
frequently assign significant responsibilities for implementing their plans to local
air and transportation agencies. Citizens may sue to enforce any part of the
approved plan.
6-9
-------
250
200
fO
0)
<
<*-
o
^ 150
o
XJ
E
3
100
50
Non-Attainment of Air Quality Standards
Areas Not Meeting for One or More Pollutants
/fa"-:-/';
WM-:-
1990
Remaining:
Baltimore
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
New York
Philadelphia
San Bernardino/
Rivers Id*
San Diego
Vertfura
T
Goal
r—n
1993
1996
2000
Year
Remaining:
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
New York
San Bernardino/
Riverside
I
~
Goal
Goal
2005
2010
Non-Attainment of Air Quality Standards
Population in Areas Not Meeting for One or More Pollutants
200
c
o
— 150
c
o
'
-------
3
Stratospheric Ozone Layer Protection
Goals The United States will be the world leader in reducing or eliminating all
substances that harm the stratospheric ozone layer that shields the earth from
harmful ultraviolet rays. Concentrations of chlorine and bromine in the
stratosphere will be reduced to pre-Antarctic ozone hole levels as soon as
possible. By the end of 1995, the U.S. will halt production and use of most
ozone-depleting products. The U.S. will assist other countries in eliminating
these substances worldwide.
Background The stratospheric ozone layer shields the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.
Increasing concentrations of man-made chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs). halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform are breaking down
the ozone layer. These chemicals are released from refrigerators, air conditioners
and certain industrial processes. As a result, more ultraviolet radiation reaches
the earth's surface, where it causes skin cancers, immune deficiencies, other
adverse effects on human health, and damage to crops and ecosystems.
In response to worldwide concerns about stratospheric ozone depletion,
many nations have worked to reduce production and use of ozone-depleting
substances. The United States was an early leader in these efforts, banning non-
essential use of chlorofluorocarbons as aerosol propellants in 1978. The Vienna
Convention of 1985 stated an international goal of reducing use of ozone-
depleting substances. Countries signing the 1987 Montreal Protocol committed
to reducing their use by 50 percent by 1998. More ambitious goals were
advanced in the London Amendments of 1990, which called for a complete
phaseout of many ozone-depleting substances by 2000.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 directed EPA to implement a
national production phaseout of most ozone-depleting substances by 2000.
This phaseout schedule, while consistent with the London Amendments,
includes more stringent interim reduction goals. In February 1992, the President
called for an accelerated phaseout of these chemicals, based on evidence that
stratospheric ozone was thinning faster than anticipated. The United States is
now committed to halting production of most ozone-depleting substances by the
end of 1995.
EPA's Roles EPA administers a tracking system to ensure that producers and importers of
ozone-depleting substances comply with the national schedule. To facilitate the
economic adjustment that the phaseout requires, EPA allows producers to
transfer their rights to manufacture these substances to other producers, but only
if the transfer results in diminished production. EPA is developing a national
recycling program for CFCs used in refrigerators and air conditioners, and has
banned intentional releases of these chemicals. At the international level, EPA
assists developing countries in eliminating ozone-depleting substances and
using substitutes.
Roles of Others A worldwide phaseout of ozone-depleting substances will require the
cooperation of all countries. The Department of State has the lead role in
negotiating international agreements on this and other international
environmental issues. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and
EPA have all contributed to international scientific efforts to improve
understanding of stratospheric ozone depletion. Private industry also has a
critical role in developing substitutes for ozone-depleting substances.
6-11
-------
Production of CFC-11 in the U.S.
Before arid During Phaseout 1986-95
250
» 200
E
(0
w
Ct
O 150
£
o
M 100
50
10
250
200
150
100
50
1960 1954 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992
Year
i Actual Production G Limit on Production
Production of CFC-12 in the U.S.
Before and During Phaseout 1986-95
250
(0
E
a
w
O)
o
200
150
g 100
50
250
200
150
100
50
1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988
Year
1992
I Actual Production ~ Limit on Production
Source: International Trade Commission, 1983
Statistical Quality: Good, based on established quality assurance program and
standardized collection methods used by the International Trade Commission in
obtaining data provided from U.S. manufacturers of industrial CFCs.
Scientific Validity: Poor, as a direct indicator of state of the atmospheric ozone
layer; fair to good as an indicator of lower tier environmental management
objectives stated in terms of reduction of industrial production of CFCs.
Areas the Indicator Does Not Address. Does not estimate the amount ol CFCs
released into the atmosphere over time.
o- 11
-------
4
Climate Change Risk Reduction
Goals By 2000, we will reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, while at
the same time increasing economic efficiency, productivity and employment. In
the longer run, we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels to
stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations. We will reduce atmospheric methane
concentrations to the lowest economically-feasible levels by 2000.
Background The "greenhouse effect" occurs as certain gases in the atmosphere trap heat
from the sun and warm the earth. Atmospheric concentrations of these gases are
rising, largely as a result of human activities. Scientific evidence indicates that
increasing levels of greenhouse gases will raise global temperatures, which could
have harmful consequences for people and ecosystems, including sea level rise,
increased droughts and storms, altered precipitation patterns, changes in
agricultural yields, and extinctions of species that cannot adapt to the changes.
The largest human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions are from
burning fossil fuels for electricity, transportation and industrial processes. Other
contributors include deforestation, livestock production, and rice cultivation.
These activities have added substantially to natural levels of carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide. People also have added synthetic greenhouse
gases to the atmosphere, most notably chlorofluorocarbons. The U.S. accounts
for about one-fifth of annual worldwide emissions of all greenhouse gases.
EPA's Roles In 1992, the U.S. ratified the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This
treaty establishes commitments and procedures for international cooperation to
improve the science and undertake efforts both to mitigate and adapt to climate
changes. EPA provides leading analytical support to the U.S. team negotiating
rules and future modifications to the Framework Convention. The Convention
requires each signing country to inventory its greenhouse gas emissions and
develop a plan to reduce them. In 1993, the U.S. adopted a Climate Change
Action Plan (CCAP), in which EPA plays a leading role. The CCAP encourages
voluntary actions, such as EPA's "Green Lights" program which enlists private
and public partners to reduce power consumption by installing energy-efficient
lighting. Other voluntary programs include reducing emissions from landfills, gas
pipelines, fertilizer and pesticide applications, and by increased recycling.
