2009 environmental indicators

8/14/2019 2009 Environmental Indicators

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2009-environmental-indicators 1/57

Policy

Brief

2009 Environmental Indicators

by John Hill, WPC Adjunct Scholar

With an introduction by Todd Myers and Brandon Houskeeper

July 2009

PO Box 3643 Seattle, WA 98124 | p 206.937.9691 | washingtonpolicy.org


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2009-environmental-indicators 2/57 Washington Policy Center | PO Box 3643 Seattle, WA 98124 | P 206-937-9691 | washingtonpolicy.org

Page | 1

2009 Environmental Indicators

by John Hill Adjunct Scholar, Washington Policy Center With an introduction by Todd Myers & Brandon Houskeeper July 200

Introduction

A common theme offered by environmental activists is that the quality of our air,water and other environmental measures are declining. We frequently hear callsto address these growing threats to our environmental health.

But is that really the case? Is the quality of the environment in Washingtongetter better or worse? Are laws passed to protect the environment working? Areadvances in technology and economic development making the environmentcleaner, or are pollution levels at all time highs? Is air quality better or worse thanit was 30 years ago?

In our new report, Washington Policy Center’s Center for the Environmentanswers these questions, and more, with the 2009 Environmental Indicators report.The report provides the history and trends of important indicators for climate, air quality, land use, forestry, soil erosion, waste management and energy.

Environmental activists frequently highlight new threats facing our environment.Headlines like, “Puget Sound’s future in peril,”1 inundate us with frighteningstories. The headlines are often linked to the latest study or report concerning thedegradation of our air and water quality, or the overuse of land and other naturalresources. Other studies lead us to believe that our landfills are overfilling or thatour energy resources are dwindling.

This year, Washington State lawmakers introduced hundreds of bills to regulateactivities impacting the environment. Proposed legislation included higher

standards to protect air and water quality. Such proposals, however, are oftenput forward with little perspective for the environmental conditions that actuallyexist and whether the opportunities to make improvements exist and are moreworthwhile than other social or environmental priorities.

This report provides the information policymakers and the public need tounderstand the true environmental problems we face and the tremendousprogress we have made in improving the quality of our air, water, soil and other environmental resources.

A proper understanding of the real problems we face is critical to putting our efforts and resources where they can provide the most environmental benefit.Does it make sense to spend money on air quality that is already excellent, or

should we focus on other problems that might benefit more from that attention?This report can help guide the vital effort of setting proper priorities.

1 “Puget Sound’s future in peril,” by John Dodge and Chester Allen, The Olympian, January 12,2007.



Page | 2

Contents

Climate ClimateAtmospheric Composition1.Greenhouse Gases2.Greenhouse Gas Sources3.Carbon Dioxide Sources4.Temperature Change in the U.S. Since 18805.Frequency of Hurricanes6.

Air QualityAir Quality: Relative Severity7.Trends in Emissions, Demographics, and Economics8.Air Quality: Growth in Air Pollution Programs9.Carbon Monoxide: Washington and the U.S.10.Carbon Monoxide: Historical Data11.Carbon Monoxide: Washington Cities12.Lead: Washington and the U.S.13.Nitrogen Dioxide: Washington and the U.S.14.Ozone: Washington and the U.S.15.Ozone: Washington’s Largest Cities16.Particulate Matter (PM17.

10): Washington and the U.S.

Particulate Matter (PM18. 2.5): Washington and the U.S.Particulate Matter (PM19.

2.5) in Washington’s Largest Cities

Sulfur Dioxide: Washington and the U.S.20.Sulfur Dioxide in Washington’s Cities21.Air Quality Index22.

Water QualityNitrogen and Phosphorus in Wadeable Streams23.Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Agricultural Watersheds24.Pesticides in Streams in Agricultural Watersheds25.Coastal Water Quality26.Community Water Systems27.

Coastal Fish Tissue Contaminants28. Washington’s Rivers, Creeks, and Streams29.Washington’s Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs30.Washington’s Bays and Estuaries31.

Land UseLand Use: U.S.32.Land Use: Washington33.

Forests: IntroductionForests: U.S.34.Forests: Washington35.

Soil ErosionSoil Erosion: U.S.36.Soil Erosion: Washington37.

Waste and Waste ManagementMunicipal Solid Waste Management: U.S.38.Toxics Release Inventory: Introduction39.Toxics Release Inventory: U.S. 1988 Baseline40.Toxics Release Inventory: U.S. 1995 Baseline41.Toxics Release Inventory: U.S. 1998 Baseline42.Toxics Release Inventory: U.S. 2000 Baseline43.Toxics Release Inventory: Washington 1988 Baseline44.

ClimateGlobal Warming 4

What is the Atmosphere Made Of? What are “Greenhouse Gases”? What are the Sources of Greenhouse Gases? What are the Main Sources of Carbon Dioxide?

How has the Temperature Changed in the U.S. since 1880? 9Is Global Warming Causing More Frequent or More Severe Hurricanes? 10

Air Quality Air Quality: Criteria Pollutants Is Air Quality in the U.S. Better, Worse, or about the Same as it was in 1980? 12

What Progress are Americans Making Toward Reduced Air Pollution? How Have Ambient Levels of Carbon Monoxide Changed in Recent Years? 14How Have Levels of Carbon Monoxide Changed Since the Clean Air Act? 15How Have Ambient Levels of Carbon Monoxide Changed in Washington’s Largest Cities? 16How Have Ambient Levels of Lead Changed in Recent Years? 17How Have Ambient Levels of Nitrogen Dioxide Changed in Recent Years? 18

How Have Ambient Levels of Ozone Changed in Recent Years? 19How Have Ambient Levels of Ozone Changed in Washington’s Largest Cities? 20How Have Ambient Levels of Particulate Matter Changed in Recent Years? 2How Have Ambient Levels of Particulate Matter Changed in Recent Years? 22How Have Ambient Levels of Particulate Matter Changed in Washington’s Largest Cities? 23How Have Ambient Levels of Sulfur Dioxide Changed in Recent Years? 24How Have Ambient Levels of Sulfur Dioxide Changed in Washington’s Largest Cities? 25How Healthy is the Air in Washington’s Largest Cities? 26

Water Quality Water Pollution: An Introduction How Much Nitrogen and Phosphorus is Present in Wadeable Streams in the U.S.? 28How Much Nitrogen and Phosphorus are Present in Agricultural Watersheds in the U.S.? 29

What Levels of Pesticides are Present in Streams that are Part of Agricultural Watersheds? 30How Polluted are the Nation’s Coastal Waters? 3How Clean are the Nation’s Community Water Systems? 32

Are Fish Caught Along the Nation’s Coast Safe to Eat? What is the Water Quality in Washington’s Rivers, Creeks, and Streams? What is the Water Quality in Washington’s Ponds, Lakes, and Reservoirs? What is the Water Quality in Washington’s Bays and Estuaries?

What is the Water Quality in Puget Sound?

Land UseIs the U.S. in Danger of Losing its Undeveloped Areas to Urban Sprawl? 38

Is Washington in Danger of Losing its Undeveloped Areas to Urban Sprawl? 39

ForestsForests: Introduction 40How Much Land is Covered by Forests in the U.S.? 4How Much Land is Covered by Forests in Washington? 42

Soil ErosionHow Much Soil is Lost to Erosion in the U.S. Each Year? 43How Much Soil is Lost to Erosion in Washington Each Year? 44



Page | 4

Global Warming1

Greenhouse gases are a small part of the Earth’s atmosphere. They are, however,critical to making the planet habitable. Human activities, primarily the burningof fossil fuels for energy, have contributed to an increase in greenhouse gases andmany scientists believe this has contributed to the present warming trend.

Every year, the United States emits the equivalent of 20.4 metric tons of CO2

per person, more than almost any other developed country. By comparison, Great

Britain emits the equivalent of 9.4 metric tons of CO2 per person per year; Japan,9.7 metric tons; and Germany, 9.8 metric tons.

Man-made CO2

contributions to the atmosphere account for only about 3.4percent of all annual CO

2emissions. However, small increases in annual CO

2

emissions, whether from humans or any other source, can lead to a large CO2

accumulation over time because CO2

molecules can remain in the atmosphere formore than a century.

Largely due to human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels anddeforestation, CO

2levels have risen approximately 35 percent since the beginning

of the Industrial Revolution, from about 275 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 toapproximately 370 ppm in 2000. Eighty percent of the increase in CO

2levels has

occurred since 1950.

Despite these large-sounding numbers, the influence of man-made CO2

in theenvironment is minimal. When the effect of natural conditions – such as water vapor, volcanoes, decaying plants, and oceanic activity – are subtracted from theoverall change in climate, the human contribution to the greenhouse effect is lessthan one-half of 1 percent.

Moreover, considerable research suggests that climate shifts are a natural part of the Earth’s existence. Over the past 400,000 years, there have been a series of iceages lasting 100,000 years on average, interrupted by warm periods lasting about10,000 years. During ice ages, the temperature drops by as much as 21° F (11.7°

C), sea levels fall dramatically, glaciers expand, and most living things are forcedto migrate toward the equator. During periods of relative warmth, sea levels riseand glaciers retreat. We are currently at the tail end of a warm period.

For the past 400,000 years, temperature and CO2

levels have varied together.However, the Earth’s temperature has consistently risen and fallen hundreds of years prior to increases and declines in CO

2levels.

