Denice M. Shaw, Ph.D Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Status and Trends of Environmental MonitoringLessons Learned From EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment Denice M. Shaw, Ph.D Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2. Administrator Whitman’s Directive “ My goals for the Agency are to make our air cleaner, our water purer and our land better protected. These are the results that we are working hard to achieve. Our progress towards these goals will be the measure of our success. To know whether we are making progress toward these goals, we need high quality information about the state of the environment. -- Christine Todd Whitman, November, 2001

3. Evaluate EPA Performance Identify Data Gaps Identify Emerging Issues Purposes Set Benchmarks Public Environmental Managers Scientists Audiences Policy Makers Change Behavior Fill/Fund Data Gaps Funding Decisions Research Uses Make Better Decisions Policy Setting

4. Assess EPA Progress Assess Indicators/ Gaps Establish Baseline Public Change Behavior Purposes Identify Emerging Issues Environmental Managers Audiences Scientists Policy Makers Fill/Fund Data Gaps Funding Decisions Uses Research Make Better Decisions Policy Setting

5. Assess EPA Progress Assess Indicators/ Gaps Identify Emerging Issues Scientists Research Purposes Establish Baseline Public Environmental Managers Audiences Policy Makers Change Behavior Fill/Fund Data Gaps Funding Decisions Uses Make Better Decisions Policy Setting

6. GOALSReport on the Environment & RoE Technical Report • Identify and describe indicators and data that provide national information about the state of the environment • Describe also what we don’t know

7. Report Structure • Questions / Indicators/ Monitoring Data • 5 Chapters • Ecological Condition • Human Health • Land • Air • Water

8. Questions / Indicators

9. Air • Outdoor Air • Acid Deposition • Indoor Air • Stratospheric Ozone

10. AIR Substantial progress has been made in monitoring to effectively measure status and trends in air quality consistently across the country.

11. Criteria Pollutants • Monitoring is conducted mostly in urban areas limiting ability to characterize rural levels • The indicators do not provide exposure data • Emissions indicators reflect emissions estimates (except for sources in NOx trading programs)

12. Acid Deposition • Limited geographic coverage for measuring deposition • Limited techniques for measuring dry deposition • Lack of data on exposure of high elevation forests and watersheds • Lack of adequate forest health monitoring • Lack of adequate biotic monitoring

13. Toxic Air Pollutants • No national monitoring network • The monitoring we do is limited • Emissions • Estimates not available annually • Indicator is aggregates across pollutants and geographic locations

14. Indoor Air & Stratospheric Ozone • Data on homes with radon is 13 years old • Data on children’s exposure to ETS is derived Data on worldwide ODS production may not be as reliable as US-only data • Incomplete understanding of interactions among atmospheric gases

15. Water • Water and Watersheds • Drinking Water • Recreation In and On the Water • Consumption of Fish and Shellfish

16. WATER Current monitoring programs for measuring and reporting inland water quality are often adequate at the state and local level but cannot provide a national picture.

17. WATER Environmental monitoring data available for measuring and reporting on several aspects of condition for estuaries and great lakes

18. Federal responsibility for implementing water statutes and for managing programs that affect water resources is spread across many different agencies, including EPA, USDA, DOI, the Corps of Engineers, NOAA, and HHS. • Water programs are largely delegated to states (and sometimes territories and tribes) who have authority and first line responsibility for implementation and coordination.

19. At the state level, water programs are housed in many different agencies • Hydrologic patterns vary widely across the United States, and different hydrological conditions exist in different ecosystems. Appropriate indicators and goals for water resources can be very different in different parts of the U.S. • Much water data is collected and presented at a smaller than national scale. Water programs are often managed at a watershed scale.

20. Fresh Surface Waters • Several programs collect data on the condition of surface waters. At this time, these data cannot be used to produce a national indicator to answer this question with sufficient confidence and scientific credibility. • Indicator data does exist for several stressors to water. States also identify principal causes of impairment to waters they list as impaired. • We also have several indices that measure incremental changes in the condition of waters and provide clues to the pressures affecting aquatic communities (see Chapter 5 – Ecological Condition)

21. Coastal Waters and Wetlands • The Nation’s estuaries are in fair to poor condition • Rates of annual wetland losses have decreased from 500,000 acres/year 30 years ago to fewer than 100,000 acres/year today

22. Drinking Water • In 2002 data reported by states to EPA showed that 251 million people were served by community water systems (CWS) that had no violations of EPA health-based standards. This represents 94% of the population served by CWSs. • We know that underreporting and late reporting of violations affects the accuracy of this data.

23. Recreational Waters • In 2001, survey respondents reported that beaches were closed or under advisory for almost six percent of the days that beaches would normally be open to the public. • This data covers 2,445 beaches for which data were collected and voluntarily reported. Almost all waters for which data were reported are coastal or Great Lakes beaches.

