-------
From the Regional Administrator

                            t*^.^*>£




^l^ftPS^S^SsfeSs
                                        r/ce
                       'es.


                            «»«£^e^>'
                              ? to arwT^ Wjl0.,anien^,Centr;

                                   **%$$?.  /


-------
table  of contents
     introduction	
     water	4
     superfund	6
     air	8
     waste & chemicals	10
     ecosystems	12
     drinking water & food	14
     beyond our borders	16
     atlas	17
     more	22
     reaching us	24
     dedication	inside back cover
     student gallery	back cover

-------
introduction
        Welcome.  And thanks for taking the
      time to read this report.


      The Doppler Effect
        Have you ever noticed the sound a
      train makes as it approaches from a
      distance?  Its  faint wail steadily builds
      in pitch and confidence until it achieves
      a blaring urgency that grips your
      attention.  As the train passes by and
      recedes into the distance, its sound
      likewise diminishes in pitch until it is
      no longer audible. It's called the
      Doppler Effect.
        Some would say that the interest in
      things environmental has, in Doppler
      terms, already crested and begun to
      lose its voice. This is anything but true
      here in the Pacific Northwest, where
      even casual attention would indicate
      that there is steadily growing interest in
      environmental issues.
        Why? Why is there such intense
      interest here? It says volumes about
      this place, the people who live here,
      and the changes it is undergoing.
      Whether you're native-born to the area,
      have moved here from somewhere else,
      have visited here, or would just like to
      know that there is a place like this
      somewhere, this region offers
surpassing beauty, diversity,
opportunity, and choice.  Its special
attraction stems from both what we see
and how we see ourselves in it.
   For all of the possible perspectives, a
common thread that seems to bind all of
us tightly to this place is the sheer level
of care and concern it inspires about
what is happening to it and to us.
Regardless of our age, race, gender, or
occupation, the environment is a pretty
central feature of our lives by choice and
necessity - we all live in it and  it in us,
we sustain and are sustained by it, and
we change and are changed by it.
   Perhaps we have chosen to pay such
close attention to our environment
because it's one of few things that we
have all been given and will give to all
those that follow.  It's a mirror that
reflects who we are as a society and
what we mean to become.
   The Doppler effect.  It's about
change.  So is this report.

Your EPA...
   The Environmental  Protection
Agency was created in 1970.
There's nothing ambiguous about the
name we were given. You expect
nothing less from us than the protection
of our country's rich environment, to
turn the noun into a verb - to act.  Your
representatives in Congress enact laws
from which EPA derives its basic
authority and direction.  These laws are
by turns  incredibly complex, far-
reaching, and ambitious.  Putting these
laws into practice is no small chore.
...and EPA Region 10
  While there are compelling reasons
to promote basic consistency in
environmental protection across the
entire country, EPA also believes it is
sensible to craft solutions that 'fit' more
localized circumstances.  In creating
Regional offices throughout the  country
(there are ten such offices), EPA has
chosen  to cultivate a real familiarity
with the people, the public and private
organizations, and, of course, the
environment its work affects.  EPA
Region 10 has taken this approach a bit
further, locating staff in 11 offices
throughout Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington.
  If all of this still sounds rather
bureaucratic, distant, even dull, there is
also a very human face to  it.  Whether
attempting to ensure that its actions are
consistent with the spirit, as well as
letter of the law, or finding the often
elusive  balance between the needs of
the few and the welfare of the many, it
is finally the people within EPA who
must adopt and act on a point of view.
Whatever EPA says,  however it decides
to act, individuals and groups of
individuals are surely behind it.
  This isn't easy work. There is a lot
of it, and it can be tremendously
difficult. We like the challenge. And
it's gratifying to know we're working
on something that is so vitally
important to all of us.
  You  might ask why the presence of a
federal  agency like EPA Region  10 is
needed  when there are already an array
of environmental programs run by all
of the States and more than a few local
communities and tribes. Aren't they in
a better position to provide basic
environmental protection? Isn't this
redundancy both inefficient and
confusing?
Our Work With Others
   The answers to these questions are
not simple.  This is a much-discussed
and complicated issue these days.
While there are many points of
agreement, it would be less than
genuine to suggest that there are not
honest, sometimes sharp differences of
opinion among those of us in the
business of protecting the environment.
   This is a natural result of differing
mandates, circumstances, and
viewpoints. But they can also be seen
as a healthy expression of the system of
checks and balances that the public so
consistently supports. And in reality,
no single one of these environmental
agencies really has either sufficient
authority or resources to cover  the
entire sweep of environmental
concerns.
   In response to this, the Region has
begun to work with these other
organizations in a far more coordinated
fashion than ever before. The goal is to
promote greater overall effectiveness
and efficiency in protecting the
environment by reducing wasteful
overlap and by filling gaps in coverage.
This seems sensible  to us: doing our
jobs better and at lower cost through
thoughtful  collaboration with others.
All while acknowledging the value of
preserving our own distinctive
identities.
   For all too obvious reasons,  this
approach can be much more difficult to
manage than simply working alone.
Nevertheless, we're  committed to it.

-------
                                                        When I  grow up,  I want the world to be clean."
                                                                                                                            Eskedar Angaw, 11
Our Environment
   Hasn't the environment been getting
cleaner over the years? Why don't we
just declare victory and move on?
These are really provocative questions.
We hope the following answers help.
   It's true that we've all made
remarkable progress over the past 25
years in cleaning up the  environment.
Real facts, actual data reveal that with
few exceptions this is so. Our air is
cleaner.  Our streams, rivers, lakes, and
coastal waters are cleaner.  Our land is
cleaner.  Our food and drinking water
are safer. And there is much more that
can be added to this record of success
for which we should all be both proud
and relieved.
   But this isn't the entire story because
of three related challenges.
   First of all, we all know that there is
a difference  between "cleaner"  and
"clean enough".  Despite real progress,
there are portions of some  problems
that have proved stubbornly resistant to
positive change.  In most instances, we
have already exhausted the less
expensive, 'easier' solutions (they were
anything but easy). So, it's perhaps
surprising that cleaning up the last
portions  of the problems may actually
prove more difficult, expensive, and/or
controversial than when  we originally
addressed them - demanding more
effort from us than ever before.
   Secondly, we know there are
problems in  the environment that we
haven't discovered yet or that have
changed  in character.  The discovery
process is really an ongoing activity,
shaped by both limits on available
resources and advances in science and
technology.  This region  is so huge,
diverse, and complex, that we've had to
carefully choose what we'll look into
and when.  Further, changes in the
character of some problems over time
require us to continually re-examine the
status of our knowledge, priorities, and
solutions.
   Lastly, we don't want to forfeit any
of our hard-won environmental
successes by not paying attention to
either maintenance issues or emerging
problems.  Maintenance isn't very
glamorous stuff, but guarding against
deterioration is a basic part of our
work. And we take very seriously our
responsibility to look forward to detect
and head-off new threats to the
environment.  Rapid projected
population growth throughout this
region is one such real threat to
maintaining our quality of life.


About This Report
   We're responsible for letting you
know how effective we are at our work.
Our aim in this  report is to familiarize
you with the nature and results of our
work  and that of others we work with.
We've made an  attempt to show you a
range of our experience: where  we've
been successful, where we've got work
in progress, and where we're
struggling.
   We'd also like to stimulate a little
curiosity, a desire to learn more about
this amazing place, to care more about
it, to act with us in trying to protect it.
After  all, it's your place. It's a big job.
We need your help and support.
   We hope you'll understand that we
couldn't possibly present  everything we
do, everything we know in a report of
this length. We've tried to highlight
some  of the more important trends and
challenges we see in our environment.
We understand that you're probably
interested not only in the bigger
picture, but in what's happening closer
to home as well. Toward that end,
we've prepared  an atlas of a few select
environmental problems, displayed on a
state-by-state basis.
  We've condensed much of the
information so that it "fits" into the
report.  This compromises both detail
and some scientific accuracy. We
encourage you to be mindful  of this
when reading the report. You should
also be aware that for all the
information displayed, and for all the
massive amounts of additional
information we  possess, we have much
more to learn about the environment
here. This means that there are gaps, in
some instances significant gaps,  in our
understanding of how the environment
works,  where the problems are, and
how we should  approach solving them.
  We plan on preparing a report like
this on a regular basis, perhaps
annually.  You should see both basic
continuity in the information  we
present, and some progressive
improvements that better respond to
your interests.  Let us know what you
think.
  Finally, the Region  has formed a
special relationship with High Point
Elementary School in West Seattle.  We
have a  number of volunteers who
regularly help the teachers and kids
with tutoring and the like. We've
presented some  of the kids' thoughts on
the environment in the form of quotes
in each of the chapter headings, and
poster art (back cover). We think
they're delightful and  provocative.
  Here goes...

-------
water
      Follow the water. It'll carry you
   through the life and times of the Pacific
   Northwest. Take a moment and think
   of it.  Native Americans pulled fish,
   oysters, clams, and  fur-bearing animals
   from it. Loggers rafted timber on it.
   Farmers irrigated crops with it.
   Ranchers herded cattle to it. Miners
   sluiced ores in it. Nuclear reactors are
   cooled with it. Fine wines are nurtured
   by it.  Windsurfers sail on it. It goes on
   and on...
      It seems that water is the engine
   driving much of our lives.  Whether
   there's too little or too much of it,
   whether it's fouled or pure, whether it's
   wild or tame - we depend on water.
   And now, it often depends on us.
      Our goal is to protect and enhance
   the quality and quantity of the great
   water resources we  have in the Pacific
   Northwest. We're working hard so that
   streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries
   support healthy aquatic life. We want a
   clean  drinking water supply for all
   people.  We want our water resources
   to meet all our needs.

   Defining Clean (Enough)
      Nowhere is the phrase - "in the eye
   of the beholder" - more apt than in
describing how we determine whether
water is clean enough or not.  We use a
two step process.
  We - EPA and state, local,  and tribal
agencies - look at a body of water and
assign it a beneficial value, some use
which we intend for it to fulfill. Called
"beneficial use", it's expressed in terms
such as swimmable, fishable,  and
drinkable.  But that's not all.  Criteria
are then assigned to define what
"clean" is. The criteria for water
quality standards include temperature,
nutrients, sediments, turbidity
(cloudiness), dissolved oxygen, metals
and toxics.
  States and tribes are working to
develop their own standards too.  These
standards can be different, but no less
protective than the federal criteria.
  Taken  together, these standards
establish what actions are needed to
reduce  pollution entering the
waterbody.  As you can imagine, this is
extremely complicated and time-
consuming.