EPA regulates some greenhouse gas emissions. EPA currently is
implementing a national phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons, which also destroy the
stratospheric ozone layer. EPA also sponsors research on climate change, its
causes and potential effects, ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and
strategies for reducing its impacts.
Roles of Others Several federal agencies provide assistance for climate change mitigation efforts
in other countries. EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) spearhead
assistance to help developing countries inventory their greenhouse emissions
and analyze emissions reduction and adaptation policies. EPA, the Forest
Service, and the Agency for International Development help other countries
develop forest conservation and management programs.
DOE has the lead role in promoting energy efficiency and developing energy
sources that do not require fossil fuel combustion. The Department of
Transportation implements legislation that will the improve energy efficiency of
automobiles and public transit. EPA, DOE, NASA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey and Department of
Agriculture all sponsor research on climate change.
Several states and municipalities address climate change by promoting
energy efficiency, planting trees and planning land uses so as to minimize the
future impacts and reduce greenhouse gas contributions. Private firms and
citizens contribute by making energy efficient household, workplace, and
transportation choices, and by planting trees.
*-13
-------
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Global
SOURCE: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Cantor, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory
Data Quality: Global CO} estimates were derived primarily from question-
naires to UN member countries Where official data were not available estimates
were based on expert opinion and ancillary data sources. Experts consider the
data to be within 10% of the true value U S estimates were derived primarily
from Energy Information Agency questionnaires to U.S energy companies The
data comes close to being a complete census
Global Temperature Anomalies
Source: Carbon Dloxids Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, 1993
Data Quality Temperature anomalies represent departures from the "normal
temperature" averages over a base penod (usually from 1950 to 1960) These
anomalies are denved from surface temperature records from instruments. These
records are considered to be high quality. Due to the placement of measurement
sites, the measurements may have an urban warming temperature bias of about
0 1 degree Centigrade.
o~ 1
-------
5
Ecological Protection
Goal We will improve the overall ecological health of the environment by protecting the
physical, chemical and biological components and processes of ecosystems. We
will maintain and restore representative examples of ecosystems, habitat types
and habitat connections across landscapes, and biological communities. We will
ensure viable populations of native plants and animals, well distributed
throughout their range, and the genetic variability within those populations.
Background Biological diversity is the variety of life on earth, essential for sustaining life and
the well-being of people. It includes ecosystem diversity, species diversity, and
genetic diversity.
An ecosystem is an area's plants, animals, nonliving elements such as
minerals and air, and the interactions among them. Ecosystem diversity provides
habitats for a variety of species and makes possible a range of important natural
functions, from local temperature moderation by forests to water purification by
wetlands. Species diversity is the variety of living things that inhabit the earth's
ecosystems. Genetic diversity is the variation among individual plants or animals
of a particular species. Genetically diverse species are more likely to survive
diseases and environmental changes. Genetic diversity also provides benefits to
humans, such as new varieties of plants that can be useful in agriculture.
Biodiversity conservation requires protection of habitats and maintenance of
healthy populations in these habitats. Almost all natural environments in the U.S.
have been degraded by human activities. Even in the few remaining pristine
habitats, biodiversity is reduced by the loss or degradation of adjoining habitats,
which may eliminate animals that require large territories and allow invasion of non-
native species. Global climate change is thought by many scientists to be another
threat to biodiversity because it may significantly alter existing natural habitats.
EPA's Roles EPA's primary role in protecting habitats is to regulate pollution. EPA oversees
establishment of water quality standards that protect aquatic organisms. EPA can
ban or regulate pesticides that harm ecosystems. EPA regulates air pollutants
that cause acid rain, which damages forests and lakes, and it also regulates other
air pollutants that harm habitats, such as toxic chemicals and ground-level ozone.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers regulate dredging and filling of
wetlands, which are among the most productive habitats. Under the National
Environmental Policy Act, EPA reviews federally-supported activities to make
sure they cause no unreasonable harm to the environment.
EPA's Science Advisory Board concluded that losses of habitat and
biological diversity are among the most important ecological threats facing the
U.S. EPA now is developing a strategy to do a better job in protecting habitats.
As part of this effort, EPA and other agencies have developed the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program that will make available better information
about the condition of the nation's ecosystems. This program will aid in
identifying important habitats that need protection.
Roles of Others While EPA has the lead federal role in protecting wetlands, waters and air, other
agencies have primary responsibilities for managing land. The National Park
Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of
Reclamation manage parks, wildlife refuges, and other areas to preserve habitats.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for designating threatened
and endangered species and developing recovery plans for them.
All 50 states have endangered species laws and state forest and park
systems. States have natural resource inventory programs to identify threatened
species and important habitats for preservation. Non-governmental organizations
also have important roles. The Nature Conservancy, for example, purchases
important habitats to ensure their long-term preservation.
6-15
-------
Q.
a 3
c
3 1
a
o
JL
Bald Eagles
(Lower 43 States)
1063 19C7 1871 197S 1979 1683 1987 1M1
Y—r
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1993
Extinctions of North American Fishes
VI 40
.#
I 30
©
* 20
«
>
I™
E
3
O 0
¦ nn
o
1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990
Year
Source: Miller, R.R. and J.E. Williams, 1989
Extinctions of North American Fishes During the
Past Century. Fisheries 14:22-38
Data Quality: This is the best available data
but much of it is generated by States using
different sampling methods. The estimates
are considered conservative in that they may
under-count the actual number of breeding
pairs.
Scientific Validity Top predators such as
Bald Eagles are generally believed to serve
as a useful indicator of the condition of the
food chain.
Neotropical Bird Populations
3
3
O
a.