1 Talking points from the National Center for Policy Analysis, “A Global Warming Primer,” 2007.Available at http://eteam.ncpa.org/files/GlobalWarmingPrimer_low.pdf. Access verified April 17,2009.



Page | 5

What is the Atmosphere Made Of?

Approximately 99 percent of the Earth’s dry atmosphere is comprised of two•

gases: nitrogen and oxygen. Of the remaining 1 percent, about nine-tenths isargon, followed by carbon dioxide (0.04 percent) and other gases (e.g., neon,helium, methane, krypton, and hydrogen).2

Carbon dioxide (CO•2) is a naturally-occurring greenhouse gas. Humans and

other animals emit CO2

into the atmosphere when they exhale, and plants

absorb it.

Water vapor is also an important component of the atmosphere. Its quantity•

varies greatly by area and altitude, and is usually thought to be about 1

percent of the entire atmosphere.3

2 NASA, “Earth Fact Sheet,” April 19, 2007. Available at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html. Access verified September 17, 2008. 3 Ibid.

Atmospheric Composition, by Volume (Dry Air)

Nitrogen, 78.1%

Oxygen, 20.9%

Argon, 0.9%

Other Gases, 0.003%

Carbon dioxide, 0.04%



Page | 6

What are “Greenhouse Gases”?

The greenhouse effect refers to the fact that some gases – water vapor,•

carbon dioxide, and methane – let in visible light from the sun, but absorboutgoing infrared light emitted by the Earth. This results in a warming of the atmosphere.4

Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting•

for about 95 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Practically all water vapor(99.999 percent) is from natural sources.

Most other atmospheric greenhouse gases are also of natural origin: carbon•

dioxide (CO2: 96.6 percent natural); methane (CH

4: 81.7 percent natural);

and nitrous oxide (N2O: 95 percent natural). Only chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs), which comprise less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all greenhousegases, are mostly made by human-related activities (65.2 percentanthropogenic).5

4 Joel Schwartz, “A North Carolina Citizen’s Guide to Global Warming,” July 2007, p. 2. Availableat www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/policyReports/globalwarmingguide.pdf. Access verified February9, 2009.5 Monte Heib, “Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System,” in “Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers,” January 10, 2003. Available at www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html. Access verified April 9, 2009.

Composition of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases

Water vapor

95.0%

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

3.62%

Nitrous Oxide (N2O)

0.95%

Misc. gases (CFCs,

etc.), 0.072%

Methane (CH4)

0.36%



Page | 7

What are the Sources of Greenhouse Gases?

Currently, about 7-8 gigatons of manmade CO•2

are put into the atmosphereevery year, mostly from energy production, farming, manufacturing, and

transportation. About half of this CO2, though, is reabsorbed by the earth.Thus, only 3.5-4 gigatons actually stays in the atmosphere for any length of time. To put this amount in perspective, there are already about 740 gigatonsof CO

2in the atmosphere. This means that the human contribution of CO

2

to the global CO2

bank is only about 0.5 percent per year.6

When placed in the context of the other sources of total greenhouse•

gases, humanity is responsible for about one-quarter of one percent of all greenhouse gases.7 Emissions made by humanity are so dwarfed, incomparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about,that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a verysmall – perhaps undetectable – effect on global climate.8

6 John R. Christy, “Searching for Climate Change: A More Temperate Take on Global Warming.”Presented at the Center for the American Experiment (Minneapolis, MN), June 5, 2007.7 Lee C. Gerhard, “Geologic Constraints on Global Climate Variability.” Available atwww.warwickhughes.com/geol/index.htm. Access verified February 9, 2009.8 Monte Heib, “Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System.”

Human Share of the Greenhouse Effect

Water Vapor

95%

Ocean Biologic, Activity,Volcanoes, Decaying

Plants, Animal Activity,

etc.

4.72%

Human Contribution

0.28%



Page | 8

What are the Main Sources of Carbon Dioxide?

Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual carbon dioxide•

(CO2) emissions through, among other things, breathing, the burning of

fossil fuels and deforestation. However, small increases in annual CO2

emissions, whether from humans or any other source, can lead to a largeCO

2accumulation over time because CO

2molecules can remain in the

atmosphere for more than a century.9

9 Amy Kaleita, “Sense and Sequestration: The Carbon Sequestration Cycle Explained,”Pacific Research Institute, November 2006, p. 9; available at http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20070202_2006_Carbon_seq.pdf. Access verified February 10, 2009. See also VolcanoHazards Program, U.S. Geological Survey, “Volcanic Gases and Their Effects,” January 10, 2006.

CO2 Emission Sources

Human, 3.4%

Nature, 96.6%



Page | 9

How has the Temperature Changed in the U.S. since 1880?

Since 1880, the average temperature in the United States has risen, albeit•

slowly, at the rate of about 0.01° F (0.0055° C) per year. Put another way,the temperature has risen by only 1.27° F (0.79° C) in the past 128 years.10

While temperatures have recently been above average, many of the highest•

temperature variations occurred between 1921 and 1954, before manmadegreenhouse gas emissions rose substantially.

10 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard Institute for Space Studies,“Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (Celsisus).” Available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt. Access verified April 17, 2009.

U.S. Climate Change: Annual Means and Five-Year Averages, 1880-2007

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

C h a n g e i n T e m p e r a t u r e f r o m t h

e A v e r a g

e ( C e l s i u s )

Annual Mean Five-Year Averaged Mean



Page | 10

Is Global Warming Causing More Frequent or More Severe

Hurricanes?

Many scientists worry that global warming will cause droughts, floods,•

hurricanes of greater intensity, coastal flooding and the extinction of speciesthat cannot adapt to change. So far, these effects are not evident.

Neither the number nor the strength of hurricanes has increased significantly•

(category 1 is the lowest wind velocity and category 5 is the highest).11

Moreover, not all of these storms made landfall as hurricanes.

11 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Hurricane Research Division,“Atlantic Storms Sorted by Year (1851-2002).” Available at www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_ pages/Atl/date_frame.html. Access verified September 17, 2008.

Frequency of Hurricanes, by Severity: 1945-2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

1945-49 1950-54 1955-59 1960-64 1965-69 1970-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04

Category 1 Category 2 and 3 Category 4 and 5



Page | 12

Is Air Quality in the U.S. Better, Worse, or about the Same as it was in

1980?

Polls consistently find that air pollution is a leading concern for many•

Americans. One of the most recent polls of this type, conducted in March2009 by the Gallup Organization found that 45 percent of Americansworried “a great deal” about air pollution, while only 18 percent worriedabout it “only a little.” This number has fluctuated from 39 percent in 2004to 63 percent in 1989.12 It is only when the entire record of the last 30 yearsis surveyed that the dramatic progress in air quality becomes evident.

The steady improvement in air quality in most American cities is one of the•

greatest environmental success stories of recent decades. Yet because thisimprovement has come in small increments, at any given moment it tends togo unnoticed and unappreciated.

12 Lydia Saad, “Water Pollution Americans’ Top Green Concern,” Gallup, March 25, 2009.Available at www.gallup.com/poll/117079/Water-Pollution-Americans-Top-Green-Concern.aspx?version=print. Access verified May 15, 2009.

Relative Severity of National Air Quality Criteria Pollutants (base 1980):

1980-2007

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

Lead (-93%) Carbon Monoxide (-52%) Sulfur Dioxide (-50%) VOCs (-41%)

Nitrogen Dioxide (-37%) PM10 (-48%) PM 2.5 (-28%)



Page | 14

How Have Ambient Levels of Carbon Monoxide Changed in Recent

Years?

When fuel and other substances containing carbon burn without sufficient•

oxygen, they produce carbon monoxide (CO), a colorless, odorless, and athigh levels, poisonous gas. While trace amounts of CO occur naturally inthe atmosphere, transportation sources create about three-fourths of thenation’s total emissions. In cities, vehicle exhausts account for up to 95percent of all CO emissions. Industrial processes, non-transportation fuelcombustion such as lawn mowers, and natural sources such as wildfires also

create CO emissions.

The federal standard for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions is nine parts per •

million per eight-hour period. From 1975 to 2008, national ambient COemissions fell 82 percent, and have declined 51 percent since 2000. Putanother way, in 1975 one of every 64 readings for CO (1.6 percent) exceededfederal standards. By 2008, only one in every 149,000 readings (.001 percent)exceeded federal guidelines.14

In Washington, statewide CO levels fell 87 percent from 1975 to 2008, and•

have declined 66 percent since 2000. In 1975, ambient CO levels exceededfederal standards more than 1,060 times. By 1990, only 84 exceedances werereported. Since 2000, no exceedances in CO levels have been reported in the

state.

14 EPA, AirData—Monitor Data Queries, Annual Summary Table Query, March 3, 2009. Availableat www.epa.gov/aqspubl1/annual_summary.html. Access verified March 23, 2009.

Average Ambient Carbon Monoxide (CO),

Washington and the United States: 1975-2008

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

8 - h o u r 2 n d m a x a v e r a g e , p a r t s p e r m i l l i o n

Washington U.S. EPA Standard



Page | 15

How Have Levels of Carbon Monoxide Changed Since the Clean Air

Act?

Although there is little data on ambient CO concentrations until the 1970s,•

the available data suggest CO may have already begun improving in the mid-1960s, at least in urban areas. Trends were already downward immediatelyafter the act became law, indicating that the trend was already in place sinceimplementation of such regulations is not immediate.