Charting Uncharted  Waters
  Since the passage of the Clean Water
Act in 1972, EPA and the states have
been continually updating lists of
                             What You Can Do

    Here are some ways you can help us make a difference in protecting the quality of
    surface and ground waters:
    1. Limit your use of lawn and garden  chemicals; use them sparingly and apply in
      the recommended amounts.
    2. Never dump oil, gasoline, or household chemicals down the drain or on the
      ground.
    3. Reduce your water usage and recycle your water to your plants.
    4. If you have an old heating oil tank  on your property, have it checked for leaks
      by a professional.
    5. Prevent pets and  other domestic animals from entering streams, rivers or lakes.
    6. If you're on a septic system, check and maintain it regularly.
waterbodies which do not meet water
quality standards. Surveying the status
of all these streams, rivers, and lakes is
an enormous challenge.
  Not surprisingly, we haven't finished
this work yet.  And we haven't re-
evaluated whether the status of many
                                    waterbodies have changed over time.
                                    More about this later.
                                    The Regional Picture
                                       By the end of 1996, the number of
                                    waterbodies listed  as impaired are:
                                    Alaska-53, Idaho-962, Oregon-867, and
 Status of Water Quality in Washington, Oregon and Idaho
                                                  Lakes
                                              (Square Miles)
(1996)
                                                                                                   Streams
                                                                                                   (Miles)
                                                                                (Alaska data not available)

-------
     I will  turn off the water when I am  brushing my teeth  and washing my  face
                                                                 and I will  not  drop  garbage in  the water."
                                                                                                                            Daniel Siea, 10
                                                                                                                             The Shoalwaters:
                                                                                                                            A Watershed Story
Cleaning Up Underground
Storage Tanks
             Confirmed

             Cleanups Underway

             Cleanups Completed
                 94     95
                   Year
                             96
Washington-666. This distribution can
be seen in the Atlas section of the
report.
   Through the 1980's, we focused
heavily on end-of-pipe pollution
discharges, called point sources.
Municipal sewage treatment plants,
stormwater systems, factories, mills,
mines, metal works, food processors,
and some animal feedlot operations are
examples of major point sources.
   The states and EPA control pollution
at about 1,000 point sources through
permits issued under our National
Pollutant Discharge  Elimination
System (NPDES).  Congress intended
for the states to assume primary
responsibility for the NPDES program.
Washington and Oregon have taken this
on.  We will continue to manage the
NPDES program in Idaho and Alaska
until such time as they accept
responsibility for  it.
  We have found that buried
petroleum storage tanks and injection
wells are also significant sources of
groundwater contamination.  For
example, of the 34,000 commercial
underground storage tanks currently in
use throughout the Northwest (not
including residential heating oil tanks),
12,320 have confirmed petroleum
leaks. To date, only 4,900 have been
completely cleaned up. By 1998, all
tanks are required to have corrosion
protection to reduce the risk of future
groundwater contamination.


Changing Emphasis
   Give this story problem a try: If a
problem at site A is caused by
contributions from both sites B and C,
then do we need to cleanup 1) B, 2) C,
or 3) both?  There's really not enough
information to answer this properly -
which is the basis for changing the way
we go about solving problems.
   In the 1990's, we began looking at
water quality problems on a watershed
basis (the area from which water drains
into a river system). Nearly every
human activity within a watershed has
some impact on its water quality. Fully
understanding the influence of these
activities creates the best chance for us
to craft effective  solutions.
   We also know that controlling only
what comes out the end of a pipe often
doesn't get the job done.  Water quality
can also be significantly affected by
non-point sources of pollution, such as
agricultural  and logging activities,
urban runoff, and homeowner actions.
We're working with other agencies,
organizations, and individuals to
develop ways to reduce these kinds of
impacts on water quality.
   A major part of the history and
economy of the Northwest,  mining has
also  contributed to the contamination of
our rivers, lakes,  and ground water. It
is estimated that there are over 12,500
abandoned or inactive mine sites in the
Northwest, covering 64,500 acres. We
recently formed a "mining team," with
experts in many scientific and technical
fields, to address  the complex
environmental problems caused by
mining activities.


Behind the Record
   We're responsible for and assist
other environmental agencies in
enforcing clean water laws.  But
enforcement of environmental
regulations alone will get us only part
way toward the cleaner water we want.
Education, technical assistance, and
information sharing programs are all
important aspects of our job.
   We're working to develop and
promote new business practices and
technologies which prevent water
pollution.  A good example is the
agreement between the Idaho Division
of Environmental Quality, the Idaho
Department of Agriculture, the Idaho
Dairy Farmers Association, and
ourselves.  With over 1,400 Idaho dairy
farms, we  alone could not conduct
annual inspections. Under this
agreement, ISDA performs
environmental assessments during its
regular milk quality inspections,
advising us if enforcement actions are
needed to protect public health or the
environment.


The Future
   As a result of several lawsuits,
federal courts have required  that we
find and solve water quality problems
throughout the region on a very
accelerated schedule.  Meeting this
requirement will be an exceedingly
difficult challenge over the next few
years since many waterbodies have  not
yet been evaluated.
   As the Northwest grows, so  do the
stresses on our water resources. Waters
from streams and aquifers are often
being pumped or drained to levels too
low to maintain healthy  plant and

                                                                                                                      The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe,
                                                                                                                    living on the shores of Willapa Bay in
                                                                                                                    Southwest Washington, recently
                                                                                                                    reported an alarming array of
                                                                                                                    reproductive problems, including an
                                                                                                                    unusually high infant mortality rate.
                                                                                                                    An abandoned dump, pesticide and
                                                                                                                    herbicide spraying, runoff from
                                                                                                                    cranberry farming, and drinking water
                                                                                                                    were suspected sources of these
                                                                                                                    problems.
                                                                                                                      To determine what was causing
                                                                                                                    these problems, we went to the field
                                                                                                                    and collected environmental samples,
                                                                                                                    analyzed them, and performed an
                                                                                                                    evaluation of the results.  While no
                                                                                                                    specific environmental cause could be
                                                                                                                    found to explain  the reproductive
                                                                                                                    problems, our work did identify
                                                                                                                    actions the Tribe could take to
                                                                                                                    enhance the health and welfare of
                                                                                                                    their community. It also revealed
                                                                                                                    several significant threats to the
                                                                                                                    pristine and fragile Willapa Bay
                                                                                                                    ecosystem.
                                                                                                                      Our commitment to both sound,
                                                                                                                    hands-on science, and collaborative
                                                                                                                    problem-solving has helped this
                                                                                                                    community - Tribe and local industry
                                                                                                                    alike - begin working together to
                                                                                                                    protect the ecosystem they share.

                                                                                                                    animal life or to ensure sufficient
                                                                                                                    quantities of water for our use.  As a
                                                                                                                    result, some of the states are
                                                                                                                    considering closing or have already
                                                                                                                    closed some areas to further water
                                                                                                                    withdrawal.  But it's not just a quantity
                                                                                                                    issue.  With more people comes more
                                                                                                                    stress on water quality.
                                                                                                                      We can greatly improve the quality
                                                                                                                    of the water we have.  We're working
                                                                                                                    hard to stay ahead of the challenges.



-------
superfund
          Imagine literally thousands of
     junkyards, dump sites, and industrial
     facilities scattered across the U.S.
     contaminated with a remarkable variety
     of hazardous materials. Think of these
     sites, many abandoned due to safety or
     liability concerns, many more
     spreading contamination to nearby
     rivers, underlying groundwater, or into
     the air.
        This was reality prior to 1980.
     There were no national laws regulating
     the disposal of hazardous waste.  And
     although another EPA program (see
     RCRA in Waste Chapter) would
     eventually be created to prevent such
     problems from occurring in the future,
     there was no federal authority to  clean
     up sites and facilities that were no
     longer operating.
        A sensible person might have asked
     some questions. Are any of these
     facilities near me? Do they pose a
     health risk to me, to my family, to my
     neighbors? Are plants and animals
     being affected? Who created the
     problem? Who's responsible for
     solving it?
        Created by Congress in  1980,
     Superfund is designed to protect human
     health and the  environment through
     fast, effective cleanup of priority
     hazardous waste sites and releases.
     Those who created the problems are
     required to clean them up.  If they
either can't be identified or can't afford the cleanup
costs, the government moves forward with cleanup
using federal money from a trust fund supported by a
tax on the chemical and petroleum industries.
Searching for Superfund Sites
  We work with others - state, tribal,
and local agencies, and the general
public - in actively searching for sites
that may require cleanup under
Superfund.  Once identified, these sites
fall  into two basic categories.  There
are those sites which are considered
such a significant hazard to human
health or the environment that they
require immediate cleanup, known as a
removal. And there are other seriously
contaminated sites that are added to the
National Priorities List (NPL) and are
eligible for  access to Trust Fund
cleanup money if necessary.
  Still other sites discovered through
this process, but which do not formally
qualify as Superfund sites, may be
referred to states or  other agencies for
cleanup.


The Removal Program
  Removals are typically of short
duration (usually less than a year) and
involve transferring drums,
transformers, excavated contaminated
soils, and other wastes to regulated
disposal facilities.  Some removals are
                              What You Can Do

        Here are some ways you can help us clean up hazardous waste sites:
      1. Notify local authorities or EPA about a spill or a possible hazardous waste site.
        We'll look into it.
      2. If you live near a Superfund site, ask to be put on the responsible agency's
        mailing list. You'll be kept informed of site activities, public meetings, and
        decisions. Also, community groups have been formed near some sites and may
        be eligible for federal funds. We welcome your participation.
outright emergencies stemming from
fires or spills involving hazardous
materials. In non-emergencies, we
locate the party responsible for the
contamination and direct them to
perform the cleanup. If post-removal
testing of soils and groundwater reveal
that contamination levels are still of
 Completed Removals in Region 10
                                                            Cumulative
                                                          By Year
concern, the site may either be listed on
the NPL or referred to another agency
for further cleanup.
  Over 150 removals have been
completed in Region 10 since 1980.


Northwest Superfund Sites
  Of the 1210 Superfund sites located
across the country, 88 can be found in
the Pacific Northwest. Over a million
people here live within two miles of
one or more Superfund sites.  These
sites run the gamut from active
industrial facilities to small businesses,
from  less than an acre to more than 21
square miles in size.  U.S. Government
facilities are not exempt from the
Superfund law - there are 28 such
facilities on the NPL here in the
Northwest.  Most of these sites belong
to either the Department of Defense or
the Department of Energy and are
being cleaned up by them with EPA and
State oversight.