1966
1974
1962
1990
¦ Vkr«o
iPamtad Bunting
oGrasshopper Sparrow
=Ov«n Bird
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey, 1993
Statistical Quality: Good. Survey of migration routes
yields data on 300-400 species. Errors occur but a
data quality assurance program is in place.
Scientific Validity: Good for population trends in
species that can be observed in the field during
daylight hours and from roadside observation sites.
Therefore, for some species, it may not adequately
reflect the effects of changes in difficult to reach
habitats.
Areas the Indicator Does Not Address: Covers North
American migratory birds daytime activities only.
Nocturnal activities and migratory movements are not
covered at present
STATISTICAL QUALITY: Fair, should be used as a
lower bound only, since the strength of the evidence
was evaluated before including any species as a
confirmed extinction. The historical accuracy of the
data may be poor on the x-axis since the date for
which an extinction is considered confirmed may lag
the actual extinction by decades.
SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY: Limited, because it cannot
always historically distinguish between species that
died out due to non-environmental factors and/or
natural causes, and species which became extinct due
to adverse environment or habitat.
AREAS THE INDICATOR FAILS TO ADDRESS. Does
not provide data on species population trends an
changes in habitat which may cause population loss.
Loss of Wetlands
*
¦o
s
3
250
200
| | 15°
o i 100
e
o
<
50
0
4
1
17*0 MW-1I70« MU-1M0*
Year
Source: US Rah and Wildlife Service, 1993
STATISTICAL QUALITY: Good. Data are based on a
stratified random sample of 4 mi1 areas within defined
physiographic regions, and sample sizes are based
on the expected wetlands acreage contained
historically in each region. Errors do exist, but a data
quality control program is in place.
SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY: Trend measurements are
valid for long term estimates mainly, as the study
results are produced once per decade; the most
recent report gives estimates for the mid-eighties.
AREAS THE INDICATOR FAILS TO ADDRESS.
Coverage on quality of wetlands is not as
comprehensive as the inventory reporting. However,
certain regions of interest are getting increased
coverage.
£-16
-------
6 Prevention of Wastes and Harmful
Chemical Releases
Goals We will reduce and seek to eliminate releases of toxic chemicals by industrial
facilities, even as industrial production increases.
By , releases of toxic chemicals from industrial facilities to the air, water,
and land will be reduced by %. By , generation of wastes (prior to
recycling, treatment or disposal) from industrial facilities will be reduced by %.
By , the nation's municipal wastes will be reduced by 25% through source-
reduction or recycling. By 1998 all solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities
will be regulated by a permit program. By 2010, releases of hazardous air
pollutants from major sources will be reduced so that the maximum individual
lifetime risk of cancer from exposure to them is less than one in a million and other
health and environmental risks are also reduced.
Background Harmful chemicals can contaminate the environment during their manufacture,
use, and disposal. Wastes are released directly to the air and water, injected into
disposal wells, buried in landfills, or sent to treatment plants. In 1991, U.S.
manufacturing facilities reported that 4.43 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were
released to the environment or transferred to other locations. In addition to the
problems posed by toxic wastes, these chemicals sometimes contaminate
workplaces and homes during their actual use.
The conventional approach to preventing harm from toxic chemicals is to
control their treatment and disposal, which sometimes simply move pollution from
one part of the environment to another. A preferred approach is to produce and
use less harmful chemicals so that products are safer and less waste is produced.
By minimizing wastes, pollution prevention can increase the efficiency of raw
material use and reduce the need for costly treatment and disposal. Over 1000
industrial firms in the U.S. have made voluntary commitments to reduce releases
and transfers of 17 toxic chemicals. The federal government's objectives are
reductions of 33 percent from 1988 levels by 1992 (this target was achieved in
1991), and 50 percent by 1995.
EPA's Roles Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA regulates the manufacture, use,
and disposal of toxic chemicals. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act regulate
pesticides. Other statutes establish limits on toxic substances in air and water and
establish requirements for safe disposal of solid and hazardous wastes.
EPA makes information about uses and releases of toxic chemicals available
through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The 1990 Pollution Prevention Act,
establishes pollution prevention as a national objective and expands TRI
reporting requirements. The Act also directs EPA to promote pollution
prevention by disseminating information on prevention opportunities and giving
technical assistance grants to states.
Roles of Others Many companies are improving waste management practices and using safer
chemicals, more efficient processes, modified equipment and reformulated
products. Several states have adopted pollution prevention programs. Industrial
firms annually report their toxic chemical uses, releases and transfers.
Other federal agencies also have important roles in promoting pollution
prevention. Federal actions include research, technical assistance, and
procurement specifications to encourage government purchases of products
that are recycled or recyclable or contain minimal toxic substances.
The public also has important responsibilities, since some types of toxic
releases come from consumer products. People can purchase non-toxic
products, dispose of toxic products properly, and use information in the TRI to
work with local industries to reduce the use and release of toxic chemicals.
6-17
-------
Reported TRI Releases & Transfers
8 , ~
Releases
S Transfers
0 i ! ! l_J
1988 1989 1990 1991
Year
Source: USEPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 1993
Data Quality: Based upon self-reported estimates of releases and transfers from
specific manufacturing facilities in standard industrial code (SIC) categories 20-39
with ten or more employees that process or use more than threshold quantities
of listed chemicals. Companies develop and submit their estimates and certify to
their completeness. Although the TRI includes over 82,000 reports from
approximately 23,000 facilities, it captures only a portion of all toxic chemical
releases nationwide. For example, the mining and energy production sectors are
not included. TRI reports reflect releases of chemicals, not exposure of the public
or the environment to these chemicals.
33/50 Program Status
1995 Pledged Reductions
Millions of Pounds
1200
soo
1995 Goal
1992 Qotl
Jul 11 F«6 n AUQ "W
Committments
Number of Companies
1200
0
£
e
«
a
o
0
w
1
E
a
Z
soo
•Mil Fitlt AuglJ
Source: USEPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 1993
Data Quality: Based upon voluntary self-reported estimates of releases and
transfers for 17 priority chemicals from companies agreeing to participate in the
33/50 Program. Companies or their contractors do the reporting (government
agencies do not collect the data at the facilities).