This data is from the federally operated six-city CAMP network, which•

includes Chicago, Cincinnati, Denver, Philadelphia, St. Louis, andWashington. Indur M. Goklany, author of Clearing the Air: The Real Story of the War on Air Pollution, notes: “The fact that declines apparently began

before the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program went into effect indicatesthat stationary (i.e., industrial) source reductions played a role in the initialturnaround; those improvements then gathered momentum as an increasingnumber of vehicles became subject to federal tailpipe controls starting withthe 1968 model year.”15

15 Indur M. Goklany, Clearing the Air: The Real Story of the War on Air Pollution (Washington, DC:Cato Institute, 1999).

Ambient CO Concentrations in the U.S.:

1963-2000

0

5

10

15

20

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Annual Average 6 moni tors Annual Average 221 moni tors 2nd max. 8-hr. 91 moni tors

2nd max. 8-hr. 328 moni tors 2nd max. 8-hr. 321 monitors 2nd max. 8-hr. 327 moni tors

Clean

Air Act



Page | 16

How Have Ambient Levels of Carbon Monoxide Changed in

Washington’s Largest Cities?

From 1975 to 2008, ambient levels of CO fell substantially among•

Washington’s largest cities. The greatest declines have been in Seattle andTacoma, where ambient CO levels fell 89 percent. CO levels also fell by86 percent in Spokane and 85 percent in Vancouver during the same timeperiod.

In 1975, ambient CO levels in Seattle exceeded the federal standard of •

nine parts per million per eight-hour period 620 times. By 1980, only 160exceedances were reported. No exceedances in CO levels have been reportedin Seattle since 1992.16 Similar improvements in air quality have been madein Spokane, Tacoma, and Vancouver.

Since 2000, all four cities have been below the federal CO threshold of an•

average of nine parts per million per eight hours.

16 EPA, AirData—Monitor Data Queries, Annual Summary Table Query.

Ambient Carbon Monoxide (CO) in Washington Cities: 1975-2008

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

8 - h o u r s e c o n d m a x a v e r a g e , p a r t s p e r m i l l i o n

Seattle Spokane Tacoma Vancouver EPA Standard



Page | 17

How Have Ambient Levels of Lead Changed in Recent Years?

Lead is a soft, dense, bluish-gray metal used in piping, batteries, weights,•

gunshot, and crystal. The highest concentrations of lead are found in areassurrounding smelters, battery manufacturers, and other stationary sources of lead emissions.

Of the six criteria pollutants, lead is the most toxic. When ingested through•

food, water, soil, dust, or inhaled through the air, it gathers in the body’s

tissues and is not readily excreted. Extreme exposure to lead can causeanemia, kidney disease, reproductive disorders, and neurological damagesuch as seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. Youngchildren are particularly vulnerable to high levels of lead in the blood, whichcan retard brain and IQ development. Children who live in older housingwith lead-based paint are still at risk for high blood-lead levels, but the threatof lead poisoning from poor urban air is largely a problem of the past.17

From 1975 to 2008, ambient lead levels in the United States decreased 82•

percent. In Washington, where monitoring for lead ended in 2002, levelsdeclined 99 percent since 1975. Both have remained below the nationalstandard of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air for many years.18 Most of this decline was the result of the introduction of unleaded gasoline, and the

removal of lead from paints and point sources such as smelters and batteryplants.

17 EPA, “Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil,” February 6, 2007, Available at www.epa.gov /lead/.Access verified April 7, 2009.18 EPA, AirData—Monitor Data Queries, Annual Summary Table Query.

Ambient Lead (Pb) in Washington and the U.S.:

1975-2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

A r i t h m e t i c m e a n , m i c r o g r a m s p e r c u b i c m

e t e r

US Washington EPA Standard



Page | 18

How Have Ambient Levels of Nitrogen Dioxide Changed in Recent

Years?

Nitrogen oxides (NO•x) form naturally when nitrogen and oxygen combine

through bacterial action in soil, lightning, volcanic activity, and forest fires.Nitrogen oxides also result from human activities including high-temperaturecombustion of fossil fuels by automobiles, power plants, industry, and theuse of home heaters and gas stoves. Environmental agencies track the light

brown gas, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), because when it combines with volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight, it forms ground-level

ozone.

The national average for ambient levels of nitrogen dioxide decreased by 51•

percent from 1975 to 2008, and have declined 30 percent since 2000.

While only incomplete data exist for Washington, what data are available•

suggest ambient nitrogen dioxide levels fell by 61 percent from 1975 to2008, and decreased by 48 percent since 2000, to levels well below the EPAstandard of 0.053 parts per million.19

19 EPA, AirData—Monitor Data Queries, Annual Summary Table Query.

Ambient Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in Washington and the U.S.:

1975-2008

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

a n n u a l m e a n , p a r t s p e r m i l l i o n




Page | 19

How Have Ambient Levels of Ozone Changed in Recent Years?

Ground-level ozone is the main contributor to urban smog, though sulfur,•

nitrogen, carbon, and particulate matter contribute to smog’s formationas well. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but forms when volatileorganic compounds (VOCs) combine in sunlight with various nitrogenoxides (NOx), dependent upon weather-related factors. This makes itdifficult to predict changes in ozone levels accurately due to reductions inVOCs and NOx. VOCs evaporate into the atmosphere from motor vehicles,

chemical plants, refineries, factories, consumer and commercial productssuch as lighter fluid, perfume, and other industrial sources. VOCs also occur naturally as a result of photosynthesis.

Ozone is the most stubborn air quality problem for both Washington and the•

nation as a whole. On average, national ambient levels of ozone decreased16 percent from 1975 to 2008, while ozone levels in Washington fell only 4percent during the same period.20 All the same, Washington’s ozone levelsare below both the national average and EPA standard.

On May 27, 2008, the EPA’s primary standard for ozone tightened from .08•

parts per million to .075 parts per million. A state is said to be in violationof this standard if the fourth-highest daily maximum value is above this

threshold.21

20 Ibid.21 EPA, “National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” March 28th, 2008. Available atwww.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Access verified April 17, 2009.

Ambient Ozone (O3) in Washington and the U.S.:

1975-2008

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

f o u r t h m a x i m u m 8

- h o u r a v e r a g e , p a r t s p e r m

i l l i o n




Page | 20

How Have Ambient Levels of Ozone Changed in Washington’s Largest

Cities?

Washington’s four largest cities—Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and•

Vancouver—measure ozone concentrations during the spring and summer months of each year.

From 1975 to 2008, ambient ozone levels have decreased between 11 percent•

and 15 percent in Spokane, Tacoma, and Vancouver. In Seattle, though,ambient ozone levels have declined only 1 percent.

Ambient Ozone (O3) Trends in Washington's Largest Cities:

1975-2008

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

f o u r t h m a x i m u m 8

- h o u r a v e r a g e , p a r t s p e r m i l l i o n




Page | 21

How Have Ambient Levels of Particulate Matter (PM10 ) Changed in

Recent Years?

Particulate matter (also known as particle pollution or PM) is the general•

term for a mixture of solid particles, including pieces of dust, soot, dirt, ash,smoke, and liquid droplets or vapor emitted directly into the air, where theyare suspended for long periods of time. Particles can come from a variety of sources, including forest fires and volcanic ash; emissions from power plants,motor vehicles, wood stoves and burning of waste or biomass; and dust frommining, paved and unpaved roads, and wind erosion.

In 1987, the EPA began monitoring particulates 10 microns in diameter or •

smaller (PM10

). To put this size in perspective, the average human hair isabout 70 microns in diameter, and fine sand is about 90 microns across.22

From 1985 to 2008, nationwide average concentrations of PM•10

decreased 34percent. In Washington, overall measures of PM

10decreased 62 percent.23

Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure•

to coarse particle pollution, the agency revoked the annual PM10

standardin December 2006, but retained the existing 24-hour standard of 150micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).24

22 EPA, “Basic Information: Particulate Matter,” May 9, 2008. Available at www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/basic.html. Access verified April 9, 2009.23 EPA, AirData—Monitor Data Queries, Annual Summary Table Query.24 EPA, “PM Standards,” Available at www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/standards.html. Accessverified April 7, 2009.

Ambient Particulate Matter (PM10), Annual Mean in Washington and the U.S.:

1985-2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

m i c r o g r a m s p e r c u b i c m e t e r

U S Was hi ngt on



Page | 22

How Have Ambient Levels of Particulate Matter (PM2.5 ) Changed in

Recent Years?

In 1999, the EPA tightened its standards for particulate matter by monitoring•

particles 2.5 micrometers in size or smaller (PM2.5

). These standards were based on a link to serious health problems ranging from increased symptoms,hospital admissions and emergency room visits for people with heart andlung disease, to premature death in people with heart or lung disease.Initially, these changes were challenged in court by several industry groupsand state governments. However, in 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the

EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to set standards, and clarified thatthe EPA cannot consider cost in setting standards.25

From 1999 to 2008, ambient levels of PM•2.5

in the United States declined19 percent. In Washington, average PM

2.5levels fell only 1 percent during

the same period of time. At no time, though, during this period didWashington’s average level of PM

2.5rise above the federal standard of 15 µg/

m3 in 2007.26

25 EPA, “History of PM Standards.” Available at www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/history.html.Access verified April 9, 2009.26 EPA, AirData—Monitor Data Queries, Annual Summary Table Query.

Annual Mean of Ambient Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

in Washington and the U.S.: 1999-2008

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008





Page | 23

How Have Ambient Levels of Particulate Matter (PM2.5 ) Changed in

Washington’s Largest Cities?