-------

                                                      You may also clean your  neighborhood to help."
                                                                                                                           Samantha Sterkel, 11
 Progress in Superfund Cleanups
   Of the region's 88 Superfund sites,
29 have been cleaned up and 14 of
them have been formally deleted from
the NPL. Final cleanups at another 32
sites are currently underway.  With
respect to the Federal Facility
Superfund sites, cleanups are underway
at 19 sites and have been completed at
eight of them. By the end  of the year
2000, nearly two thirds of today's
Superfund sites will have been cleaned
up.
   You might ask, "If the Law was
enacted in 1980, why then  have so few
sites actually been deleted  from the
NPL?"  Please read  on.


Behind the Record
   A common criticism of  Superfund is
that cleanups take too long and are too
expensive. It can take a long time to
assess problems and negotiate cleanups.
In many cases the required cleanup
technology is unproven, very
expensive, or doesn't even exist. All of
this adds up - it can take years, in some
instances decades, and a great deal of
money to clean up sites.
   Fortunately, our site managers,
engineers, and scientists are far more
experienced than ever before in solving
the myriad of problems they encounter.
And  much of the work begun at sites in
the 1980s will  be completed in the
1990s.
   Perhaps Superfund's greatest
successes are also its least advertised.
In assessing literally thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites, it has
returned most of them to productive use
by affirming that extraordinary cleanup
efforts were not in fact needed. And
two states - Washington and Oregon -
have created their own cleanup
programs modeled on the success of
Superfund.
   Superfund hasn't been left behind on
the innovation front either. For
instance, EPA started a pilot program in
1995 to help cities and other local
agencies identify and evaluate
"Brownfields"  sites.  These are
abandoned industrial sites that can be
returned to productive use by new
businesses. We think the potential
benefits of this initiative are two-fold:
creating jobs and tax revenue in
previously unproductive, blighted areas
and leaving more suburban
'greenfields' free from development.
Region 10 currently has seven
Brownfields pilots underway, with
more to start soon.
   Superfund has also given businesses
a powerful incentive to avoid future
environmental  and  financial liabilities
through limiting waste generation and
handling wastes more responsibly.
Many are cleaning up existing waste
sites voluntarily, with or without
oversight from federal or state
authorities.
Oil Spills & Public Awareness
   Our Superfund and Water programs,
together with the Coast Guard, are
jointly responsible for cleaning up oil
spills, and for enforcing laws meant to
prevent spills. If a facility that stores
oil reports two or more small spills, or
one large one, it must submit a spill
prevention and cleanup plan to EPA for
review.  EPA also performs inspections
of such facilities to help keep spills
from happening.
   Superfund's Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act
requires businesses using  hazardous
chemicals to  report the chemicals and
their quantities to state and local
emergency response and planning
groups.  We support these groups with
grants, technical assistance, and
training.  Our hazardous materials
response program has conducted health
and safety training at eleven villages in
Alaska in an  effort to prepare  residents
for cleanup jobs at local sites.


The Future
   The Superfund law expired in 1994.
Reauthorization has been  delayed as
Congress considers the diverse
demands of interested parties. For
example, many  businesses think the
cleanup standards are too strict, while
environmentalists think they should
stay  the same, or be made stronger.
Further, Superfund liability provisions
remain controversial. In some cases,
people are required to pay cleanup
costs for past actions that were legal at
the time. But the alternative to
retroactive liability is even less
attractive: it means using  public funds
to clean up private properties.
   Since  most existing Superfund sites
will  be cleaned up within the next few
            Bunker Hill

   The Silver Valley in Idaho's
 Panhandle has long been a center of
 mining operations,  including the
 Bunker Hill lead smelter which closed
 in 1981. Wastes were discharged into
 the Coeur d'Alene River, slag piles,
 and settling ponds in and around the
 town of Kellogg. These wastes in turn
 contaminated soils, surface water,
 groundwater, and the air.  Many
 children in the area had dangerously
 high levels of lead in their blood.
   In 1986, we began cleanup of the
 Bunker Hill smelter complex and the
 surrounding 21-square mille area,
 including four towns.  The state of
 Idaho and responsible parties have
 also been involved. Several removal
 actions eliminated the worst sources of
 contamination, such as park and
 playground soils with high levels of
 lead.  Longer term  actions include
 removing soils from residential yards
 (over 1,200 so far), replanting
 vegetation, and addressing wastes still
 residing in the Bunker Hill complex.
   Blood lead levels of children and
 adults living in the  area are  returning
 to normal levels and the natural
 habitat is being restored.
years, the focus of the program will
change. Some of the largest and most
technically  challenging sites, including
nuclear waste and marine sediment
sites, will need active cleanup for many
years to come. Others will need post-
cleanup monitoring to assure that they
remain safe. Finally, some new kinds
of sites, such as mine waste sites, are
being addressed under Superfund more
often than in the past.

-------
air
        About 5 minutes.  That's the record
     for holding your breath - and living to
     draw another.  It's not a very long time.
     After all, a person can go several days
     without water, literally months without
     food.  But breathing continuously isn't
     optional. What's in the air you breathe
     invariably winds up somewhere  inside
     of you.
        Our goal is to ensure that every
     person throughout the Northwest can
     breathe  air free of pollutants that cause
     significant  risks of cancer, respiratory
     distress, and other health problems. We
     want to clear the air of pollutants that
     damage our forests and crops, acidify
     our wilderness lakes,  and obscure our
     view of the remarkable natural wonders
     we have in such abundance here.

     The Big Seven
        Of the literally thousands of
     substances that are released to or
     subsequently form  in the air every day,
     EPA has chosen to  set national outdoor
     standards for just seven of them:  carbon
     monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen
     dioxide (NO,), ozone (0^, sulfur
     dioxide (S02), and  particulate matter in
     two size ranges - PM-10 (particles 10
     microns and smaller)  and PM-2.5
     (particles 2.5 microns and smaller).
     The reasoning behind this approach is
     both direct and subtle.
        At certain levels, these seven
     pollutants are all known to be harmful
     to either human health or the
     environment.  With some variation,
     they are also  pretty common
     ingredients of the air  in and around
     cities, towns, and other communities
     throughout the U.S. So common that
     EPA thought it sensible to create
     national standards for them.
The Regional Picture
   In 1987, there were 32 areas
throughout the Pacific Northwest which
violated air standards for three of these
seven pollutants: PM-10, CO, & 03.
Working with our state and local
agency counterparts, we've reduced the
number of current problem areas to 11.
Levels of PM-10 and CO in the
remaining problem areas have also
improved, sometimes  dramatically,
over the past 10 years (see graphic &
atlas).
   Despite this progress, thousands of
people in the Northwest continue to be
exposed to unhealthful levels of air
pollutants.  Some of these people,
especially infants, children, the elderly,
and those  with pre-existing medical
conditions, suffer from their exposure
to these and other air pollutants.
   Although we have worked hard with
our state and local agency partners to
measure and control pollutants
throughout as much of the Northwest as
possible, there are still some  areas here
which we  think have  air quality

 Improving Air Quality
£ 250
Bs
p
S  200
eS

I  15°
V
'a  100
     50
  3
  s
                        O Washington
                        O Oregon
                        D Idaho
                        • Alaska
                  Year
problems.  Extending our programs to
these 'undiscovered' areas is a
challenge, requiring innovation and
initiative.
   What are the sources of the current
PM-10 and CO problems we have here?
                                                                               Causes
                                                                                  The answer to the burning question
                                                                               of what causes most of our PM-10 and
                                                                               CO problems is, ironically - burning.
                                                                               Whether individuals and industry burn
                                                                               gasoline, wood, vegetation, trash, or
                                                                               oil, air pollution results.
                            What You Can Do

   Your efforts in helping us improve air quality have never been more important.
 Here are some things you can do:
 1. Drive less and smarter: carpool, take mass transit, tune your car, purchase more
   fuel efficient vehicles, consolidate errands, ride a bike,  etc.
 2. Reduce indoor air pollution at home, work, and schools by eliminating tobacco
   smoke, radon,  molds, and excess carbon monoxide from heating and cooking
   appliances.
 3. Weatherize your home to reduce energy-related emissions and costs. If you
   have a wood heating device, be sure it's certified and burn as cleanly as
   possible. Better yet, consider switching to a natural gas fireplace or furnace.
 4. Buy 'green' consumer products and recycle whenever possible to reduce energy
   and other production-related emissions that impact our local and global air
   quality.
 5. Get involved in urban planning issues to ensure that the effects of population
   growth on air quality are fully considered and addressed.

-------
                                                                                              I  walk to soccer practice."
                                                                                                                             Jennifer Pigott,  10
   While the sources of our PM-10
problems can vary widely from area to
area, two or more of the following
types of sources are typically involved:
woodstoves, industry, road dust, forest
and field burning, and windblown dust.
Because industrial smokestack
emissions of PM-10 have often already
been controlled to the greatest practical
extent, the focus of our efforts has
shifted toward the non-industrial
sources of pollution.
   The Northwest's CO problems are
mostly traceable to vehicle exhaust,
with smaller contributions from
woodstoves, industry, and other
combustion sources.  There are two
significant trends  seen in CO impacts.
The remarkable reduction of CO in car
exhaust achieved over the past 20 years
has, of late, been almost entirely offset
by more people driving more cars more
miles (see graphic).  Further, as urban
areas grow, problems have appeared
outside the  traditional downtown cores
in high-traffic areas around suburban
commercial and shopping centers.
   Nature also figures in our air quality
problems. The combination of terrain
and weather contributes to poor air

 More Driving Threatens
 Air Quality Improvements
quality in many areas here by trapping
pollution at ground level.


Behind the Record
   Remember the "thousands of
substances" we discussed earlier?
While not all of them are harmful to
human health or the environment at
typically occurring levels, some are.
We're addressing releases of these
substances in two ways.
   The term "co-control" means that
when we control emissions of one
pollutant, we often achieve reductions
of other pollutants that are released
along with it.  For instance, in
controlling PM-10 from  woodstoves,
we get substantial reductions in CO and
a host of other pollutants hazardous to
human health.  We have  greatly
reduced the levels of literally hundreds
of potentially hazardous  substances in
the air as a result of addressing the Big
Seven.
   In this case, less is indeed more.
   We have also begun addressing air
pollutants beyond the Big Seven with a
new  program which controls industrial
emissions of an additional 189
hazardous air pollutants.   This two-
phase program involves  first installing
basic technologies that achieve
maximum pollutant reductions,
followed by additional controls which
may  required to eliminate any
remaining human health  risks.