6-18
-------
7
Cleanup of Contaminated Sites
Goals We will make continuous progress in identifying and cleaning up contamination at
sites where hazardous materials threaten human health and plant and animal life.
We will clean up 650 abandoned hazardous waste sites by the year 2000.
We will reduce the greatest risks to human health and the environment from
active hazardous waste facilities by taking action to control contaminant releases.
We will clean up an average of 20,000 leaking underground storage tanks each
year, or 120,000 tanks between 1995 and 2000.
Background For decades, commerce has routinely generated wastes that are flammable,
corrosive, reactive, radioactive or toxic. Accidental release or improper handling
of these hazardous wastes endangers the environment and the health of people
in nearby communities, especially when rain or wind carries hazardous materials
into the water, air, and groundwater supplies.
A major source of contamination is abandoned hazardous waste dumps.
Currently operating hazardous waste facilities may also pollute if they are
improperly designed or managed. Municipal landfills contaminate surrounding
areas when toxic chemicals in household and commercial wastes escape from
them. At some of these polluted sites, wastes have accumulated for decades.
Leaks from storage tanks containing gasoline, oil, and other hazardous
materials also have contaminated many areas. There are 1.3 million underground
storage tanks (USTs) used by gas stations, large trucking fleets, bus depots, and
government facilities, of which an estimated15 to 25 percent are leaking.
Sites with radioactive contamination include federally-operated research and
weapons facilities, some nuclear power plants, and Superfund sites.
EPA's Roles Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA regulates the
generation, transport, and management of hazardous waste, and requires waste
facilities to identify and clean up all their releases.
Cleanups of hazardous waste contamination at abandoned or bankrupt
facilities are regulated under "Superfund" (the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act). Superfund sites that pose the most
serious long-term threats are placed on EPA's National Priorities List, which now
includes over 1200 sites. Cleanup has been completed at 217 of them. When a
site poses an immediate threat, EPA takes emergency action to reduce the
danger, such as providing bottled water when drinking water is contaminated.
EPA pays for cleanup costs when those responsible for the contamination
cannot be identified or cannot pay. EPA also provides technical assistance,
enforcement support, and some funding to state and local governments for
handling leaks from underground storage tanks. EPA currently is developing
requirements for cleanup of sites contaminated with radioactive material.
Roles of Others Where possible, parties responsible for contaminating Superfund sites must
either clean up the site or reimburse EPA for its cleanup costs. Releases from
active hazardous waste facilities must be cleaned up by their owners. Similarly,
UST owners are liable lor cleaning up contamination from leaking tanks or for
reimbursing EPA. Liability for paying the costs of cleanup has recently been a
strong deterrent to careless waste disposal in the United States.
About one-third of the states have assumed responsibility for cleanups at
operating hazardous waste facilities. States also have primary responsibility for
administering cleanups of contamination from USTs. In addition, states, local
governments, and Indian tribes may lead Superfund cleanup efforts or cooperate
with EPA to clean up a site. Citizens also have important roles in working with
EPA to design cleanup strategies for contaminated sites in their communities.
6-19
-------
Underground Storage Tanks
Initiated and Completed Cleanups, Confirmed Releases
(ft
J 200
I *
O c
V
A
E
3
z
3
O
£
ICC
1/90 1/91 1/92
Fiscal Quarter
1/93
¦I Completed
E3 Initiated
~ Releases
Source: USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1993.
Statistical Quality: The statistical quality is considered to be good.
Scientific Validity: Not a scientific measurement.
Areas the indicator Does Not Address: This is a quantitative measure that
records program activity over time. The measure does not directly address
the impact on the environment of releases from underground storage tanks.
Superfund Construction Completions
Target
800
600
400
200
1992
1994
1996
Fiscal Year
1998
2000
Source: USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,1993.
Statistical Quality: The statistical quality is considered to be high.
Scientific Validity: Not a scientific measurement.
Areas the indicator Does Not Address: This is a quantitative measure that
records program activity over time. The measure does not directly address
the impact of superfund sites on the environment.
6-20
-------
Prevention of Oil Spills and
8 Chemical Accidents
Goal We will enforce legislation and educate people so that the environment becomes
much safer from the effects of oil spills and chemical accidents, and we will
respond quickly to contain the damage from spills and accidents that do occur.
Background Every day, oil and other hazardous substances are spilled or released into
waterways, the air, and onto the ground. These pollutants frequently kill fish and
wildlife. They also can injure nearby workers and residents, who may experience
immediate problems ranging from mild skin irritation to fatal poisoning, or longer-
term health problems, such as cancer and reproductive disorders.
Accidental releases of hazardous substances result from careless handling of
petroleum, tank car derailments, trucking accidents, fires, leaks, and explosions.
Some accidents have catastrophic consequences. In 1988, a refinery explosion
in Norco, Louisiana killed seven people, injured 50, and forced the evacuation of
25,000 residents. In 1989. the supertanker Exxon Valdez spilled 10.9 million
gallons of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, killing approximately
150,000 seabirds and an estimated 5,000 sea otters. Valuable fisheries were
closed, and over 1,200 miles of shoreline were polluted with oil.
Reports of accidental releases have increased steadily in the last decade.
The National Response Center and EPA regional offices received over 24,000
such reports in 1990, and over 40,000 reports in 1992.
EPA's Roles One of EPA's most important roles is building state and local authorities'
capabilities to prevent and respond successfully to accidents by providing
technical assistance and funding for designing accident prevention programs and
emergency response plans, and assisting them in responding to emergencies.
EPA can direct responsible parties in the cleanup or do the work itself. EPA trains
over 5,000 people each year for emergency response operations.
EPA requires certain facilities that store oil to prepare plans to prevent spills
and now is developing additional rules that will require petroleum facilities to plan
for cleanups of worst-case spills. EPA also is providing rules that will require
facilities handling extremely hazardous substances to develop detailed plans for
preventing, detecting, and minimizing accidental releases.