Of Washington’s four largest cities—Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and•

Vancouver—only Seattle recorded a decline in PM2.5

levels from 1999 to2008 (15 percent decrease). On average, PM

2.5levels in the remaining

cities increased 12 percent from 1999 to 2008.27 Nevertheless, PM2.5

levelsremained well below the federal standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter.

27 Ibid.

Annual Mean of Ambient Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

in Washington's Four Largest Cities: 1999-2008

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008





Page | 24

How Have Ambient Levels of Sulfur Dioxide Changed in Recent Years?

Sulfur dioxide (SO•2) is a colorless gas that forms from the burning of

fuel containing sulfur, mainly coal and oil, as well as from industrialand manufacturing processes, particularly electrical power generation.Environmental factors such as temperature inversion, wind speed, and windconcentration also affect SO

2levels.

Ambient levels of SO•

2 decreased 72 percent nationwide between 1975 and2008, and the United States has met the EPA’s designated “good” categorysince 1981. In Washington, ambient levels of SO

2fell 89 percent from 1975

to 2008.28

28 Ibid.

Ambient Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) in Washington and the U.S.: 1975-2008

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

A n n u a l A v e r a g e ,

P a r t s p e r M i l l i o n

Washington US EPA Standard



Page | 25

How Have Ambient Levels of Sulfur Dioxide Changed in Washington’s

Largest Cities?

Seattle, Spokane, and Vancouver have tracked sulfur dioxide (SO•2) levels

without interruption since 1975. The available data suggests a fairly uniformdecline in ambient SO

2levels of about 88 percent for all of Washington’s

largest cities over the past 30 years.

Since 1975, ambient SO•2

levels in Seattle, Spokane, and Vancouver havefallen 85 percent, 82 percent, and 93 percent, respectively. In Tacoma, the

available data suggests a fall in ambient SO2 levels of about 92 percent from1975 to 2008.29 SO2

levels in all four cities have been below federal standardsfor decades.

29 Ibid.

Ambient Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) in Washington's Four Largest Cities: 1975-2008

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

P a r t s p e r M i l l i o n

Seatt le Spokane Tacoma Vancouver EPA Standard



Page | 26

How Healthy is the Air in Washington’s Largest Cities?

In July 1999 the EPA replaced the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) with the•

Air Quality Index (AQI).30 The AQI is a composite measure of the criteriapollutants and it is used to give warnings about “unhealthful” air quality: anAQI value of 100 is the threshold of unhealthful air. The thresholds for eachcategory are shown below:

In 2007, of the 93 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) surveyed nationwide,the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett MSA ranked 15th best in terms of AQI days of lessthan 100, the Portland-Vancouver MSA ranked 18th, and Tacoma ranked 24th.

30 EPA, “Air Trends: Air Quality Index Information,” Updated September 4, 2008. Available athttp://epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqi_info.html. Access verified April 21, 2009.

Number of Days with Air Quality Index Values Greater than 100, Washington

MSAs: 1990-2007

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Portland-Vancouver,OR-WA Seattle-Bellevue-Everett,WA Tacoma,WA

Category Good Moderate

Unhealthyfor Sensitive

Groups Unhealthy Very Unhealthy Hazardous

Index Value 0 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 150 151 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500

Pollutant Concentration Ranges

CO 0 - 4.4 4.5 - 9.4 9.5 - 12.4 12.5 - 15.4 15.5 - 30.4 30.5 - 40.4 40.5 - 50.4

NO2 -- -- -- -- 0.65 - 1.24 1.25 - 1.64 1.65 - 2.04

O3 1-hour -- -- .125 - .164 .165 - .204 .205 - .404 .405 - .504 .505 - .604

O3 8-hour 0 - .064 .065 - .084 .085 - .104 .105 - .124 .125 - .374 -- --

PM 2.5 0 - 15.4 15.5 - 40.4 40.5 - 65.4 65.5 - 150.4 150.5 - 250.4 250.5 - 350.4 350.5 - 500.4

PM 10 0 - 54 55 - 154 155 - 254 255 - 354 355 - 424 425 - 504 505 - 604

SO2 0 - .034 .035 - .144 .145 - .224 .225 - .304 .305 - .604 .605 - .804 .805 - 1.004



Page | 27

Water Quality

As part of the EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment , a chapter was devoted toexamining 18 environmental indicators it considers helpful in assessing thequality of the nation’s water resources. The goal of the EPA’s report was toassess both the extent of water resources (their amount and distribution) and their condition (physical, chemical, and biological).31

The inland, coastal, and territorial waters examined in this chapter comprise less

than seven percent of the surface of the United States, yet they cover 256,000square miles, a surface area slightly smaller than Texas.32 Because of this largesize, the EPA relies on sampling, surveys, and monitoring stations that areconsidered representative of larger areas. They note:

One of the challenges in assessing the extent and condition of water resources is that a single data collection method is rarely perfect for every combination of spatial and temporal domains. In general, there is an inherent tradeoff in representing trends in water resources. For example, a probabilistic survey may provide an accurate representation of national trends, but the resolution may be too low to definitively characterize the resource at a smaller scale. In some cases, results can be disaggregated to the scale of EPA Regions or ecoregions without losing precision. However, these indicators are generally not designed to inform the reader about the condition of his or

her water bodies, for example, or the quality of locally harvested fish.33

In the same way, the EPA notes that the sampling methods used can overlook “extreme events,” such as the effect of pesticide application on a nearby water

body. “Thus, representative extent or condition data cannot depict the full rangeof variations and extremes—some of which may be critical to ecosystems or tohumans—that occur in smaller areas or on smaller time scales.”34

Water Pollution: An Introduction

Water pollution stems from five types of sources: point, non-point, air deposition,

invasive species, and natural factors:

Point source pollution• refers to large-scale industrial and municipal pollution,such as release pipes or sewer outlets that discharge pollutants directly into

bodies of water.

Non-point source pollution• refers to such factors as agricultural runoff, minedrainage, soil erosion, urban storm runoff, recreational activities, andhousehold disposal of pollutants “down the drain.” These may vary morethan point source pollution because of differences in land cover and land use,as well as the location and timing of pesticide application.

Air deposition• refers to acidic aerosols, heavy metals, and other airborne

contaminants which may be deposited directly on water or may wash intowater bodies after deposition on land.

Invasive species • refers to non-indigenous plant and animal species.

31 EPA, “Water Use,” in EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment . National Center for EnvironmentalAssessment, Washington, DC, 2008, p. 3-6. Available at www.epa.gov/roe. Access verified April17, 2009.32 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Land and Water Area of States and Other Entities: 2000,” inStatistical Abstract of the United States: 2009 (128th Edition) Washington, DC, 2008. Available at wwwcensus.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0344.pdf/. Access verified April 17, 2009.33 EPA, “Water Use,” in EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment , p. 3-6.34 Ibid.



Page | 28

Natural factors • refer to influences by weather and climate, such as rain andtemperature changes. It also refers to mineral and sediment deposits whichmay make a water body more susceptible to acidification.35

How Much Nitrogen and Phosphorus is Present in Wadeable Streams

in the U.S.?

Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential elements in aquatic ecosystems, as•

both are used by plants and algae for growth. Excess nutrients, however,

can lead to increased algae production, and excess nutrients in streams canalso affect lakes, larger rivers, and coastal waters downstream. In addition to

being visually unappealing, excess algae growth can contribute to the loss of oxygen needed by fish and other animals, which in turn can lead to alteredecosystems. Sources of excess nutrients include sewage and septic tank drain fields, agricultural runoff, excess fertilizer application, and atmosphericdeposition of nitrogen.36

From 2000 to 2004, crews sampled 1,392 randomized sites in streams, creeks•

and small rivers across the contiguous United States. Total nitrogen levelswere low for 43.3 percent of all water bodies sampled, but were high—thatis, above the 95th percentile of the region’s reference distribution—in 31.8percent of the samples. Similar results were found for phosphorus, with 48.8

percent of samples possessing low levels, while 30.9 percent had high levelsof phosphorus.

35 Ibid.36 Ibid, p. 3-13.

Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Wadeable Streams of the Contiguous U.S.,

2000-2004

4.2 4.2

43.3 48.8

20.716.1

31.8 30.9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen

P e r c e n t o f S t r e a m M

i l e s

No Data / Not Assessed Low Moderate High



Page | 29

How Much Nitrogen and Phosphorus are Present in Agricultural

Watersheds in the U.S.?

From 1992 to 2001, nitrogen concentrations in 129 streams connected to•

major agricultural areas were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey’s(USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. Each sitewas sampled 12-25 times per year over a 1- to 3-year period. These samplesrepresent 36 of 51 major river basins examined by NAWQA.37

Naturally-occurring levels of nitrogen and nitrate vary widely across the•

country, so “normal” levels range from 0.12 to 2.2 milligrams per liter (mg/ L).38 In 60 percent of the streams tested, nitrate levels were 2 mg / Lor higher. Of these, 13 percent had nitrate levels at or above 10 mg / L.Nitrogen levels were worse, with 78 percent of streams tested at levels at or above 2 mg / L.

No national standard has been set up for either orthophosphate or phosphate•

because “the effects of phosphorus vary by region and are dependent uponsuch physical factors as the size, hydrology, and depth of rivers and lakes.”However, some analyses suggest a reference point for both substances at0.75 mg / L or less, meaning that some of the streams reporting the lowestconcentrations of phosphorus and orthophosphates may have still exceededthese recommendations.39

About 45 percent of all streams tested indicated levels of orthophosphate•

at or above 0.1 mg / L, while about 85 percent indicated similar levels of phosphate.