The Inside Story
   We haven't forgotten  that most
people, especially children, spend the
majority  of their time indoors, whether
it's at work, in schools, or at home.
Indoor air pollution consistently ranks
as one of the top four environmental
risks to human health in  the Northwest.
In fact, air pollution levels can often be
higher indoors than outdoors.
Environmental tobacco smoke, CO,
lead, other chemical substances, viruses
and bacteria, and radon (a harmful,
naturally occurring gas entering
buildings through foundations) are all
of concern to us here.
   We've developed programs to
protect children in school and day-care
settings.  We're assisting schools
throughout the Northwest in testing for
radon. We've also developed
documents and training programs that
will assist schools in finding simple,
low-cost solutions to indoor air quality
problems affecting children.
   We also assist people in dealing with
residential air pollution problems.  We
respond to hundreds of telephone
requests for information and assistance
made by residents from all four
Northwest states.  We've funded
residential indoor air studies and
assisted in funding public awareness-
education programs.
   Many people in the Northwest
complain every year of workplace  air
pollution and related illnesses  - the so-
called'sick building syndrome'. We
provide states and a tribal organizations
a comprehensive two-day course in
better managing indoor work
environments to eliminate these
problems.


The Future
   The future of air quality in  the
Northwest is subject to both change and
tension. We have very recently revised
both our particulate and 03 standards.
More protective of human health, these
revised standards may lead to  a higher
number of particulate and 03 problem
areas than we currently have in the
Northwest.

 Inner-City Asthma Programs

  One of the most serious health
effects associated with both indoor
and outdoor air pollution is asthma.
And the trends related to asthma are
not encouraging.  For instance, the
hospitalization rate for asthma in
Washington state is rising much faster
than the rest of the U.S.  What's more,
that rate is seven times higher among
minority children from the inner city
than children from other communities.
  In response to this problem, we have
funded several special projects,
including:
  • Community-based, inner-city
   asthma medical intervention clinic
   and home visit programs.
  • An inner-city asthma outreach and
   education program.
  • Development and distribution of
   brochures targeting residential air
   pollution improvements in minority
   and  low-income communities.
  We're looking into why asthma  is on
the rise at a  time when air pollution
levels seem to have declined.  In the
meantime, we're doing what we can to
help people with this  terrible health
problem breathe a little easier.
                                                                                                                            When these more stringent standards
                                                                                                                         are coupled with the steady population
                                                                                                                         growth projected for much of the
                                                                                                                         Northwest, our work becomes that
                                                                                                                         much more challenging.  We're
                                                                                                                         determined to do more than simply
                                                                                                                         'hold on' to what we've got - we're
                                                                                                                         going to do what's necessary to ensure
                                                                                                                         continued improvement.
                                                                                                                            In future reports, we plan to discuss
                                                                                                                         visibility, acid rain, stratospheric ozone,
                                                                                                                         and global warming issues as they
                                                                                                                         relate to the Northwest.

-------
waste      &
      An ad for a prominent chemical
   company once suggested that -
   "Without chemicals, life itself would be
   impossible." This is, of course, entirely
   true. It is also true that "life", and the
   chemicals upon which it depends,
   existed long before the dawn of
   chemical companies or EPA.
      People can and do have honest,
   sometimes spirited debates about
   whether life has indeed been made
   better or worse with the  introduction of
   man-made chemicals.  However,
   society still makes, consumes, and
   disposes of chemicals  and waste
   products in huge quantities. How do
   we best manage them?
      Our goal is to minimize the risks to
   both human health and the environment
   from chemical usage and wastes.  We
   think the best way to do this is to
   reduce the use of hazardous chemicals,
   encouraging the most efficient use of
   the safest chemicals and other precious
   resources, and recycling as much as we
   can and disposing what we can't in the
   safest fashion possible.


   "From Cradle to  Grave"
      After years of experience, we
   realized that addressing chemical usage
   and disposal as if they were unrelated
   just didn't make sense. Too many
   potential threats were allowed to slip
through the cracks only to abruptly
appear later like an unwelcome guest
(see Superfund). A more
comprehensive approach was needed,
one that regulated hazardous waste
through their entire 'life' cycle - from
cradle to grave.
   The Resource Conservation &
Recovery Act (RCRA) was designed by
Congress to do just that. Through it,
hazardous wastes are managed as
though they belong to a system having
a beginning and an end: many
industrial  and commercial facilities are
required to have permits controlling
both waste treatment and disposal.
Although  non-hazardous wastes, such
as household waste, are primarily
controlled at the local level, EPA has
set national standards for municipal
waste disposal to  ensure that problems
don't arise in the future.


The Regional Picture
   There are 6,818 RCRA hazardous
waste handlers located throughout the
Region. Congress intended  for the
States to have direct responsibility for
running the RCRA program with EPA
assuming  an assistance and oversight
role, providing compliance and
enforcement functions where
appropriate.  In general, Oregon,
Washington, and Idaho have assumed
                              What You Can Do

       Here are some ways you can help us minimize risks to human health and the
    environment from chemical usage and  waste:
    1.  Practice wise consumption by avoiding products with unnecessary packaging,
       buying products with recycled content, and buying in bulk (if possible).
    2.  Learn more about consumer choices and how they impact the environment.
    3.  Look for products made by environmentally  responsible companies.
    4.  Recycle more materials such as paper, glass,  steel, plastic.
their lead roles.  Alaska has not.
   You might be surprised to learn how
much hazardous waste we generate
here in the Pacific Northwest (see
chart). How do these figures compare
to  other areas across the U.S.? In 1995,
Washington ranked 8th, Oregon 39th,
Idaho 17th, and Alaska 50th.
   Similar to Superfund,  clean-up of
past releases at RCRA facilities remains
a high priority for us to address
unacceptable risks of exposure that
these sites pose.  As of 1996, 50 sites
had one or more units with stabilization
measures already implemented or final
remedies  being implemented. An
additional 54 sites are in various stages
of investigation or remedy selection.

Garbage & Recycling
   Most of us have heard reports about
the unfortunate problems that
municipal landfills have  created.
Whether they seep wastes into
groundwater or cause odor nuisances in
nearby communities, landfills are a
necessary fact of modern life and we
must deal with them.
   We are addressing these problems by
promoting better waste management
practices. From lining these landfills
with high-tech barriers to prevent
seepage to returning sites to valuable


 Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste
 Generated  in Region 10
                                                                                                        16,000,000
    10

-------
park and recreational space, the
program is designed to minimize
possible risks and maximize utility by
encouraging these necessary facilities
to become better 'neighbors'.
  Did you know that it takes an entire
forest - over 500,000 trees - to supply
Americans with their Sunday
newspapers every week? Recycling is
a vital part of any sensible waste
management program. It not only
reduces the volume of garbage we'd
otherwise send to  landfills, but also
reduces demands on our natural
resources and the energy required to
process them. Although the trend in
recycling here has been steadily
moving upward, so has the per capita
amount of waste generated. Your
continuing support is the key.


Behind the Record
  We have a keen interest in finding
new ways to better manage our
chemicals and waste, from  using less
toxic  chemicals in industrial processes
to voluntary cleanups of past releases.
One such voluntary  initiative provides
incentives to companies for going
beyond  simple compliance with
environmental requirements.  Targeting
17 high-priority toxic chemicals,
participating companies here have
reduced releases and disposals by an
astonishing 58%.  Corporate
consciousness and initiative accounts
for much of the program's success with
over a quarter of the eligible companies
participating, the highest rate in the
U.S.
  We don't see economic opportunity
and environmental protection as
mutually exclusive propositions.   In
stimulating the development of
businesses that use recyclable or
reusable materials, new jobs and tax
                                                                            i
revenues have been created while
performing an important environmental
service to society. Our support led to a
national electronic marketplace for
recyclables on the Chicago Board of
Trade Recyclables Exchange.


Toxic Substances
   Some materials are so toxic, and the
threat of their release to the
environment so widespread, that special
toxic substances and asbestos laws were
enacted to regulate them.  EPA has
broad authority to ensure that these
substances are managed safely. Our
focus in this region is on PCBs
(polychlorinated  biphenyls), asbestos,
chemicals in commerce (import/
export), and lead (Pb).
 It is truly disturbing that one in every
25 children in the U.S. has dangerously
high blood lead levels.  This comes
about in a variety of ways, including
contact with leaded paints,
contaminated soil, and dust. We're
working to assist tribes and states in
developing programs and legislation
which reduce lead exposure.
   Between 1930 and 1979, PCBs were
used as an insulator in a variety of
electrical equipment.  PCBs are a very
effective insulator - and a very potent
environmental hazard. Some 137
million pounds of PCBs were safely
disposed of in permitted facilities in
1994.
   There are a number of laws that
govern how asbestos materials are to be
handled in schools and other public and
commercial buildings. We emphasize
controlling asbestos in schools where
children are at greatest risk of
exposure.
                                                                             Send  it to  Texas 'cause  it's bigger."
                                                                                                                              Marcus Bell, 12
Emergencies & Public

Awareness
   We believe you have a right to know
the kinds and amounts of toxic
chemicals that are stored and released
in your community.  The Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act requires some facilities to
report this data on an annual basis.  The
information can help communities
understand chemical releases in their
area and plan their responses to spills,
fires, or other emergencies.
   Data from the publicly accessible
Toxic Release Inventory show that
toxic releases in Region 10 are
generally decreasing. While industry in
Washington has the best record in the
region, industrial operations in Oregon,
Idaho and Alaska are also managing
successful pollution  prevention
programs. The recycling component
for 1995 is approximately one third of
the total chemical production
demonstrating that efforts to prevent
pollution are paying off as more
businesses find more efficient uses for
their wastes.