The federal government has established a National Contingency Plan, which
sets procedures for responding to emergency releases and sets up a National
Response Team, which coordinates preparation for and responses to accidents.
When an emergency occurs inland and federal assistance is required, EPA
deploys an On-Scene Coordinator to manage federal responses or monitor the
cleanup. EPA also maintains the Environmental Response Team, a group ol
scientists and engineers that provides 24-hour technical expertise.
Roles of Others State Emergency Response Commissions are responsible for appointing and
supervising Local Emergency Planning Committees , which prepare and exercise
local emergency response plans. Industrial facilities handling hazardous
chemicals report information on the chemicals present at each facility, their
hazards, how they are stored, and any releases. Operators of vessels or facilities
containing a hazardous substance must notify the authorities when a release of a
"reportable quantity" has occurred.
The party responsible for an accident is responsible for managing and paying
for cleanup. State and local authorities usually do the actual cleanup work that
cannot be managed adequately by the accountable parties.
The Department of Transportation is responsible for regulating the safe
transportation of oil and hazardous substances. The Coast Guard deploys On-
Scene Coordinators to handle emergencies in coastal areas and the Great Lakes.
6-21
-------
Reported Releases of Hazardous Materials
40
-------
9 Safe Indoor Environments
Goals We will ensure safer indoor environments for residential, work and recreational
life. EPA will develop and implement strategies to minimize health risks from all
indoor air contaminants, including radon, lead, asbestos and environmental
tobacco smoke.
[Existing federal goals (in Healthy People 2000) include: 40% of homes will
have been tested for radon and been found to pose minimal risk or been modied
to reduce risk to health, 30 states will require prospective buyers be informed of
lead paint and radon concentrations in buildings for sale, and testing for lead paint
will have been performed in at least 50% of homes built before 1950.]
Background Indoor pollution in homes, schools, offices, and other buildings is one of the most
serious human health risks on the nation's environmental agenda. Levels of
many harmful contaminants are frequently higher indoors than outside. Since
people spend about 90 percent of their time inside buildings, the health threats
often exceed the dangers from pollution outdoors.
Indoor air pollution effects range from eye irritation to cancer and birth
defects. Radon, a naturally-occurring radioactive gas that enters buildings from
the ground, causes 7,000 to 30,000 lung cancer deaths each year.
"Secondhand" tobacco smoke causes about 3,000 lung cancer deaths in non-
smokers each year and causes serious respiratory problems in young children.
Airborne fibers from asbestos cause cancer. Furniture, foam and pressed wood
products release formaldehyde, an eye and respiratory irritant that may cause
cancer. Many items commonly used in homes and offices-paints, solvents,
cleansers, pesticides, dry cleaned clothes, and space heaters-release
pollutants. Bacteria, fungi, viruses, and other biological pollutants can grow in
moist indoor environments and spread through heating and cooling systems.
Lead in paint and pipe solder, which causes brain and kidney damage and
premature births, is a hazard in many buildings.
EPA's Roles EPA has established a comprehensive program to address risks from indoor air
pollution and other indoor hazards by focusing on development of partnerships
to implement regulatory and non-regulatory programs. EPA has launched
national campaigns to improve building operation and maintenance practices and
otherwise address the major indoor risks. EPA provides step-by-step
recommendations on testing for and managing radon, asbestos, and lead
problems and has issued national recommendations for eliminating involuntary
exposure to secondhand smoke. EPA provides grants to states for radon
programs, and loans and grants to schools for asbestos inspection and removal.
EPA trains and accredits professionals who inspect for and manage asbestos
problems, and trains and evaluates contractors who diagnose and control radon
and lead contamination. EPA has developed radon-resistant construction
techniques that have already been used in hundreds of thousands of new
homes. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has banned the use in homes
of pipes containing more than 8% lead solder.
Roles of Others Many private and public organizations are involved as partners with EPA. For
example, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is engaged in work ranging
from establishing limits on lead content in paint to research on indoor pollution
from consumer products. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is
the principal agency responsible for eliminating leaded paint in housing and has
established limits for formaldehyde in pressed wood products in mobile homes.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration sets limits for chemicals used
in the workplace. EPA collaborates with states and dozens of public health and
consumer protection organizations to promote radon testing and mitigation, and
to educate building owners and managers about good indoor air quality practices.
6-23
-------
Number of U.S. Households Mitigated for Radon
600
-------
10
Safe Drinking Water
Goal All Americans will have a safe source of drinking water. By , X percent of the
population served by public water systems will drink water that meets EPA
standards for contaminant levels.
Background United States drinking waters are among the safest in the world. Once-common
deadly waterborne diseases, such as typhoid fever and cholera, have almost
been eliminated. Yet despite this progress, waterborne disease and chemical
contamination remain a national concern. Microbiological contaminants, such as
bacteria and viruses, are the most common problem. Between 1971 and 1988,
reported waterborne diseases affected an average of 7,700 people per year.
The 1993 disease outbreak in Milwaukee reportedly caused 370,000 people to
become sick. Chemical contaminants, including lead, nitrates, fluoride,
pesticides, radioactive materials, and disinfectants used in water treatment, also
threaten people's health.
Public water systems serve an estimated 230 million Americans. Almost two-
thirds of these people live in or near major metropolitan areas, where rivers and
lakes are the principal water source. Underground aquifers are the source of
water for most people living in other areas. Groundwater pollution comes from a
wide variety of sources, including septic tanks, underground storage tanks,
farms, and waste disposal sites. Rivers and lakes are polluted by industrial
facilities, sewage treatment plants, runoff from farms and urban areas, and
deposition of air pollutants. Drinking water treatment and delivery systems (pipes)
also may inadvertently contaminate water with lead, disinfectants and their by-
products, and fluoride.
Approximately 73 percent of public water systems meet all current standards
and monitoring requirements. Small systems serving less than 3,300 people are
responsible for most violations.
