-------
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
-------
------- |