 Trend in Toxic Releases in Region 10
 (reportable  chemicals)
    800,000
    600,000-
    400,000
    200,000
   Alaska Community-Based
   Environmental Protection

   In 1996, we gave a grant to a Native
 community, the Louden Milage
 Council in Alaska, for developing and
 testing a model for community-based
 environmental protection.  The grant
 will assist the Council in identifying
 the full range of waste management
 risks in their community, including
 impacts on their subsistence food
 sources.
   The lessons learned in Louden will
 be made available to other Alaska
 Native communities via a
 documentary.  We think that reaching
 the widest possible audience of
 communities facing similar problems
 allows EPA and the communities to
 better focus resources on priority
 needs and to make informed decisions
 leading to meaningful actions.
The Future
   We're constantly looking for ways to
simplify waste management, use
chemicals more effectively, and provide
greater incentives for voluntary cleanup
and recycling.  There are several laws
slated for revision in the near future
that will help us accomplish our goals.
                                                            Year
                                                                                                                                                         11

-------
ecosystems-
       Are you fascinated by holograms,
    those 3-D images created by projected
    light? Unlike regular flat photographs,
    the better holograms allow you to see
    the different sides of a thing simply by
    moving around it, by changing your
    point of view. Because the image has a
    real sense of depth, it seems far more
    life-like.
       We noticed that our work had been
    so focused on specific facets of the
    environment - air quality, waste
    management, water quality, etc. - that
    we often lost a deeper appreciation of
    what was happening when  all its
    various parts were seen as they are in
    real life - together and related. After
    all, the environment is really a system
    of humans, plants, and animals,
    constantly interacting with each other
    and the physical  and chemical world in
    which they live.
       We needed a change in  perspective.
       So, we created a new ecosystems
    office. It looks across the work and
    capabilities of all of our other  programs
    for opportunities to find  3-D solutions
    to real 3-D problems.
       Our goal is to protect and restore the
    remarkable ecosystems we have here
    by addressing problems  in  specific
    geographic locales or  issue areas with a
    more integrated approach.  Whether we
    address problems by working with
    others at the community or watershed
    level, or on issues like salmon
preservation or forest management, we
will employ an ecosystems approach
where it makes sense.  It's difficult and
time-consuming work - we're still
learning.
  We've chosen to relate our
experiences in using this approach by
presenting four environmental issues
that require 3-D solutions.


Issue #1: Salmon
  Salmon is almost a registered
trademark of the Northwest. Yet
throughout much of the Northwest,
native salmon stocks have been
declining. In some areas, these
declines are so dramatic that
commercial and recreational salmon
fishing have been wiped out. Many
individual salmon runs have been listed
as either threatened or endangered.
While all of these developments are
significant alarms that something is
going terribly wrong in the
environment, it is ultimately the actions
they inspire that make all the
difference.
  We're taking positive steps to
promote salmon restoration and
preservation.  We're actively weighing
in on decisions dealing with a wide
range of salmon-related projects
through our comments on
environmental impact statements.
Proposed construction and management
                              What You Can Do

       Here are some actions you can take to protect your ecosystem.
     1. Join your local watershed council.
     2. Participate in citizen monitoring. EPA has developed three programs to help
       you monitor your environment: Wetlands Walk, Stream Walk and Lake Walk.
       Call us to find out how you can participate.
     3. Get involved in local land  use decisions and comprehensive land use planning.
     12
activities such as dams, ecosystem
strategies, and logging plans are
examples of projects we regularly
review.
  For instance, our comments
influenced the Coos Bay Water Board
in Oregon to drop a proposed dam
project which would have threatened
salmon runs and destroyed over 70
acres of wetlands. Instead, they
adopted a much less damaging
alternative. We also contributed to a
decision by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to deny a
proposal that would have raised water
levels in Washington's Rocky Reach
Reservoir and jeopardized salmon
stocks on the Columbia. Our continuing
input is influencing projects like the
Cushman Dam on the Olympic
Peninsula in Washington, the  Lower
Snake River Salmon Migration Project
and numerous others.
  We've also formed a "Salmon
Team." Working closely with the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land
Management and with state, local, and
tribal organizations on salmon issues
across the region, we identify
opportunities to provide technical and
financial support. We promote a
variety of projects and programs,
especially as they relate to water
quality and habitat. The overall goal is
to restore and maintain our valuable
salmon populations.
 Areas of At-Risk or Extinct Salmon
                                                                               32%

                                                                                 10%
                                                                            58%
                 Less than 50% of
                 Species At Risk or
                 Extinct


                 50  100% of Species
                 At Risk or Extinct

                 All Species Extinct

-------
                                                     When  the air is polluted, it goes up to the clouds
                                                                                  and comes down  with the rain."
                                                                                                                            Sambut Khim, 11
Issue #2: The President's

Forest Plan
   The President's Forest Plan is
another effort that employs the
ecosystem approach. It focuses on
improving management practices in
nine geographic areas throughout
Oregon and Washington. We're
working closely with other state, tribal,
and federal agencies to move this Plan
forward.
   Saving old growth stands  of trees  for
endangered species such as the spotted
owl is only part of the issue.  The
overall goal is to promote  forest
management practices that achieve
better water and air quality and
healthier  habitats while maintaining
economically viable and sustainable
timber harvests.


Issue #3: Wetlands
   Wetlands are not only beautiful, but
serve practical purposes as well. They
improve water quality by removing
sediments, nutrients, and some
chemical contaminants from  the water
that filters through them. They play a
vital role in flood control by  soaking up
heavy rains and runoff.  Wetlands
provide vital nursery areas for some
species of salmon and are  home  to
many other plants and animals,
including a staggering 43% of all
endangered species.  They also occupy
a critical  place in the lifecycle of
migratory birds.
   Yet in Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington,  approximately 40% of our
original wetlands have been lost. Our
goal with these states is for "no  net
loss" of wetlands in the short term and
a "net gain" in the long term. In
Alaska, where less than 1% of wetlands
have been lost, the goal is to preserve
sensitive wetlands in areas of rapid
development.
   Wetlands protection is a
controversial, much-debated issue.
Because it often limits the development
of public and private property,
questions concerning land ownership
and stewardship inevitably arise.
Although many of these issues are best
resolved in political and legal forums,
we have our own legal responsibilities
to maintain and restore wetlands.
   Working with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, our emphasis is on
evaluating projects that have significant
potential impacts on wetlands.  For
example, the Emerald Downs Race
Track in Washington and the new
University of Washington Bothell
Campus were both approved on the
condition that wetlands within  the same


  Historic Wetlands Loss
watershed be restored.  On the other
hand, the expansion of a hydroelectric
dam on the Snake River in Idaho and a
county landfill in Washington were
both abandoned due in large part to
their inability to preserve or
compensate for the loss of wetlands.
   We're actively supporting state,
local, and tribal authorities who want to
manage the wetlands within their own
jurisdictions.  The city of Eugene,
Oregon, was the first local government
in the nation to receive authority to
enforce federal wetlands regulations at
the local level. Following this
example, over twenty local
governments in Oregon and
Washington are now developing similar
wetlands programs toward achieving
our "no net loss" goal.


Issue #4:  Sediments
   Contamination of the sands and soils
lying beneath our lakes, streams, rivers,
and marine waters has been a major
concern here since the 1970's.
Pollutants from industry, runoff, spills,
and air emissions  entering the water
have been accumulating in these
sediments for many years, impacting
fish, shellfish, and other plants and
animals.
   We're actively  using our expertise to
solve sediment cleanup and
preservation challenges.  In 1994, we
formed a partnership with the Corps of
Engineers and three Washington
agencies to deal with sediment issues in
the State.  This group's activities
include: a sediment cleanup and
restoration project in Tacoma's
Commmencement Bay,  the
development of sites for contaminated
sediment disposal, and a plan to restore
degraded habitats  throughout  Puget
Sound using clean sediments.


The Future
   We recognize that effective solutions
to environmental problems require the
cooperation of many groups holding a
wide range of interests.  So, we've
developed a strategy that focuses on
actions a community can take to solve
problems. This strategy brings together
not only the legal and scientific aspects
                                                                                     Wide Hollow Creek
                                                                                         "Classroom"

                                                                                 A year ago, you'd have been hard-
                                                                               pressed to find any fish in Wide
                                                                               Hollow Creek in Yakima, Washington.
                                                                               Streambanks and foliage critical to
                                                                               fish habitat were trampled by children
                                                                               on their way to the West Valley Middle
                                                                               School.  Worse yet, the area was a
                                                                               known hot spot for drug-related
                                                                               activities.  With funding from EPA, a
                                                                               1,100 foot fence now protects the
                                                                               stream, a new path and foot-bridge
                                                                               provides children a safe way to school,
                                                                               and the West Valley School's new
                                                                               Outdoor Living Classroom at the
                                                                               Creek is up and running.
                                                                               Accomplishments to date include:
                                                                                • The release of several thousand
                                                                                 salmon fry by students.
                                                                                • Student planting of over 900
                                                                                 donated native plants along the
                                                                                 stream.
                                                                                • Reduced drug activity due to easier
                                                                                 access by the County Sheriff and the
                                                                                 neighborhood Block  Watch.
                                                                                 This project will have positive
                                                                               effects on the children, the community,
                                                                               and the environment for years to
                                                                               come.
                                                                              of ecosystem protection, but local
                                                                              social and economic considerations as
                                                                              well.
                                                                                 The more we know about the needs
                                                                              and issues of the people and
                                                                              environment in any given area, the
                                                                              more effective we'll be in crafting
                                                                              cooperative and efficient solutions.
                                                                              Toward this end, we have a number of
                                                                              community-based projects underway,
                                                                              including: Washington's Columbia
                                                                              Plateau, Idaho's Coeur d'Alene Basin,
                                                                              Oregon's Willamette Basin, and
                                                                              Alaska's Cook Inlet.

                                                                                                                13

-------
drinking     water     &     food
    Drinking Water
       Have you ever wondered why
    specialty drinking water products are so
    popular these days? From the purchase
    of bottled water from faraway France to
    the proliferation of home water
    filtration systems, you'd think that
    Americans are  really intent on having
    pure, clean-tasting water to drink.
    You'd be right.
       Since only about 1% of the world's
    water is suitable for drinking, there is
    an obvious need to do  all we can to
    protect the surface and groundwater
    sources from which we draw this
    precious necessity. While many of us
    may be concerned about residential
    water pressures, concerns about
    residential pressures on water are also
    mounting. The explosive growth
    projected for the Pacific Northwest has
    led to rising concerns about sustaining
    both the quality and quantity of our
    drinking water  supplies.
       Our goal  is to ensure that everyone
    in the Northwest can expect safe
    drinking water  every time they turn on
    a faucet.


    The Law
       The federal Safe Drinking Water
    Act (SDWA) enacted by Congress in
    1974 is aimed at achieving  this goal.  In
implementing this ambitious law, EPA
has developed standards for drinking
water supplies covering more than 80
toxic metals, chemicals, and biological
contaminants.
   Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and
Idaho all have drinking water laws that
are essentially identical to federal law.
EPA is also responsible for ensuring
that drinking water laws are followed
on tribal lands within the region.