EPA's Roles The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) directs EPA to establish national drinking
water standards, or "Maximum Contaminant Levels" (MCLs) and monitoring and
testing requirements. If MCLs are exceeded, EPA requires public water systems
to install treatment. Every public water supply system serving 25 or more people
must meet these standards.
Amendments to the SDWA in 1986 required EPA to accelerate its
establishment of drinking water standards. In 1986, national standards existed for
23 contaminants. EPA now regulates 84 contaminants and expects to have
standards for 111 by the end of 1996. The amendments also banned future use
of lead in public drinking water systems, required filtration and disinfection of most
public water supplies, established a program to prevent contamination of areas
around ground water wells, and tightened controls on injection of hazardous
waste into underground disposal wells.
EPA must enforce the MCLs until states are qualified to do so. If a state
cannot meet the requirements, EPA conducts the program. EPA also is
authorized to take actions against public water systems when states are slow to
enforce the law, or when a state asks EPA to act.
Roles of Others Once a state adopts standards at least as strict as the national MCLs and is able to
carry out adequate monitoring and enforcement, it is given primary enforcement
authority for the drinking water program. Forty-nine states and 6 territories now
have this authority.
Water suppliers are responsible for periodic testing of their water. They must
report any violations of standards to the appropriate state agency and to the
public through newspaper, television, or radio announcements. Public water
systems currently in compliance with all standards may have to undertake new
treatment technologies to meet the new standards being set under the 1986
amendments.
6-25
-------
Community Water Systems with MCL Violations
(A
S 5
2 1
0) H-
E
3
•mmm.
My.'//W//M'jV/.
m&ww
~ Number of Systems
¦ Population Served
10
¦o
®
8)
»
£
o
o
3
a
o
CL
Type of Contaminant Involved in Violations
Monitoring/Reporting and MCL Violations
~ M/R Violations
~ MCL Violations
2«1-
morpft/uci Organic* RMetogcat LMd ft
Type of Contaminant
Source: USEPA National Public Water Supply Supervision Program, 1993
Statistical Quality: Data are based upon self-reporting of analytical results by
regulated facilities and manual determinations by State of non-compliance.
Quality of data reported to EPA varies by State.
Scientific Validity: Population served by non-complying public water systems is
a good surrogate for potential exposure of users of public water systems to
contaminants known to pose adverse health effects.
Areas the indicator Fails to Address: Does not address private wells and non-
public water supplies. Also does not specifically address population with actual
health effects from contaminants.
2-26
-------
11 Safe Food
Goals In cooperation with other federal agencies, we will fully protect the safety of our
nation s food. We will ensure that all pesticides on food meet safety standards.
All pesticides that do not meet standards will be off the market by the year
. EPA will seek the adoption of integrated pest management methods on
75 percent of America's farmland by the year 2000.
Background Although the United States food supply is one of the safest in the world, some
foods contain low levels of pesticide residues. Other toxic chemicals also can
cause problems. Lead, for example, may enter food from glazes on ceramicware
or from leaded crystal. Toxic chemicals and bacteria in water threaten the health
of people who eat contaminated fish and shellfish. People who eat large
amounts of locally-caught fish in polluted areas are particularly at risk. Infants and
children are especially susceptible to poisoning by chemicals in food because
they eat more food relative to their body weight.
EPA's Roles Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, EPA sets "tolerance" levels, or
maximum legal limits, for pesticide residues in food and animal feed. Limits also
are set for pesticides that can pollute waters and then appear in fish tissues. In
setting these levels, EPA takes into account the potential threats to infants,
children, and other groups who are at higher risk. EPA has approved about 300
pesticides for food uses; about 200 of them are commonly used in the U.S.
In addition to regulating new pesticides, EPA reviews existing pesticides that
were approved before current scientific and regulatory standards were
developed. In this "re-registration" process, new scientific data may be used to
reduce tolerance levels, modify allowable uses of a pesticide, or ban it altogether.
EPA also provides scientific criteria to aid states in setting water pollution
limits that protect fisheries and takes actions to prevent and clean up releases of
hazardous substances that can contaminate fish. EPA is working with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to promote innovative agricultural techniques, such as
"integrated pest management," that reduce the use of pesticides.
Roles of Others The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the primary federal responsibility for
protecting the Nation's food supply. FDA establishes safe levels for poisonous
substances (other than pesticides) in foods. FDA enforces these limits as well as
the pesticide tolerances set by EPA. FDA monitors all domestically produced and
imported foods travelling in interstate commerce except meat, poultry, and some
egg products which are monitored by the Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). FDA also conducts the Total Diet Study, which
measures the American consumer's daily intake of pesticides from foods that are
bought in typical supermarkets and grocery stores, and prepared as they would
be in a household setting. The study indicates that dietary levels of most
pesticides-from all foods combined-are less than one percent of the maximum
levels that EPA considers acceptable. FSIS annually conducts 10,000 to 20,000
analyses of pesticide residues on meat, poultry, and dairy products. Fewer than
one percent of these tests show illegal residues.
States ensure the safety of food that is produced and sold within their
boundaries. Some states have their own monitoring programs and regulations
regarding residues of pesticides and other toxic chemicals on food that is
produced and sold within state borders. States set water pollution limits to
prevent contamination of fish and shellfish. States issue warnings to consumers
not to eat fish or shellfish contaminated with toxic chemicals. If there is evidence
of bacterial pollution, the state closes the waters to shellfishing.
6-27
-------
Actions Taken to Reduce Dietary Risk
1.2
IA
C
o
Data on number of
actions taken to
reduce dietary risk
u
0.8
<
o
E
z
0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
Source: USEPA Office ot Pesticides, 1993
Statistical Quality: Good. Data are based on measures of program activity.
Scientific Validity: Not a scientific measure.
Areas the Indicator Does Not Address: This is a quantitative measure that
measure program activity. It does not measure the actual exposure to
pesticides through diet, therefore it serves as one among several possible
surrogate measures.
6-28
-------
12
Worker Safety
Goal In cooperation with other federal agencies, EPA will continuously reduce the
number of workers facing unsafe exposures to harmful chemicals due to regular
working conditions, and EPA will strive to reduce the rate at which chemical
accidents occur in the workplace.