37 Ibid, p. 3-15.38 Ibid.39 Ibid, p. 3-16.

Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Streams in Agricultural Watersheds in the

Contiguous U.S., 1992-2001

17.7

16.5

36.2

46.6

10.821.8

13.1 9.8

54.5

15.5

40.9

46.5

3.0

24.8

13.2

5.3

22.3

1.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Nitrate Total Nitrogen Orthophosphate Total Phosphorus

P e r c e n t o f S t r e a m M

i l e s

Less than 1 mg / L 1 to <2 mg / L 2 to >6 mg / L 6 to <10 mg / L ≥10 mg / LLess than 0.1 mg / L 0.1 to <0.3 mg / L 0.3 to <0.5 mg / L ≥0.5 mg / L



Page | 30

What Levels of Pesticides are Present in Streams that are Part of

Agricultural Watersheds?

More than a billion pounds of pesticides (measured as pounds of active•

ingredient) are used in the United States each year.40 About 80 percent of this is used for agricultural purposes. While pesticide use has resulted inincreased crop production and other benefits, pesticide contamination of streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, coastal areas, and ground water can causeadverse effects on aquatic life, drinking water, irrigation, and other uses.41

This indicator uses data from the same stream water samples collected•

between 1992 and 2001 as part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National

Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. NAWQA collected 10-49water samples per year from each site over a 1-to-3-year period to analyzefor 75 different pesticides and eight pesticide degradation products, whichaccount for approximately 78 percent of the total agricultural pesticideapplication in the U.S. by weight during the study period.42

Of the streams sampled, all had at least one pesticide detected and 86 percent•

had five or more compounds present. In 57 percent of the streams sampled,at least one pesticide was detected at a concentration that exceeded oneor more aquatic life benchmarks. About 7 percent of streams (6 of the 83streams sampled) had five or more pesticides at concentrations above aquaticlife benchmarks.43

40 Arnold L. Aspelin, Pesticide Usage in the United States: Trends during the 20 th Century (Raleigh, NC:Center for Integrated Pest Management, North Carolina State University, 2003). Available at www.pestmanagement.info/pesticide_history/index.pdf. Cited by EPA, “Water Use,” in EPA’s 2008

Report on the Environment . p. 3-19.41 United States Geological Survey (USGS), “Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota,”2000. Available at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/pubs/fs09200/. Cited by EPA, “Water Use,” in EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment , p. 3-19. Access verified September 3, 2008.42 R. J. Gilliom et al., “Pesticides in the nation’s streams and ground water, 1992-2001,” U.S.Geological Survey circular 1291, February 15, 2007. Available at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/pubs/circ1291/ (document); http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/pubs/circ1291/supporting_info.php (supporting technical information). Access verified April 17, 2009. Cited by EPA, “WaterUse,” in EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment , pp. 3-19, 3-20.43 EPA, “Water Use,” in EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment , p. 3-20.

Pesticides in Streams in Agricultural Watersheds of the Contiguous U.S.,

1992-2001

43.4

3.6

37.3

10.8

12.0

85.5

7.2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Compounds Detected Exceedances of Aquatic Life Benchmarks

P e r c e n t o f S t r e a m s T e s t e d

0 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or more



Page | 31

How Polluted are the Nation’s Coastal Waters?

When nitrogen and phosphorus are present in high amounts in coastal•

waters, they can create algae blooms, decreasing water transparency andlowering oxygen levels to the point that fish and other aquatic life can beharmed.44 The EPA measures these “trophic states” using five factors— dissolved inorganic nitrogen, dissolved inorganic phosphorus, chlorophyll-a,daytime dissolved oxygen in bottom or near-bottom waters, and water clarity—to create an overall water quality index.

According to the index, 29 percent of estuarine surface area in Region 10— •

the region containing Washington’s coastal area—reported high water qualityduring the 1997-2000 period. Another 70 percent reported moderate quality,and 1 percent had low water quality.

By comparison, 40 percent of the nation as a whole reported good water •

quality, 49 percent had moderate water quality, and 11 percent was of lowquality.

It should be noted that these areas do not include the Great Lakes or the•

oxygen-depleted zone in offshore Gulf Coast waters.

44 Ibid, “Water Use,” p. 3-38.

Coastal Water Quality for the U.S. and Puerto Rico, 1997-2000

71

9 8

4638

2329

40

20

48 52

4655

62

70 49

1

8

36

8 715

1

118

35

4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Region 1 (CT,

MA, ME, RI)

Region 2 (NJ,

NY, PR)

Region 3 (DC,

MD, PA, VA)

Region 4 (AL,

FL, GA, MS,NC, SC)

Region 6 (LA,

TX)

Region 9 (AZ,

CA, HI)

Region 10

(WA, OR, AK)

US Average

W a t e r Q u a l i t y

High Moderate Low Unsampled



Page | 32

How Clean are the Nation’s Community Water Systems?

There are approximately 52,000 community water systems in the United•

States serving 292 million persons, but just eight percent of those systems(4,132) serve 82 percent of the people. In 2008, Washington was served

by 2,267 community water services, about 55 percent of which came fromsurface water sources.45

From 1993 to 2008, the percentage of the national population served by•

community water systems which reported no health-based violations rosefrom 79 percent to 92 percent. For the years in which data is available for Washington, the same percentages rose from 90 percent in 1998 to 98 percentin 2008.

Of the 136,373 community water system violations reported in 2008, 75•

percent (103,000) were for failure to monitor for a particular contaminantor report a violation, while another 15 percent (20,770) were for failure toprovide public notice of a violation, or for failure to produce a Consumer Confidence Report. Seven percent (9,880) were for violations of one or more Maximum Contaminant Levels, and only 2 percent (2,647) were for violations of water treatment techniques.

45 EPA, “Factoids: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2008,” November 2008.Available at www.epa.gov/safewater/databases/pdfs/data_factoids_2008.pdf. Access verified Apri17, 2009.

Population Served by Community Water Systems with No Reported Violations of

EPA Health-Based Standards, by State, Fiscal Years 1993-2008

79 83 84

86 87

94919191 90 90 89 89

92 9289

9896969394

7475

959090

94

19 93 1 99 4 19 95 1 99 6 19 97 1 99 8 19 99 2 00 0 2 00 1 2 002 20 03 2 00 4 2 00 5 20 06 2 00 7 2 008

P e r c e n t o f C o m m u n i t y W a t e r S y s t e m s

US Washington



Page | 33

Are Fish Caught Along the Nation’s Coast Safe to Eat?

Contaminants in fish not only affect the fish’s own health and ability to•

reproduce, but also affect the many species that feed on them. Contaminantsmay also make fish unsuitable for human consumption.46

The data for this indicator came from the EPA’s second• National Coastal Condition Report , which was released in 2004. To gather data, five to 10whole-body fish and shellfish samples were collected from 653 estuary sites

across the United States from 1997 to 2000. Each fish was then tested for 90 contaminants. A site scored “high” if one or more contaminants werepresent at a concentration above the guideline ranges; “moderate” if one or more were within guideline ranges but none was in exceedance; and “low” if all were below guideline ranges.47

Nationwide, 63 percent of sites showed low fish tissue contamination,•

15 percent had moderate contamination, and 22 percent had highcontamination. Contamination levels in Region 10—which includesWashington—were on par with the national average; 67 percent of sites hadlow fish tissue contamination, 11 percent had moderate contamination and22 percent had high contamination.

The most common contaminants found nationwide were PCBs (19 percent•

of sites exceeding guideline ranges), mercury in fish muscle tissue (18percent), and DDT (8 percent).48

46 EPA, “Water Use,” in EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment , p. 3-61.47 Ibid, p. 3-62.48 Ibid.

Coastal Fish Tissue Contaminants in the U.S. and Puerto Rico, by Region,

1997-2000

25

39

53

83

5952

6763

38

20

20

13

7

8

11 15

3741

27

4

3440

22 22

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Region 1 (CT,

MA, ME, RI)

Region 2 (NJ,

NY, PR)

Region 3 (DC,

MD, PA, VA)

Region 4 (AL,

FL, GA, MS,NC, SC)

Region 6 (LA,

TX)

Region 9 (AZ,

CA, HI)

Region 10

(WA, OR, AK)

US Average

W a t e r Q u a l i t y

Low Moderate High



Page | 34

What is the Water Quality in Washington’s Rivers, Creeks, and

Streams?

In 2004, the EPA released its most recent report on the quality of •

Washington’s rivers, lakes, and streams.49 However, of the 70,500 miles of rivers, creeks, and streams in Washington, only 5.3% were sampled. TheEPA notes: “The methods states use to monitor and assess their waters andhow they report to EPA on their findings vary from state to state and evenover time. Many states target their limited monitoring resources to watersthat they suspect are impaired or to address local priorities and concerns.Therefore, the small percentage of their waters they assess may not reflectconditions in all state waters. They may monitor a different set of waters.Even weather conditions—such as prolonged drought—can have an impacton whether waters meet their standards from one year to the next.”50

Nevertheless, according to data released by the EPA, about 47 percent•

of Washington’s rivers, streams, and creeks were deemed to be in goodcondition. The primary contaminants in the 53 percent considered impairedwere, in order: abnormal water temperatures; fecal coliform bacteria;imbalances in dissolved oxygen levels; and abnormal Ph levels.51

49 EPA, National Assessment Database, “Assessment Data for the State of Washington: Year 2004.”Last updated April 21, 2009. Available at http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/w305b_report_control.get_report?p_state=WA&p_cycle=#total_assessed_waters. Access verified April 21, 2009.50 EPA, “The 2004 National Assessment Database: Factsheet.” Available at www.epa.gov/

waters/305b/2004_NAD_factsheet.html. Access verified June 29, 2009.51 Ibid.