How We Help
   We work very closely with the states
and tribes, providing enforcement and
technical assistance programs to ensure
coordinated protection of drinking
water supply systems.  We provide
funding to states for source water,
groundwater, and wellhead protection
programs. For example, by getting
local citizens involved in a wellhead
protection project, the  city of Yacolt,
Washington, was able to identify and
reduce risks from potential
contamination to its wellfield for only
$25,000.
   Problems with drinking water can be
caused by a number of factors, such as
the age  of the system,  the  maintenance
and operation of that system, and
quality of the source water. We're
working with state, local, and regional
agencies and citizen groups to ensure
 Improving Drinking Water Safety
 (microbiological contamination)
                             What You Can Do

       Here are some ways you can help us make a difference in protecting the quality
     of our drinking water:
     1. If you have a well, ensure that it is capped with a sanitary seal and remove any
       chemicals stored in your well house.
     2. If you're on a septic system, inspect and pump it regularly.
     3. Have your water tested.
     4. Call your local water district, health department, state agency, or us if you
       observe any problems or potential threats to your water supply.
                   (note - also see recommendations in the Water section)

     14
             Compliance Rate

             Significant Violators
that businesses, industries, and water
system operators understand both how
their activities can affect nearby
drinking water supplies and what can
be done to correct these threats.


The Regional Picture
   State and federal laws require
regular monitoring of drinking water
for a large number of chemicals,
bacteria, and metals. As more and
more water system operators
understand the importance of
monitoring, we have seen a reduction
in the number of reported violations.
The graphic shows the reduction in
microbiological violations from 1992-
1995. These violations are both for
failure to monitor and  exceeding water
quality standards.
   In the vast agricultural areas of the
region, farming practices pose a
significant problem. Agricultural land
accounts for 61% of the Mid-Columbia
Basin.  Irrigation runoff carries nitrates
from nitrogen fertilizers into shallow
groundwater reservoirs. These nitrates
can cause real human health problems,
especially to infants where they cause
methemoglobinemia (blue-baby
syndrome).  About 13% of the people
living in the Basin are on public water
supplies which have reported at least
one incidence of exceeding the nitrate
standard during the period,  1993-1996.


Prevention vs. Cures
   Preventing water pollution before it
happens can save millions of dollars in
cleanup costs.  Contaminated ground
water is expensive and often difficult to
clean up. For example, in 1988, the
city of Milwaukie, Oregon, discovered
the solvent, trichloroethylene (TCE), in
its well water.  We've estimated that as
little  as five gallons of TCE, spilled
from  a 50 gallon drum, may have  made
the water unsafe for drinking. The total
cleanup cost exceeded $2 million.
During  the three years it took to correct
the problem, Milwaukie spent another
$280,000 per year purchasing drinking
water from  Portland.
   Prevention work will be further
enhanced under the 1996 Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments. We will
provide money to states for source
water assessments and protection.


The Future
   New challenges will arrive with all
of the people expected to make the
Northwest home over the next 20 years.
One of the critical challenges will be
working with state and local
governments to ensure that water
quality  protection is given adequate
consideration in the rapidly growing
urban and suburban areas.
   Having safe drinking water is not a
luxury commodity - we see it as a basic
right  of yours that we intend to uphold.

-------
                                                    If the water tastes  nasty, I don't want to drink it."
                                                                                                                            Charles Brooks, 10
Food
   You can still see people at the
grocery store weighing fruit and
vegetables on scales.  They're usually
weighing two things - the price they'll
pay and whether the food will make it
out of their fruit basket or vegetable
crisper before spoiling.
   We do something similar when we
regulate pesticides involved in food
production.  We weigh two basic things
- the availability of an inexpensive,
plentiful food supply, and the adverse
effects pesticides may have on human
health and the  environment.
   Our goal is to ensure that the people
of the Northwest have foods free of
unhealthful levels of pesticides. We  are
also committed to ensuring that human
health and the  environment are not
negatively affected by pesticide use.
We share these responsibilities with
other federal agencies, state and local
agencies, and thousands of farmers and
related businesses.

Some History
   Since World War II, the number of
farmers in this country has fallen
dramatically from about six million to
about two million.  Small diverse farms
growing many different crops have
given way to larger farms growing
fewer types of crops. An important
factor in this transformation has been
the increasing use of pesticides.
   Nature's tendency is to encourage
diversity, including weeds and insects.
Pre-World War II farms dealt with this
tendency by growing different types of
crops and employing crop rotation
techniques - a very labor-intensive
approach. The widespread use of
pesticides and specialized machinery in
modern farming allows for the
cultivation of fewer crop types, over
increased acreage, and involving fewer
people.
   The upside to this trend is the ability
to grow a lot of food inexpensively.
However, widespread pesticide use
presents real challenges to  protecting
human health and the environment.


The Laws
   EPA regulates pesticides under two
major federal statutes.  Under the
Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, EPA registers
pesticides for use in the United States
and prescribes  labeling  and other
regulatory requirements to  prevent
adverse effects to human health or the
environment.  Under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, EPA
establishes tolerances (maximum
legally permissible levels) for pesticide
                            What You Can Do

   Here are some ways you can help us make a difference in promoting minimal
 and safe pesticide use:
 1. Consider employing alternatives to pesticides by trying integrated pest
   management techniques at home.
 2. If you  do use a pesticide, read the label carefully for precautions and
   environmental hazards before purchasing. Carefully follow all label directions.
 3. Safely discard old or residual pesticides by taking them to hazardous waste
   disposal sites or calling your local health department for disposal instructions.
residues in food. These tolerances are
enforced by the Food and Drug
Administration and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.


The Regional Picture
   We work closely with other Federal,
state, and local agencies in
implementing pesticide laws and
programs aimed at  ensuring food, farm
worker,  public, and environmental
safety and protection. Our cooperative
enforcement program is an important
feature of this effort.  Often triggered
by citizen complaints, the type of
enforcement action can range widely
based on the nature and severity of the
problem. Two of the most serious
actions involve suspending or revoking
the licenses of pesticide applicators and
ordering the removal or stopping the
sale and use of illegal pesticides by
manufacturers and vendors (see
graphic).

  Combined State and Federal
  Pesticide Enforcement
                                           We're also working with others to
                                        promote integrated pest management
                                        (IPM) which brings together several
                                        methods of pest control toward
                                        reducing total pesticide use. This
                                        approach can employ a variety of
                                        methods, including: monitoring to
 The Urban Pesticide Initiative

   Our Urban Pesticide Initiative
 (UPI) promotes reductions in pesticide
 use through outreach and education
 rather than purely regulatory means.
 Since 1991, this joint effort with four
 Washington state agencies takes on
 insects, weeds, and other pests where
 they live: in schools, along roadsides,
 in parks, and other urban areas.
   One of the centerpieces of this work
 is integrated pest management (see
 The Regional Picture). Through small
 grants to state and local
 organizations, we've taken this IPM
 approach to schools, low-income
 housing, and other areas where pest
 management would otherwise be
 addressed using traditional means or
 not at all.  UPI has been successful -
 we plan to expand it to the rest of the
 Northwest.

determine whether there is in fact a pest
problem, using natural predators to
reduce a pest problem, using baits and
traps instead of employing broadcast
spraying, etc. We think that these
integrated approaches  are more
effective in controlling pests and
minimizing the release of pesticides to
the environment than traditional
approaches.


The Future
   Pesticide use will continue to be a
major factor in how we grow food and
control pests. New pesticides will
continue to be developed and certified.
The need to ensure their safe use and
promote alternatives will be an ongoing
challenge in the years ahead.
                                                                                                                                                          15

-------
beyond   our   borders
                                                                We should care about the
                                                                         air in Canada  too!"
       Chernobyl - 1986. Kuwait - 1991.
     Remember?
       These spectacular environmental
     catastrophes conjure up memories of
     bold-print headlines and startling
     footage on the evening news. For
     weeks, even months, they brought us to
     an awareness of what a small,
     vulnerable place the world really is.
     But for all their special notoriety, they
     might also have diverted our attention
     from the more mundane, everyday
     releases of pollutants into the global
     environment. Are they a problem?
     And why should we care here in the
     Pacific Northwest?
       Pollution moves about the
     environment where it will, with
     absolutely no regard to political
     boundaries.  All of it goes  somewhere.
     Sometimes pollution crosses directly
     from one country to another,
     sometimes not. But increasingly,
     whether or not a single molecule of
     pollution ever makes it across some
     border, our borders, its effects
     inevitably do. How is this so?
       The world is interconnected.
     Whether it's put in environmental,
     economic, or social terms,  what we do
     - the way we make things, consume
     things, dispose of things, take care of
     things - eventually affects  other people
     in other places. It could be the
     transport of airborne pollutants, trade
     in endangered species, loss of habitat to
     deforestation, ocean-dumping of toxic
     wastes - what happens 'there' seems
     more and more to affect in some way
     what happens 'here'.


     What We Contribute & Get
       We think that whoever said - "If not
     us, who?  If not now, when?" - was
     absolutely right. This ethic of
     16
involvement extends to our interest in
international work as well.  There are
several ways to look at what we
contribute and what we get as a result.
  We know that the Pacific Northwest
contributes so-called greenhouse gases
(e.g., C02) that can in turn lead to global
warming. We also know that others
outside this region contribute to this
global environmental problem, affecting
our weather and other natural systems.
Similarly, our  activities combined with
others elsewhere contribute to
stratospheric ozone depletion, which may
lead to increased incidences of skin
cancers, cataracts, and other health and
welfare concerns.  These are everyone's
problems, and we mean to participate in
solving them.  We plan to track the status
of these particular contributions and
effects in future reports.
  Closer to home, our record of
cooperation with our Canadian neighbors
in addressing transborder environmental
issues continues to grow. We regularly
work with them on issues related to
salmon, water quality, air quality,
and  chemical management.  For
example, we are an active
participant in the British
Columbia-Washington
Environmental Cooperation
Council, created to cooperatively
manage shared environmental
problems.  Several task forces
have been formed by the Council
to address specific issues,
including: the  management of the
shared inland marine waters of
British Columbia and Washington,
coordinated groundwater
management, Columbia River/
Lake Roosevelt water quality, and
regional air quality management.
  We also devote a small fraction
of our resources to helping  others
around the world.  Over the past 3
years, we have sent our experts to over
17 countries to provide assistance in
dealing with the often profound
environmental problems they face.
And we've hosted officials from over
35 countries with whom we share our
environmental management
experiences.