Background The United States labor force now includes over 125 million people, and most
spend a major portion of their day in the workplace. Premature deaths, diseases,
and injuries resulting-from workplace environmental conditions continue to be an
important national problem. In 1986, it was estimated that each year 4C0,CC0
workers become ill from exposure to hazardous substances in the workplace and
about 100,000 die prematurely from these exposures.
Agriculture workers are a particularly high-risk group. Many farm workers
suffer health problems from handling pesticides, applying them, or working where
they have been applied. These problems range from relatively minor short-term
irritations of skin or eyes to fatal poisonings, and from cancer in wo'rkers to birth
defects in their children. Industrial workplaces where hazardous chemicals are
used also pose a broad range of potential threats to workers, who may be harmed
by cumulative, day-to-day exposures to chemicals in work areas or by sudden,
large exposures resulting from accidents.
EPA's Roles To protect workers on farms and in forests, nurseries and greenhouses against
harm from pesticides, EPA has issued Worker Protection Standards that govern
use of agricultural pesticides. The standards set specifications for the equipment
used to apply pesticides, mandate protective clothing for workers, and establish
minimum time intervals following pesticide applications before workers can enter a
treated area. In addition, the standards require safety training for all workers who
may come into contact with pesticides. EPA requires workers who handle or
apply the most hazardous pesticides to receive more rigorous training and
certification in proper pesticide use.
To protect workers against harm from industrial chemicals, EPA works with
agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to
develop standards for safe levels of chemicals in the workplace. When a chemical
poses significant health or environmental threats, EPA may restrict its use,
require safety precautions, or ban it entirely.
Roles of Others OSHA, part of the Department of Labor, has the primary federal role in reducing
job-related injuries or deaths. To protect workers against harm from airborne
chemicals in the workplace, OSHA has set permissible Exposure Limits for
several hundred substances. OSHA also establishes rules for handling and
storing hazardous chemicals in work areas and requires use of protective clothing
and equipment to prevent worker exposure.
The states are responsible for running federally-approved certification and
training programs for users of the most hazardous pesticides. State programs
have certified over one million applicators. Health organizations ranging from
federal agencies to local clinics work to ensure that medical practitioners are
trained to recognize early effects of exposure and to warn workers if they have
incurred health effects from pesticides.
6-29
-------
»
j California Data on Worker Poisonings
« 1-2
O)
c
'E
o
.<£ 0.8
o
a.
k»
4J
5 0.4
5
©
* 0
California Data on it of
Worker Poisonings per
Thousand Applications.
i
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
Source: USE PA Office of Pesticides, 1993
Statistical Quality. Believed to be c' fair quality. It is difficult to assess the
relative amount of error due to underreporting by physicians and applicators.
Scientific Validity: Each case c' poisoning is investigated by the county
agricultural commission and is further verified by the California EPA.
Areas the Indicator Does Mot Address: Does not give a direct measure of
actual exposure of workers to pesticides, therefore it serves as one among
several possible surrogate measures. Only California data are currently
available.
b-jU
-------
Improved Understanding of the
13 Environment
Goal We will ensure that the public has access to good information about sources of
pollution in their communities, how people and environmental systems respond
to pollutants and other stresses, and what people can do to lower risks to their
health and environment. We will inform the public about how the quality of the
nation's environment is improving or worsening.
Background Ignorance about environmental problems jeopordizes human health and the
world's ecological balance. We must develop much better technical knowledge
and skills to anticipate environmental problems, estimate their risks, and identify
practical solutions. Improved understanding of environmental systems will enable
us to determine acceptable exposures to and releases of pollutants, and
measure the environmental benefits of risk management actions.
Better environmental protection requires public understanding, participation
and support. A knowledgeable public can make environmentally-sound personal
and business decisions, and is more likely to support use of public resources to
manage important environmental problems. Public information also helps people
handle environmental problems that the government has limited authority to
control, such as radon and tobacco smoke in homes.
EPA's Roles EPA conducts research in many fields, including environmental health,
environmental technology, ecological systems, monitoring methods, and risk
assessment. EPA research has served as the basis for regulations and policies
for environmental protection.
EPA has started an Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program to
monitor the condition of the nation's ecological resources. Data from EMAP will
indicate whether serious changes are occuring and help identify their causes.
EPA works with other federal and state agencies to produce reports on the
status of the environment. For example, EPA makes information about releases
of toxic chemicals available so that people can identify chemical releases from
industrial plants in their community. The availability of this information gives
industrial firms a strong incentive to reduce pollution.
EPA distributes publications that provide information about environmental
problems, the government programs that address them, and the actions people
can take to reduce them. EPA also operates many telephone hotlines that
provide the public with environmental information.
To promote environmental education, EPA trains environmental
professionals, funds programs such as the national Environmental Education and
Training Program and the Pollution Prevention Center to develop curricula and
train teachers, and provides grants to support environmental education.
Roles of Others State and local governments have primary responsibility for education in the U.S.,
but the federal government also has important roles. The Department of
Education has developed the "America 2000" strategy with goals that include
becoming the the world leader in science by 2000. The Federal Coordinating
Council on Science, Engineering and Technology is working to identify and
assist U.S. government programs that will help train a work force ready for the
upcoming environmental challenges. Various federal agencies are responsible
for educating the public about environmental issues relevant to their programs.
For example, the National Park Service educates visitors about the environments
in National Parks. The Agriculture department, in partnership with state and local
governments and land-grant universities, provides training in natural resources
and environmental management in nearly every county.
Many private organizations provide educational materials ranging from
magazines for children to fact sheets on specific environmental problems.
6-31
-------
Access to EPA Environmental Data
(Distribution through Public Libraries)
1 2
VI
t
o
a
a>
cc
"o
*
08 -
0 4 r
Data on # of EPA
Reports and Publicatons
Provided to Public
Libraries.
1992
1994
1996
Year
1998
2000
Source: USEPA Office of Administration and Resources Management, 1993
Data Quality: The statistical quality is considered to be high.