Water Quality of Washington's Rivers, Streams, and Creeks: 2004

47%53%

Good Impaired



Page | 35

What is the Water Quality in Washington’s Ponds, Lakes, and

Reservoirs?

Ponds, lakes, and reservoirs cover almost 250,000 acres in the state of •

Washington.52

Unlike their sampling for rivers, creeks, and streams, the EPAoversampled Washington’s lakes, ponds, and streams by a ratio of about 2-to-1.

According to data released in 2004 by the EPA, 77 percent of the state’s•

lakes, ponds, and reservoirs support their designated uses. The primarypollutants in the 23 percent considered contaminated were, in order: invasiveexotic species; fecal coliform bacteria; phosphorus; PCBs; and dieldrin, aninsecticide alternative to DDT.53

52 EPA, National Assessment Database, “Assessment Data for the State of Washington: Year 2004.”53 Ibid.

Water Quality in Washington's Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs: 2004

77%

23%

Good Impaired



Page | 36

What is the Water Quality in Washington’s Bays and Estuaries?

Washington’s bays and estuaries cover approximately 2,900 square miles.•54

Almost half of this area (1,368 square miles; 47.1 percent) was sampled for a

water quality report released by the EPA in 2004.

According to this data, 956 square miles of the assessed area (69.9 percent)•

were deemed to be of good quality. Of the remaining 30.1 percent that wasdeemed impaired, the primary contaminants were, in order of prominence:invasive species; fecal coliform bacteria; fish habitat; abnormal dissolvedoxygen levels; and PCBs.

The same EPA report also noted that the coastal shorelines of Washington•

were fully in attainment, with no areas of impairment. The report, however,only covered 11 miles of coastal shoreline, making its generalizabilitydubious.55

54 Ibid.55 The coastal areas of Washington also have 157 miles of general coastline, and 3,026miles of tidal shoreline. “Coastline” is used to describe the general outline of the seacoastas it was measured in 1948 using small-scale maps and including the coastlines of largesounds and bays. “Shoreline” is used to describe a more detailed measure of the seacoastas it was measured in 1939-1940 using the largest-scale charts and maps available.Shoreline of the outer coast, offshore islands, sounds, and bays was included, as well asthe tidal portion of rivers and creeks. Source: National Atlas of the United States, “Profileof the People and Land of the United States.” Last updated April 29, 2008. Availableat http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/mapping/a_general.html. Access verified April 21,2009.

Water Quality of Washington's Bays and Estuaries: 2004

69.9%

30.1%

Good Impaired



Page | 38

Is the U.S. in Danger of Losing its Undeveloped Areas to Urban

Sprawl?

In 2007, a group of federal agencies known as the Multi-Resolution Land•

Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) published the 2001 National Land

Cover Database (NLCD), which cataloged over 27 billion surface imagestaken from Landsat satellites from 1999 to 2002. These data do not includeland use for Alaska or Hawaii, thereby providing information for only 1.92

billion acres out of 2.3 billion acres.58

According to the NLCD, forests cover approximately 641.1 million acres of •

the United States, agricultural land covers 448.9 million acres, shrublandscover 419.2 million acres, grasslands cover 290.5 million acres, and other lands—including ice and snow, barren areas, deserts, and wetlands— constitute 117.7 million acres. By comparison, only five percent of thenation’s land cover is classified as “developed,” which the NLCD defines ashaving “a high percentage (30 percent or greater) of constructed materials(e.g., asphalt, concrete, and buildings).”59

58 EPA, “Land Use,” in EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment , pp. 4-7, pp. 4-8.59 Ibid, p. 4-8.

Land Cover Types in the U.S.

Agriculture

21.9%

Grass Cover

14.1%

Shrub Cover

20.4%

Other 5.7%

Forest Cover 31.2%

Developed

5.0%

Water

1.6%



Page | 39

Is Washington in Danger of Losing its Undeveloped Areas to Urban

Sprawl?

Since 1982, the amount of developed land in Washington jumped from•

1.5 million acres to almost 2.3 million acres, an increase of approximately48 percent. Even though the rate of urbanization in Washington is almosttwice the national average, the state is in no danger of losing its forests or undeveloped areas. The amount of developed land in Washington comprisesonly 5.2 percent of the entire state’s surface area of slightly more than 44million acres.60

To further put this number in perspective, more than half of the land area•

of Washington is either forest (12.7 million acres) or federally owned (11.9million acres). Of the federally owned land, about 9.5 million acres are alsoforested. Another 28 percent of the state’s land area is used as cropland (6.5

million acres) and range land (5.8 million acres).

60 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), “National Resources Inventory: 2003.” Available athttp://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/Landuse-mrb.pdf. Access verified April 17, 2009.

Land Use in Washington: 2003

Developed

5.2%

Cropland

14.7%CRP

2.7%

Pastureland

2.5%

Forest Land

28.9%

Range Land

13.3%

Water Areas

3.5%

Other

2.2%

Federal Land

27.1%



Page | 40

Forests: Introduction

Unlike other environmental indicators, concerns involving America’s forests date back to the turn of the 20th century. In 1905, President Theodore Rooseveltwarned that “a timber famine is inevitable,” and the New York Times ran headlinesin 1908 proclaiming “The End of the Lumber Supply” and “Supply of WoodNears End—Much Wasted and There’s No Substitute.” During the 18th and19th centuries, Americans did indeed cut down a large percentage of the nation’sforests. A full two-thirds of the deforestation that has occurred in the U.S. took

place between 1850 and 1910. Yet commercial logging was not the primary causeof this deforestation. Rather, trees were cut in order to clear land for agriculture.Since this time, however, America’s forests have made a rapid comeback.

Today, forests cover nearly 30 percent of the United States’ total land area.American forests contain more than 130 diverse species of trees and sustain awide variety of plants and animals. They provide habitat, purify air, prevent run-off, and inhibit erosion by anchoring topsoil. Forests also release water vapor into the air and play a critical role in the carbon cycle, as they absorb and break down carbon dioxide, store carbon, and release oxygen. In addition to ecologicaland biodiversity values, American forests play a significant role in world timber markets. In 2005, U.S. timber markets produced 29 percent of global softwoodlogs, 25 percent of all softwood lumber, 37 percent of hardwood logs, and 54

percent of all hardwood lumber.61

Despite such production, the United States planted 25 percent more trees than itharvested in 1991, and since the 1950s, net growth has exceeded net harvest everyyear. According to the Society of American Foresters in 2007, about 1.7 billiontree seedlings are planted each year, or about four million a day. If naturallyregenerated trees are included, net forest growth exceeds harvesting by about 33percent.62

While most Americans are pleased to hear that forests are making a comeback,many are also surprised to learn it is not due to government protection. In fact,

just the opposite is true. During the first half of the 20th century, the amount

of land used for agriculture declined significantly. As less land was harvestedfor crops, forests took over that land. In most cases, foresters planted trees for commercial harvesting.

This trend has continued into the 21st century. Of the 21.6 billion cubic feet of timber grown in 1991, public forests accounted for less than 25 percent of thatgrowth. The forest industry, farmers, and private foresters were responsible for more than three-quarters (16.4 billion cubic feet) of the timber grown that year.63

Most trees are grown in the United States for future harvesting. These new-growth forests support a diverse population of wildlife and trees of various ages,sizes and species. Many small animals and most game prefer younger forests,which allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor, thereby supporting a greater variety of trees and plant life than older forests.64

61 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Wood Products—Production, Exports, and Consumption for Selected Countries: 2000 to 2005,” in Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2007 (126th Edition)Washington, DC, 2005. Available at www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/intlstat.pdf.Access verified April 17, 2009.62 Society of American Foresters, “Forest Facts,” 2007. Available at http://forestry.msu.edu/testmsaf/PDF/Facts-SAF1.PDF. Access verified April 17, 2009.63 See http://svinet2.fs.fed.us:80/pl/rpa/93rpa/ powell.htm. Access verified October 6, 2008.64 Michael Sanera and Jane Shaw, Facts Not Fear , rev. ed. (Washington, DC: Regnery, 1999), p. 67.



Page | 41

How Much Land is Covered by Forests in the U.S.?

Since 1982, the amount of surface area in the U.S. that is forested has•

remained relatively stable at between 402.4 million acres and 405.6 millionacres. About 20.1 percent of all land in the U.S. is forest.65

Because of these resources, the U.S. is the world’s largest producer of •

temperate-climate hardwood lumber and the second-largest producer of softwood lumber. In 2005, the U.S. produced 25 percent of the world’s

softwood lumber (66 million cubic meters) and 54 percent of its temperate-climate hardwood lumber (23 million cubic meters).66

65 USDA, “Total Surface Area by Land Cover/Use by Year in Millions of Acres, with Margins of Error,” in National Resources Inventory: 2003 Annual NRI , February 2007, p. 5. Available at www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/Landuse-mrb.pdf. Access verified April 22, 2009.66 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Wood Products—Production, Exports, and Consumption for Selected Countries: 2000 to 2005.”