Behind the Record
   For the many benefits that this
modest investment yields, we think it is
clearly worthwhile. Our efforts often
lead to direct improvements in the
health and welfare of people in host
countries.  Our work often leads to
more efficient use of natural resources
and the energy required to process
them.  Our involvement in technical
pollution control issues often opens
doors to the purchase of American
environmental products and services,
stimulating our economy.  And as host
countries begin to shoulder the real
costs of responsible environmental
                  Samuel Tuitoelau, 10
stewardship, the increased price of their
products results in a more level
international marketplace.
  Among all of these benefits, perhaps
the most subtle is this - we learn.  In
working with people elsewhere under
difficult, sometimes desperate
circumstances, we get ideas for new,
often low-tech solutions that can be
applied to some of the problems we
still encounter here.


The Future
    We think that helping other
countries through our expertise and
experience is ultimately in our own best
interest. We plan to continue our work
in the international arena.
  Several EPA Regional Offices have
created special continuing relationships
with certain countries around the world.
We are also considering doing this with
a country in the Pacific Rim, a region
experiencing explosive industrial
growth and mounting environmental
pressures.
  Where we ve been
  Who we've hosted

-------
 atlas-
   Modern recording techniques used in
the music industry involve a process of
layering sounds.  For example, voices,
strings, brass, and percussion are each
recorded on separate tracks and then
layered one on top of another to yield a
single, blended composition.  The
result is richly complex.
   We've used a similar approach in
preparing the following environmental
atlas.  Several different types of
information have been layered  on a
series of maps toward composing a
more complete picture of the
environmental concerns we all face
here in the Pacific Northwest.


General Notes
   Six layers of environmental
information are superimposed onto the
maps of each of the four Northwest
states.  While we could have added
other layers to the maps, we selected
these for presentation because they
reflect concerns  common to each state,
they consume the larger portion of our
time and resources, and adding more
layers would only obscure detail in
already densely covered areas.
   A brief description of each of these
layers can be found in the section that
follows. Two basic types of
information are presented. Three of the
layers primarily  reflect measured
impacts at levels assumed to pose a
threat to human health or the
environment (Air, Water, Drinking
Water).  The other three layers  focus on
active or inactive facilities that release
or may release pollutants of concern to
the environment (Superfund, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, and Toxic Release Inventory).
   We know that gaining an
understanding of transborder problems
is compromised  by presenting
                   No  one wants to live in  a dirty environment."
                                                                                        Tina Sim, 10
information on a separate state-by-state
basis. However, we've elected to
preserve detail by focusing on
individual states and making those
maps as large as possible.
   The maps are surrounded by a set of
graphs depicting trends or other notable
features seen in four of the six layers.
In making comparisons between the
states, please note that a few graphs
have different scales due to widely
dissimilar ranges seen in the  featured
data.
   In previous chapters of this report
we alerted you to the possibility that
environmental problems may exist here
in the Pacific Northwest that have yet
to be discovered. This caution applies
to the atlas as well.

Air
   Areas not attaining compliance with
air quality standards at any time during
the last six years (1991-1996) are
depicted on the map in yellow.  This
time frame was selected due  to year-to-
year fluctuations often seen in air
quality and because pollutant levels in
many areas remain close to the
standard.
   The accompanying air graphic
shows a 10-year trend in the number of
days during the year when  an area's air
quality was deemed unhealthful for at
least one of the seven primary air
pollutants. Areas were selected for
presentation on the basis of historical
concerns, anticipated interest, and
available data.

Water
   Streams, rivers, and lakes  that as of
1996 were not meeting designated
beneficial uses or water quality
standards are shown on the map in
purple. The manner in which these
waters were ultimately designated  can
vary widely across the region and
within states.  In some  instances, there
was a great volume of data leading to
this determination.  In other cases, very
little data existed and a great deal of
professional judgement was used to
make  the determination. Alaska data
and impaired marine waters and
estuaries are not depicted due to the
lack of related digitized computer
coverages.
   The accompanying water  graphic
portrays how much of the total water
resource is impaired.
Drinking Water
   Levels of nitrates exceeding Federal
drinking water standards that have been
detected in supply systems throughout
each of the states at least once over the
last five years (1992-1996) are depicted
by a green "x" icon. Excessive nitrates
in drinking water can cause blue-baby
syndrome (methemoglobinemia).  Only
test results on drinking water systems
that are regulated by the Federal
government are shown here (systems
with 15 or more connections). High
nitrate levels found in one of a number
of wells serving a system do not
necessarily mean that people are
drinking unhealthful water.


Toxic Releases
   Facilities using, producing, and/or
emitting quantities of toxic  chemicals
above certain reporting thresholds are
denoted by a red "+" icon.  It is not
assumed that toxic releases pose a
certain threat to  either human health or
the environment, only that there may be
reason for concern.
   The accompanying graphic portrays
the five-year trend in the amount of
reportable toxic chemicals (1991-1996).
The graphic tracks three categories:
"direct releases" of chemicals to the
environment, chemicals that have been
"recycled" either on- or off-site, and
chemicals that have "other" fates
(transfer to disposal facilities, use in
energy generation, etc.).


Superfund
   Active Superfund sites are shown on
the map as blue triangles. While our
emergency removal program eliminates
immediate threats to human health and
the environment associated with these
sites, low level chemical releases from
these sites may still pose a threat.
   The companion graphic shows the
six-year trend in the status of site
cleanup.

RCRA
   The locations of RCRA high-priority
Corrective Action Sites (CAS) are
shown on the map by  a green triangle
icon.  We have targeted these sites for
special corrective action, cleanup, and
surveillance due to the potential threat
their releases pose to human health and
the environment.
Summary
   We understand that the information
presented in this section is limited.  But
we hope that it begins to create both a
visual impression of the types and
locations of environmental concerns we
deal with, and a curiosity that prompts
subsequent inquiry.
                                                                                                                                                     17

-------
atlas
        Progress in Superfund Cleanups
                                                  Alaska
  50
$
S3 40
's 3°
"I 20
1 10
   0
+ Trend in Toxic Releases
   (Reportable Chemicals)
                               Cleanups
                               Not Finished
                            Cleanups Finished
150 000
100 000-
50 000-

9







Q Direct Release
Q| Recycled
n Other





	 1




__________^
1 92 93 94 9
        91   92  93   94  95   96
                                                                                                        Year
        Unhealthful Air Quality Days
                                 Juneau
                                 Fairbanks
                                 Anchorage
       87 88 89 90 91  92 93 94 95 96
          Map Legend

          Superfund Sjtes
          RCRA Sites
          Toxic Release Facilities  fi> ^
          Nitrates in Drinking Water
          Air Non attainment Areas
          Impaired Waters
          (not depicted - see explanation
          on preceding page)
                                                                                  Status of Water Quality (1996)
    18

-------
     Progress in Superfund Cleanups
Idaho
Status of Water Quality (1996)
                                              Coeur d' Alen
                                                                                                                           Streams
                                                                                                                            (Miles)
                                      Cleanups
                                      Not Finished
                                ^Cleanups Finished
                          120,000
                          100,000
                           80,000
                           60,000
                           40,000
                           20,000
    91
          92    93    94   95
                               96
+ Trend in Toxic Releases
    (Reportable Chemicals)
   200,000
   150,000
   100,000



~~— ^


D Direct Release
f Recycled
D Other


	



— — i





    50,000—^^^^
        91
              92
                    93
                   Year
                         94
                               95
     Unhealthful Air Quality Days
                                                   Lewiston
   87  88  89 90  91  92 93  94  95 96
                                         Sandpoint
                                         Pocatello
                                         Lewiston
                                         Coeur D'Alene
                                         Boise
                                                                 Lakes
                                                              (Square Miles)
                                                           Map Legend

                                                             Superfund Sites
                                                         A  RCRA Sites
                                                         +  Toxic Release Facilities
                                                         X  Nitrates in Drinking Water
                                                             Air Non attainment Areas
                                                             Impaired Waters
                                                                                                                                                                 19

-------
atlas
        Progress in Superfund Cleanups
                    Oregon
     + Trend in Toxic Releases
        (Reportable Chemicals)
       200,000
Map Legend
                                                                                                       Superfund Sites
                                                                                                       RCRA Sites
                                                                                                       Toxic Release Facilities
                                                                                                       Nitrates in Drinking Water
                                                                                                       Air Non-attainment Areas
                                                                                                       Impaired Waters
     o 100,000-
        Unhealthful Air Quality Days
      80
      70
      60
     » 50
     n 40
      30
      20
      10
       0
                                                      Status of Water Quality (1996)
                                                         Streams           Lakes
                                                         (Miles)         (Square Miles)
       87  88 89 90  91 92 93  94 95 96
Portland
Oakridge
Medford
Lakeview
La Grande
Klamath Falls
Eugene/Springfield
                                                                               1,000
    20

-------
     Progress in Superfund Cleanups
Washington
                                Jeanups
                               Not Finished
                            tleanups Finished
+ Trend in Toxic Releases
    (Reportable Chemicals)
   600,000
   500,000
   400,000-
   300,000-
   200,000-
   100,000-
        0
        91
               92
                     93
                    Year
                           94
                                  95
    Unhealthful Air Quality Days
 Map Legend

i   Superfund Sites
   RCRA Sites
   Toxic Release Facilities
t   Nitrates in Drinking Water
T  Air Non attainment Areas
^T  Impaired Waters
       88  89  90  91  92   93  94  95   96
                                             Yakima
                                             Tacoma
                                             Spokane
                                             Seattle
                                             Tri-Cities
                                             Olympia
                                                          of Water Quality (1996)
                                                                            Lakes
                                                                          (Square Miles)
                                                                                                                       Streams
                                                                                                                       (Miles)


J^=?



1 	 ,
=T- 	 • — • — . 	 . 	 . 	 _
	
	
~£^7r~
^t\H
1,000
800
700
500
300
100
0
T6H 	 	 '—/ J
"HMtatapirSn/
                                                                                                                                                      21

-------
   As promised in the Introduction,
we've given you a partial glimpse into
the work we do.  There is much more.
But we thought you might want to
know a little about our budget, the
changes we see the Northwest
undergoing, and what we find ourselves
contending with as we attempt to
protect your environment.