Scientific Validity: Not a scientific measurement. This is a quantitative measure
that records program activity over time.
Areas the Indicator Does Not Address: The measure does not address the
effectiveness of the accessed information in increasing understanding of the
environment
Access to EPA Environmental Data
(Distnbution through the Internet)
2
8.
-------
For further information, please contact
Mr. Derry Allen, Acting Director
Office of Strategic Planning & Environmental Data (2161)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-4028 FAX 202/260-0275
Mr. Peter Truitt, Goals Project Manager
Environmental Results Branch (2162)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-8214 FAX 202/260
y-33
-------
Setting National Goals for
-------
Setting National Goals
for
Environmental Protection
- A Project Briefing -
January 12, 1994
-------
Purpose of EPA's National Goals Project
• To state the environmental outcomes we are seeking in terms
that are clear to the public.
• To engage stakeholders in the goal-setting process.
• To design goal-directed strategies.
• To develop indicators for measuring progress toward goal-
attainment, evaluating strategies, and evaluating performance.
-------
( The National Environmental Goals Project ^
What Do We Mean by
"Environmental Goals?"
• Tier 1 goal: first, the condition of the environment we
ultimately are trying to achieve; second, the condition we are
seeking to reach by a certain date, expressed in measurable
terms if possible.
• Tier 2 objective: reductions in the causes or sources of
problems encompassed by a Tier 1 goal, expressed in
measurable terms.
• Tier 3 action target: actions that governments and others will
complete to achieve a Tier 2 objective — and ultimately a Tier 1
goal.
^ )
-------
r
The National Environmental Goals Project
Tier 1:
Tier 2:
Tier 3:
Example: Clean Surface Waters
All the lakes, rivers and bays of the United States will be clean and safe for human recreation and they will support
healthy and edible fish, shellfish and wildlife. By , at least x percent of the surface waters will fully meet standards
set by the states to protect aquatic life and human health. Baseline: EPA estimates that y percent of the nation's waters
currently support recreation and healthy aquatic communities.
Estimated required
reductions of nutrients,
sediment and
pesticides from
agricultural sources.
Estimated required
reductions of BOD,
nutrients,sediment &
high-risk toxics from
urban stormwater and
combined sewers.
Estimated required
reductions of air-
deposited nutrients and
toxics.
Estimated required
increase in riparian zones
that are perforr'ning their
natural ecosystem
functions.
Estimated required
increase in unobstructed
river miles needed for
passage of migratory fish.
EPA actions
-OW
-OPPTS
-OPPE
DOI actions
DOA actions
EPA actions
-OW
-OPPTS
DOT actions
CoE actions
EPA actions
-OW
-OAR
DOE actions
DOT actions
DOI actions
DOA actions
EPA actions
DOD actions
DOT actions
DOI actions
DOD actions
EPA actions
-------
The National Environmental Goals Project
Three Categories of Environmental Goals
MWCMMM
EPA has primary Federal
responsibility
Clean Air
Clean Water
Prevention of Toxic Releases
Cleanup of Contaminated
Sites
EPA has partial but important
responsibility
• Global Climate Change
• Ecological Protection
• Safe Food
• Worker Safety
Safe Drinking Water
Protection of the
Ozone Layer
Improved Understanding
of the Environment
Safe Indoor Environment
Prevention of Spills and
Accidents
Outside EPA's areas of responsibility
Public Lands Management
Infectious Diseases
EPA's National
Environmental
Goals Project --
Other Agencies
May Cooperate
Other Agencies'
Goals Projects --
EPA Cooperating
o-
CO
O
a
¦4—1
c
cd
G
cd
4—'
CO
Zi
cn
c
.2
03
Z
CO
Q
GO
o
Oh
-------
The Public Meetings
Roundtables (one in each region) organized by Regions:
• 30 spokespersons from environmental groups, economic development groups, and
state/local/tribal governments,
• senior government officials in the region and the Administrator (at most of them).
• Public invited, mostly as observers.
• Round One (Jan - April) will discuss public concerns, expectations,
and possible goals).
• Round Two will discuss EPA's proposed goal§.
-------
Who Is Involved?
EPA Goals Leadership Team (office directors, senior regional
managers, state/tribal representatives) is "board of directors."
OPPE is managing staffwork.
Programs will help provide data, conduct analyses, draft goals.
Regions and states will organize public meetings, help run
them, and help develop and review goals.
Public will identify goal topics and comment on proposed goals.
Other federal agencies may join us.
-------
CThe National Environmental Goals Project )
The Goals Project is going to help set the direction of EPA's and the nation's environmental
efforts, so obviously it is an extremely important undertaking. I look forward to working
with you as we proceed.
Carol Browner
For further information, contact vour AA/RA's office, or write or call:
Derry Allen, Acting Director
Office of Strategic Planning & Environmental Data (2161)
US Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4028 FAX: 202-260-0275
Peter Truitt, Project Manager
Strategic Planning & Management Division (2162)
US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-8214 FAX: 202-260-4903
Jay Benforado, Deputy Director
ORD/OSPRE
202-260-7669
Denise Graveline, Dep. Assoc. Admin
OCEPA
202-260-7963
David O'Connor, Assoc. Comptroller
OARM/OC
202-260-9674
Mike Cook, Director
OW/OWEC
202-260-5850
Mark Greenwood, Director
OPPTS/OPPT"
202-260-38 lb
Nlargo Oge, Director
Q^R/ORIA
202-233-9320
Dave Davis, Deputy Director
OW/OWOW
202-260-7166
Walt Kovalick, Act. Dep. Asst. Admin
OSWER
202-260-4610
Abby Pirnie, Director
OA/OCEM
202-260-8079
Courtney Riordan, Director
ORD/OEPER
202-260-5950
Dick Sanderson,rDirector
OE/OFA
202-260-5053
Stan Laskowski, DRA
Region 3
215-597-9814
Bill Hathaway, DRA
Region 6
-214-655-2100
------- |