Change in Forest Land in the U.S.: 1982-2003

402.4 403.6 404.7 404.8 405.6

0

100

200

300

400

500

1982 1992 1997 2001 2003

M i l l i o n s o f A c r e s



Page | 42

How Much Land is Covered by Forests in Washington?

Approximately 22 million acres in Washington are forested, accounting for •

almost 52 percent of the state’s total surface area. Since 1953, the state’sforest land has decreased by about 1.6 million acres, or about 6.7 percent.Since 1997, though, the amount of forest land in Washington has increased

by 387 thousand acres. In 2007, Washington ranked eighth in the nationin forest acreage.67 Thirty-six percent of the state’s forest land is privatelyowned.68

In 2005, Washington was the nation’s second largest producer of softwood•

lumber products. It produced 13 percent of the nation’s softwood lumber and 7 percent of its softwood veneer and plywood, for a total of 5.7 billion

board feet of lumber products.69

In 2006, Washington forest products generated $15.9 billion in gross income.•

The forest industry directly employs approximately 44,500 Washingtonianswith an annual payroll of $2.02 billion.70

67 Brad W. Smith et al. “Forest Resources of the United States, 2007.” Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 2009.Available at www.fia.fs.fed.us/program-features/rpa/docs/2007_RPA_TABLES%20WO-GTR-78.xls. Access verified April 22, 2009.68 U.S. Forest Service, “USFS Land Area Reports,” September 30, 2006. Available at www.fs.fed.us.Access verified April 22, 2009.69 Washington Forest Protection Association, “Discovery the Diversity of Washington’s Forests,”September 30, 2006. Available at http://www.wfpa.org/pages/aboutwaforests.html. Access verifiedJune 29, 2009.70 Washington Forest Protection Association, “Forest Facts & Figures.” Available at http://www.wfpa.org/pdf/brochure/07%20Forest%20Facts%20And%20Figures.pdf. Access verified June 29,2009.

Change in Forest Land Coverage in Washington: 1953-2008

23,868.023,050.0 23,181.0

22,521.021,892.0

22,279.5

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1953 1963 1977 1987 1997 2007

T h o u s a n d A c r e s



Page | 43

How Much Soil is Lost to Erosion in the U.S. Each Year?

Soil erosion involves the breakdown, detachment, transport, and•

redistribution of soil particles by forces of water, wind, or gravity. Soilerosion on cropland is of particular interest because of its on-site impacts onsoil quality and crop productivity, and its off-site impacts on water quantityand quality, air quality, and biological activity.71

The USDA measures two kinds of soil erosion: wind erosion, and what•

is called “sheet and rill” erosion. Wind erosion is self-explanatory. It isprevalent in arid western states which have dryer soil and less natural groundcover, while many eastern and southern states experience no measurablewind erosion at all. Sheet erosion is the removal of thin layers of soil over thewhole surface chiefly through raindrop splash and surface water flow. Rillsare channels small enough to be obliterated by normal tillage operations.

According to the 2003 National Resources Inventory, erosion rates on a•

per-acre basis declined significantly between 1982 and 2003. Sheet and rillerosion on cropland dropped from 4.0 tons per acre per year in 1982 to 2.6tons per acre per year in 2003; wind erosion rates dropped from 3.3 to 2.1tons per acre per year.72

71 USDA, “Soil Erosion,” in National Resources Inventory: 2003 Annual NRI , February 2007, p. 1.Available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/nri03eros-mrb.html. Access verifiedJune 29, 2009.72 Ibid.

Estimated Average Sheet and Rill Erosion, and Wind Erosion in the U.S.:

1982-2003

1470.8

1168.8

1039.1992.4 970.6

1671.8

776.4780.1837.9

985.3

1295.5

1389.6

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1982 1987 1992 1997 2001 2003

T o n s p e r A c r e p e r Y e a r

Sheet and Ril l Erosion Wind Erosion



Page | 44

How Much Soil is Lost to Erosion in Washington Each Year?

From 1982 to 2003, the amount of sheet and rill erosion in Washington fell•

25 percent, from 5.5 tons per acre to 4.1 tons per acre. At the same time,though, the amount of soil lost as a result of wind erosion rose from 3.5 tonsper acre to 4.8 tons per acre, a 37 percent increase.73

To put these numbers in perspective, the loss of one ton of topsoil per acre is•

approximately equal to the loss of .007 inches of soil. Thus, in 2003 about0.0623 inches of soil was lost per acre of cropland in Washington as a resultof both water and wind erosion. At this rate, it would take 16 years for oneinch of topsoil to be lost. Note that these rates do not include the formationof new topsoil, which is about the rate of one ton per acre per year.

While the USDA has previously noted that, “loss of farmland poses no•

threat to U.S. food and fiber production,”74 a 2003 report by the sameorganization stated the following:

Erosion is a concern because of its potential offsite effects, for example,in adding dust to the atmosphere, or delivering sediment, nutrients, and

chemicals to water resources. Soil loss from farm fields can also be aconcern as it diminishes soil productivity over time. Some productivityloss can be mitigated through the addition of external inputs, but at aneconomic cost.75

73 Ibid.74 Marlow Vesterby, Ralph E. Heimlich, and Kenneth E. Krupa, “Urbanization of Rural Land inAmerica,” USDA, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report 673, March 1994.75 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Soil Erosion.” In 2001 National Resources

Inventory , July 2003. Available at www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/nri01/nri01eros.html#ertables.

Estimated Average Water (Sheet & Rill) and Wind Erosion on Cropland in

Washington, Tons per Acre: 1982-2003

5.5

6.2

4.4

4.04.1

3.5 3.5

4.9

4.3

4.8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1982 1987 1992 1997 2003

T o n s p e r A c r e P e r Y e a r

Water Erosion Wind Erosion



Page | 45

Waste and Waste Management

The amount of waste produced is influenced by economic activity, consumption,and population growth. In affluent nations like the U.S., we “generally producelarge amounts of municipal solid waste (e.g., food wastes, packaged goods,disposable goods, and used electronics) and commercial and industrial wastes(e.g., demolition debris, incineration residues, and refinery sludges).” In fact, theEPA’s 2008 Report notes that, “among industrialized nations, the U.S. is the largestproducer of municipal solid waste (MSW) per person on a daily basis.”76

As a result of the nation’s increased population, consumption, and economicactivity, the amount of MSW generated in the United States has increased bytwo-thirds since 1980. At the same time, though, the amount of MSW going tolandfills has remained flat. By increasing waste recovery options in recycling,composting, and energy recovery, the percentage of MSW going to landfills hasfallen from almost 89 percent in 1980 to 55 percent in 2006.

For example, in 1980 about 10 percent of all MSW was recycled, less thantwo percent was combusted for energy recovery, and a negligible amount wascomposted. By 2006, though, 24 percent of MSW was recycled, 12 percent wasused for energy recovery, and eight percent was composted.

Toxics Release Inventory

According to the EPA, “Hazardous wastes are either specifically listed ashazardous by the EPA or a state, or exhibit one or more of the followingcharacteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Generation andmanagement of hazardous wastes can contaminate land, air, and water andnegatively affect human health and environmental conditions.”77

The principle source of trend data for toxic chemicals is the EPA’s Toxics ReleaseInventory (TRI), a reporting system for more than 650 chemicals (up from 300when the TRI began in 1988) used in most major industries, mining operations,

and, more recently, federal facilities.78

Throughout the 1990s, the EPA added chemicals to the TRI. In 1995 and 1997,new baselines were established.79 The 1997 baseline was particularly important,as it included seven industries not previously required to report toxic emissions:electrical utilities, coal mining, metal mining, chemical wholesalers, petroleum

bulk plants and terminals, solvent recovery, and hazardous waste managementfacilities. By including these seven industries, the EPA almost tripled the amountof reported toxins released in 1988 from 2.5 billion pounds to 6.7 billion poundsin 1998.80

The constant expansion of the number of chemicals and number of facilities

included in the TRI data net makes tracking trends difficult. Fortunately, theEPA helpfully breaks out the data against a series of baselines that includechemicals included in each inventory.

76 EPA, “What are the Trends in Wastes and Their Effects on Human Health and theEnvironment?” in EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment , p. 4-23.77 Ibid.78 The TRI for the entire nation as well as individual states can be downloaded from the EPAwebsite at www.epa.gov/tri/.79 Ibid.80 Ibid.



Page | 46

The EPA emphasizes several important caveats about interpreting TRI data,including gaps in the data and the lack of direct applicability of human healthrisk. The 2001 TRI, for example, emphasizes:

TRI reports reflect releases and waste management activities of chemicals, not exposures of the public to those chemicals. Release estimates alone are not sufficient todetermine exposure or to calculate potential adverse effects on human health and the environment.

In addition, “toxic” chemicals are not all created equal, which is why a crudemeasure of mere “pounds” of toxins “released” is not an especially helpfulmeasure of health or environmental risk. As the EPA notes:

Some high-volume releases of less toxic chemicals may appear to be a more serious problem than lower-volume releases of more toxic chemicals, when just the opposite may be true. For example, phosgene is toxic in smaller quantities than methanol. Acomparison between these two chemicals for setting hazard priorities or estimating potential health concerns, solely on the basis of volumes released, may be misleading.81

With all of these caveats and limitations, what does the TRI tell us? While theTRI is limited as a tool for judging environmental or health risks, it is indicativeof another trend: reductions in the use of chemicals, even as total industrial

output and economic activity grow, is a sign of the increasing efficiency of our industrial plants, and a measure of what has been called the “dematerialization”of the economy. As such, the TRI can be viewed as a proxy for measuring“sustainable development” or industrial ecology.