Our Budget
   There is an old rule to solving
mysteries in detective  novels - follow
the money.  Although how we spend
the money we receive is certainly no
mystery (we are, after all, a public
agency),  following the rule can still be
instructive. We can briefly tell you
what has happened over time and why,
and what we see ahead.
   EPA's total investment in protecting
the Pacific Northwest  environment has
grown about 15% over the last decade
(see figure).
   One of the more notable features
seen in these trends is the growth in
funding we send to external recipients
for ongoing program support.  Between
1987 and 1996, this funding doubled.

 EPA Region 10's Budget
 (In '96 dollars)
   At a time when spending in most
Federal programs has been declining,
why has there been growth in
environmental investment?  And why
are we sending more money to external
parties?
   National opinion polls consistently
show that environmental protection
enjoys enormous public interest and
support.  However, in this era of
balanced  budget goals, it's likely that
EPA's budget will diminish in the years
ahead. We think the same will hold
true for most state and local agency
budgets.
   At the same time, just as the
environmental laws enacted by
Congress have relentlessly grown in
scope and complexity, so has the
burden of implementing them. This
trend shows no signs of easing. But it
is widely held  that the growth in
funding for environmental protection
has not kept pace  with the growth in
responsibilities we and especially the
states have been asked to  assume over
the last decade. We expect the gap to
widen in  the years ahead.
   Our plans then? We're just going to
have to work smarter. We're
committed to developing  innovative
ways to make our work more efficient
and effective.  But even at that, we
won't be  able to do all that needs to be
done.
   We've begun a comparative risk
analysis that will help guide us in
addressing the most serious existing
and projected threats to human health
and the environment on a worst-come,
worst-serve basis.
Changes Here
   Changes in both the number of
people that live here and our economy
are closely related, affecting our
environment and the nature  of the
challenges we face.

 More People Moving Here
   One thing is clear - a growing
population means more pressure on the
environment.  Between 1985 and 1996,
each of the four states in Region 10
experienced population growth (see
graphic) that outstripped the national
rate of 11.5%.  During this period,
Alaska's population grew by 12%,
Idaho's and Oregon's by 20% each, and
Washington's by 25%.
   And more people are expected to
move here in the years ahead. All of
these states are forecasting population
growth rates that exceed the projected
national average.  Through 2010,
Alaska's population is projected to
grow by another  20%, Idaho's by 22%,
Oregon's by 21%, and Washington's by
27%.
   Why are so many people coming
here? One reason is the remarkable
quality of life the Northwest has to
offer, including our natural
environment.  Another reason for
growing populations here is our
economy - it is vibrant. Over the last
decade, employment growth here has
outperformed the national average by a
factor of more than 2 to 1 despite
dramatic declines in two important
sectors of our economy, aerospace and
timber, during the late '80s  and early
'90s.
   The impact on the environment?
Increased demand for living and
business space will force communities
to expand into undeveloped areas. The
capacity of our basic infrastructure to
meet these rapidly growing  demands
will be sorely tested, creating stresses
on air and water quality, drinking water
supplies, and solid waste, sewage, and
stormwater treatment and disposal.
   The basic structure of our economy
has also changed. There has been a
gradual move away from what has been
heavy reliance on natural resource-
related industries toward a more
diversified economic base.  Tourism
and service-related businesses are
expanding in Alaska. High-tech and
other white collar firms are  moving to
or expanding  in Oregon, Washington
and Idaho. And we have recently
witnessed a resurgent aerospace
industry here that has stable, if not
bright,  long-term prospects.
   Less reliance  on industries that
extract and process natural resources
means that neither the location or
quantity of these resources is the
powerful job-limiting factor it once
was. If a business not dependant  on
22

-------
                                                           'So go  out  there and make a difference!!!!!!'
                                                                                                                           Samantha Sterkel, 11
natural resources can operate and create
jobs just about anywhere (can you spell
'software?'), why not locate to an
attractive region like the Pacific
Northwest?
   The continued  projected growth of
both the region's population and
economy poses an enormous challenge
to our efforts to protect and enhance
our environment.  As the type, quantity,
and location of environmental pressures
change, we will change our response as
well.

Our Work
   An economist once said something
to the effect that - 'The only truly
effective pollution control is
economics.' While this provocative
notion is more than a little cynical, it is
also more than a little true. When
economic considerations are taken
together with other social and political
factors in making environmental
decisions, a potent crowd of other-than-
environmental factors clamors for our
attention.
   It would be misleading to suggest
that we have never had to deal with
these considerations.  We have.  It
would also be  misleading to maintain
that these considerations were always
on equal  footing with the pursuit of
environmental  objectives.  They
weren't.  And finally, it would be less
than genuine to suggest that a healthy
environment and a healthy economy
cannot go hand in hand. Some of the
arguments we hear lately say it isn't
necessarily so.
   Times are changing.  The pressures
on EPA to take these other-than-
environmental  factors  into  greater
account have grown immeasurably over
the last few years.  They are now truly
formidable factors vying for a position
in our decisions: protection at what
social, political, and economic costs?
for what justifiably beneficial reduction
in risk?  We welcome  both the dialogue
and challenges that come with these
important questions.
   On a related score,  the basic science
from which EPA moves forward with
its actions is receiving increasingly
aggressive scrutiny.  Uncertainty, a
constant companion of science, is no
longer seen as just giving proper pause
and perspective to our decisions. As
concerns  over the social and economic
effects of our actions have  become
increasingly powerful, our  struggle in
deciding whether to provide more or
less environmental protection when
faced with scientific uncertainty has
deepened.
   You can be  sure that as a public
agency, we will follow the  public's
will. But while we're  mindful of the
effects our actions have on the
economy and society, we're also
mindful of those people  and things in
our environment that won't be
protected without our help.  We will
continue to act using a combination of
the soundest science and least socially
and economically disruptive means
possible.
   Another important trend we see
continuing in our work is the increasing
level of collaboration we have with
other organizations. We've referred to
these partnerships in virtually  every
section of this report. As with most
things in life, there are both pros and
cons associated with this development.
   Our involvement with others at the
outset of an issue or initiative offers a
variety of benefits. It often yields
better harmonized, more synchronized
actions than if we worked alone.  The
resources that can be amassed by a
group can far outstrip those that any
one of us could ever hope to bring to
the table.  And early collaboration can
help reduce the unwelcome surprises
that can undermine the timeliness and
effectiveness  of resulting actions.
   On the other hand, partnering can
have its downsides.  Carefully
considering the different objectives of
various groups takes time, often
slowing the delivery of environmental
protection.  Further, accommodating
these different perspectives  can affect
an agency's autonomy in fulfilling
responsibilities for which it is uniquely
accountable.
   We think that the benefits of
collaboration  clearly outweigh the
problems.  Faced with looming budget
declines and increasingly complex
problems,  our commitment to  forging
effective partnerships wherever and
whenever possible will only continue to
grow.
Doppler II
   For sheer symmetry, a report that
began with the Doppler Effect should
also end with it.
   There are all manner of noises
competing for our attention these days.
Some are rising in urgency, some
fading, others just droning  on in
irritating static.  Beneath it all, usually
in the quieter spaces, there is the
relentless sound of nature.
   The Doppler Effect works as long as
the listener and the sound source are in
motion relative to one another.  If these
two move toward or away  from one
another, the Effect is at play.  But if
they move in the same direction, at the
same speed,  the Effect goes away.
   Many of us are hard-bound to this
place - we'll be staying.  Wouldn't it be
great if we moved in step with our
environment, where what we heard
from it were neither high-pitched
shrieks nor low, beaten whimpers, but
something a  lot more soothing to the
ear?
   Our environment has done right by
us. Let's do right by it.
                                                                                                                                                           23

-------
  rporhincr   //c
Wallliliy     uj
                                                     "Please stop polluting the world!  Hear what
                                                         Anthony has to say.  The world is yours."
                                                                                                 Anthony Vargas, 11
  We'd welcome hearing from you about this report and any other interests or questions you might have regarding the state of the environment and our work. Here's how
you can contact us.

               \__
                              Our Public Environmental Resource Center will assist you in locating most of the information you need. The number is toll
                            free outside of the Seattle area: 1-800-424-4EPA.  For the Seattle metropolitan area, the number is: 206-553-1200.

                              If you're hearing or speech impaired, you can reach us through EPA's telecommunications device (TDD) at: (206) 553-1698.
                              For current information on the state of the environment in Region 10, log on to our Web Site at www.epa.gov/rlOearth. Our
                            Home Page includes information for the citizen as well as the scientist with links to other environmental sites around the
                            Northwest. Current information about the environment in your neighborhood or across the nation, can be browsed, searched and
                            downloaded with any Web browser.

                              Online maps, charts and data are available through SITEINFO, an easy to use Geographic Information System on our Home
                            Page.  This application can be used to create informative reports and map displays of EPA data for any given location in the
                            Region. Examples of data that can be displayed include: Superfund-CERCLA, RCRA, TRI, NPDES Sites, Parks/Recreation
                            Areas, Wetlands, Fisheries Resources, Water Supplies, Population Demographics and more.
                              If you'd like more information related to environmental protection, visit or write our regional library at:

                                                              U.S. EPA Region 10
                                                               1200 Sixth Avenue
                                                               Seattle, WA 98101
24

-------
                                                                   1942-1996

                                                                  This report is
                                                            dedicated to our friend
                                                                 and colleague,
                                                                  Bill
Publication Information

Printing:
This publication was printed on recycled
and recyclable paper using vegetable-based
inks.

Cover Photo:
"Even the clouds find rest among the marsh
grass" taken by Erik Schweiss Ambjor on
the North Fork of the Skagit River near La
Conner, Washington.
World Art in the Student Gallery Created by:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Jennifer Pigott, 10
Charles Brooks, 10
Marcus Bell, 12
Eskedar Angaw, 1 1
Eskedar Angaw, 1 1
Marcus Bell, 12
Christina Sim, 10
Anthony Vargas, 11
Abdias Rodrigues, 10
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Samantha Sterkel, 11
Daniel Siea, 10
Shartay I loupe, 10
Aleksandr Veremchuk, 10
Aleksandr Veremchuk, 10
Samuel Tuitoelau, 10
Jennifer Pigott, 10
Christina Sim, 10
Jennifer Pigott, 10
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Eskedar Angaw, 1 1
Samuel Tuitoelau, 10
Charles Brooks, 10
Nichtelia Pines, 11
Sambuth Khim, 11 1
Shartay I loupe, 10
Jace Harris, 12 1
Anthony Vargas, 1 1
Jace Harris, 1 2

-------

-------