24. Fish • In the U.S. in 2002, 14 percent of the river miles, 28 percent of lake acres, and 100 percent of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters are under fish advisories. These percentages have steadily increased from 1993 - 2001 • Increases are most likely the result of more consistent monitoring and reporting, and decreases in concentration criteria – not necessarily an indication that conditions are getting worse.

25. Challenges • We are continuing to work to improve the quality of drinking water data. • Of the 49 states that issue fish advisories, six do not use a risk-based approach. • Data on beach closings and advisories is voluntary and includes only a few inland beaches. • Since reporting is voluntary, the data cannot be extrapolated to accurately determine the suitability on a national level of surface waters to support recreation. • We lack data on the health and ecological effects of contamination on plants and animals.

26. Land • Land Use • Chemicals in the Landscape • Waste and Contaminated Lands

27. LAND Currently, environmental monitoring efforts to accurately characterize land use are limited by a diversity of approaches and mandates. Excellent data exist for certain sectors, e.g. forests, but a comprehensive picture across all land uses is not available.

28. LAND EPA's programs for pesticides, chemicals used in industry, and handling of solid and hazardous wastes do not specifically authorize national ambient monitoring

29. ChallengesLand Use • The ability to accurately characterize and track land use over time is limited. • Various efforts contribute in part to tracking land use and cover types. • Alaska is seldom included in national inventories. • Methods and classifications are not consistent • Ongoing availability is not assured for NLCD

30. Challenges • Pesticide and fertilizer use data are estimates based on crop profiles, sales, etc. – no systematic survey of volume, distribution, and extent of use nationwide. • TRI does not track all toxic chemicals or all facilities that release them. • Few indicators of ambient concentrations or exposures of pesticides or toxics to fish and wildlife. • Better indicators are needed of the human health and ecological effects of pesticides and toxic chemicals.

31. Challenges Waste and Contaminated Lands • Because waste is managed by different government and private entities, data are neither complete or comparable. • Most waste generation is reported only by weight, providing little understanding of the volume produced. • Basic statistics on acreage of lands used for managing waste and their condition are not available at the national level. • Few indicators of ambient concentrations or exposures of waste constituents to fish and wildlife. • Better indicators are needed of the human health and ecological effects of municipal and hazardous wastes.

32. Health • What are the trends for health and disease in the U.S.? • What do we know about exposure? • What do we know about linkages between exposure and health effects?

33. HUMAN HEALTH Data on human health indicate that overall, Americans are healthier and live longer, but except in a few cases we lack the scientific understanding to know if this is due to environment, and how much to other factors such as health care and life style.

34. Challenges • Linkages explanation • Case studies • Innovative methodologies • Accountability • Better integration with air, water, land

35. Ecological Condition • What is the ecological condition of major ecosystems? • Forests • Farmlands • Grasslands / Shrublands • Fresh Waters • Coasts and Oceans

36. ECOLOGICAL CONDITION At this time, significant gaps in environmental monitoring make it impossible to adequately describe ecological condition or to report on the status and trends nationally

38. Data Sources • Indicators/Data identified from: • EPA Offices and Regions • Other Federal Agencies • Heinz Center • Nature Serve

39. Expert Review Workshop June 10 –12, 2002 Air: • Anthony Janetos, Heinz Center • Patrick Kinney, Columbia University Water: • Ed Rankin, Ohio University • Phil Singer, University of North Carolina • Chris Yoder, University of Ohio • Robert VanDola, South Carolina, Department of Nat’l Resources Land: • William Steen, University of Georgia • Rodger Tankersley, Tenn Valley Authority Ecological Condition: • Robin O’Malley, Heinz Center; • Keith Harrison, Michigan Environmental Science Board Human Health: • Thomas Burke, Johns Hopkins • Bailus Walker, Howard University Hospital • James Listorti, formerly the World Bank

40. Federal Agency Workgroup (CEQ lead) • Department of Energy • Department of Agriculture • Nat’l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Department of Defense • Department of Transportation • Army Corps of Engineers • Department of Interior • Department of Health and Human Services

41. Texas Oklahoma Nebraska Michigan Illinois Florida California Missouri New Jersey Wisconsin Delaware Minnesota Pennsylvania Arizona Idaho Oregon Massachusetts Washington State Indicators Workgroup (ECOS lead)

42. Overall • The Report highlights the need to further assess Agency priority and expectations for “outcomes” overall and in particular, as they pertain to Human Health and Ecological Condition

43. Overall • Understanding the linkages envisioned by the progression of indicators from source (or stressors) to effects (or outcomes) on Human Health and Ecological Condition is vital.

44. Challenges • Availability of Data • Questions with no data identified • Questions with data that provide only partial response • Availability of Data to Support Indicators • Spatial / Temporal trends • Reliability of data collection

45. Challenges • Shifting towards an “Outcomes” framework • Basic environmental questions require information that go beyond EPA’s data and authorities • EPA relies heavily on monitoring that is conducted by other Agencies and organizations