81 EPA, 2001, TRI, pp. 1-9.



Page | 47

What Happens to All of the Trash We Produce Each Year?

The amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in the United States•

grew from 88 million tons in 1960 to over 251 million tons in 2006, anincrease of 185 percent. On a per-capita basis, MSW generation increasedfrom 2.7 pounds per person per day in 1960 to 4.6 pounds per person per dayin 2006.82

Of the 88 million tons of MSW created in 1960, 6 percent was recovered•

through recycling and 94 percent was placed in landfills. MSW quantitiessent to landfills or other disposal sites peaked in 1990 at 142 million tonsand then began to decline as recycling and combustion for energy recoveryincreased. The quantity of MSW disposed in landfills has averaged about135 million tons per year since 2000, a 4.9 percent decrease from 1990.83

Of the 251 million tons generated in 2006, 32.5 percent was recycled•

(including composting), 13 percent was combusted for energy recovery, and55 percent was sent to landfills. Since 1990, the amount of MSW placed inlandfills has dropped from 69 percent to 55 percent, the percentage recycledrose from 14 percent to 24 percent, the percentage composted rose from2 percent to 8 percent, and the percentage combusted for energy recoveryranged from 13 percent to 15 percent.84

82 EPA. “Quantity of Municipal Solid Waste Generated and Managed,” in EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment , p. 4-25.83 Ibid.84 Ibid.

Municipal Solid Waste Management in the U.S., 1960-2006

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

M i l l i o n T o n s

Discards to landfill, other disposal Combustion with energy recovery

Recovery for recycling Recovery for composting



Page | 48

What Happens to Hazardous Wastes Produced by Businesses and

Industries in the U.S.? (2000 Baseline)

In 2000, the EPA added six persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals•

(PBTs) and one PBT category to the TRI list. Because PBTs persist and bioaccumulate in the environment, the EPA lowered the threshold for reporting them from a minimum of 10,000 to 25,000 pounds to as little as0.1 gram. The total tonnage of PBTs released in 2000 was extremely small,compared to total releases (12.1 million pounds of 6.28 billion pounds).85

From 2000 to 2007, the total amount of toxins released that are included in•

the 2000 baseline dropped from 6.28 billion pounds to 3.59 billion pounds, a42.9 percent reduction.

The greatest reductions in toxic releases have been in releases to land (61.1•

percent decrease), followed by air emissions (30.5 percent decrease) andunderground injection (25.6 percent).

85 EPA, “TRI Explorer,” version 9.1, Last updated April 23, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/. Access verified April 23, 2009.

Total On- and Off-Site Disposal and Other Releases in the U.S.:

2000 Baseline, 2000-2007

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

B i l l i o n s o f P o u n d s

Total On-site Air Emissions On-site Surface Water Discharges

Total On-Site Underground Injection Total On-Site Releases to Land

Total Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

6.28

3.803.883.804.01

4.34

5.17

3.59



Page | 49

What Happens to Hazardous Wastes Produced by Businesses and

Industries in Washington? (2000 Baseline)

Using the EPA’s latest baseline, the amount of toxins released from facilities•

in Washington fell from 32.3 million pounds to 28.8 million pounds, adecline of about 10.8 percent.86

From 2000 to 2007, on-site air emissions in Washington fell from 20.0•

million pounds in 2000 to 8.92 million pounds in 2007, a decline of 55percent. From 2000 to 2007, the share of toxins released into the air from

on-site facilities dropped from 61.9 percent to 31 percent.

Likewise, total on-site releases to land rose from 4.2 million pounds in 2000•

to 15.8 million pounds in 2007, an increase of 276 percent. From 2000 to2007, the share of toxins released to on-site land facilities in Washington rosefrom 13.0 percent to 55.0 percent.

On-site surface water discharges using the 2000 baseline fell from 2.8 million•

pounds in 2000 to 1.35 million pounds in 2007, a 51 percent decrease. From2000 to 2007, the share of toxins released into Washington’s surface water fell by about 51 percent, from 8.6 percent to 4.7 percent.

Off-site disposal of toxins in Washington has decreased about 49 percent,•

from 5.34 million pounds in 2000 to 2.68 million pounds in 2007. From2000 to 2007, the share of toxins disposed of off-site fell from 16.5 percent ofall toxins released to 9.3 percent.

86 Ibid.

Total On- and Off-Site Disposal and Other Releases in Washington:

2000 Baseline, 2000-2007

0

10

20

30

40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

M i l l i o n s o f P o u n d s

Total On-site Air Emissions On-site Surface Water Discharges

Total On-Site Releases to Land Total Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

32.3

23.3 22.5

35.9

29.8

25.0

28.8

32.9



Page | 50

How Much Energy Does the U.S. Consume Each Year?

From 1978 to 2008, the amount of energy consumed in the U.S. increased•

24.5 percent. Most of this growth was from increased consumption of fossilfuels such as petroleum and coal (16.4 percent).87

Nuclear power consumption increased 180 percent during the same time•

period, yet it accounted for only 8.5 percent of all the power consumed in2008. Despite the complete halt on reactor construction in the U.S. since the

partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor in 1979, reactor operatorshave been able to increase their production of power from 2.78 quadrillionBTUs in 1979 to 8.48 quadrillion BTUs in 2008.

During the same time, renewable energy consumption such as biomass•

and hydroelectric power increased 45.2 percent. As with nuclear power, itscontribution to overall power consumption (7.3 percent) pales by comparisonto that of fossil fuels (84 percent).

87 Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Primary Energy Consumption, by Source,” in Monthly Energy Review , March 2009. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_7.pdf. Access verified April 24, 2009.

Energy Consumption in the U.S.: 1949-2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

Q u a d r i l l i o n B T U s

R en ew ab le N uc le ar F os si l



Page | 51

How Much Energy Does Washington Consume Each Year?

From 1976 to 2006, Washington’s overall energy consumption increased•

36.2 percent. During this period, nuclear power consumption increased 288percent, natural gas consumption increased 75.3 percent and energy from

biomass increased 72.3 percent. At the same time, energy produced fromcoal decreased and hydroelectric power decreased by 14.8 percent and 17percent, respectively.88

In 2006, hydroelectric power (37.2 percent) and petroleum (37.1 percent)•

were the primary sources of energy in Washington, followed by natural gas(12.4 percent), biomass (5.6 percent), nuclear power (4.5 percent), and coal(3.2 percent).

About 5 percent of all the power generated in Washington is exported to•

other states. In terms of raw power (111.9 trillion BTUs) Washington isthe 13th largest exporter of energy in the nation. This is more energy thanWashington consumes from coal (69.2 trillion BTUs) or nuclear power (97.3trillion BTUs), and almost as much as it produces from biomass (123 trillionBTUs).89

88 EIA, “Energy Consumption Estimates by Source, Selected Years, 1960-2006, Washington,”February 29, 2008. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_use/total/use_ tot_wa.html&mstate=WASHINGTON. Access verified April 24, 2009.89 EIA, “Energy Consumption Estimates by Source, 2006.” Available at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/html/sum_btu_tot.html. Access verified April 24, 2009.

Energy Consumption in Washington: 1960-2006

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

T r i l l i o n

B T U s

Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Nuclear Power Hydroelectric Biomass



Page | 52

Where Does the U.S. Get its Crude Oil and Petroleum Products

From?

In 1973, the U.S. imported 34.8 percent of the petroleum it needed to•

operate. By February 2009, this number had grown to 53.8 percent.90

The United States imports its petroleum from dozens of countries across the•

world, from Australia to Guatemala. In 2008, the two largest exporters of crude oil and petroleum products to the U.S. were Canada (19.8 percent of

all imports) and Saudi Arabia (15.4 percent).91

Eleven of the nations the U.S. depends on for oil are members of OPEC•

(Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries); in 2008, they accountedfor 55.5 percent of all U.S. imports of crude oil and petroleum products.92

90 EIA, “Petroleum Trade: Overview,” in Monthly Energy Review , March 2009. Available at www.eiadoe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec3_7.pdf. Access verified April 24, 2009.91 EIA, “U.S. Imports by Country of Origin,” July 28, 2008. Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm. Access verified April 24, 2009.92 EIA, “Petroleum Trade: Overview.”

Top 10 Exporters of Petroleum to the U.S.: 2008

19.8%

15.4%

12.1%

10.7%

9.5%

6.4%

5.2%

3.2%2.4% 2.2%

Canada Saudi

Arabia

Mexico Venezuela N igeria Iraq Angola Algeria Brazil Ecuador

(Gray shading denotes OPEC member status)



Page | 53

Which States Generate the Most Energy from Renewable Sources?

Approximately 77.2 percent of all the electrical power generated in•

Washington comes from renewable sources such as hydroelectric power (73.7percent), wind power (2.3 percent) and biomass, including landfill gases(1.2 percent). This makes Washington the largest producer of energy fromrenewable sources in the nation.93

In March 2009, Washington’s hydroelectric power plants produced 5.32•

million megawatt hours of power, the largest amount produced by any stateand a whopping one fourth of the total hydroelectric power produced by thenation (21.39 million megawatts).94

In the same month, Washington also generated 532 thousand megawatt•

hours of energy produced from other renewable sources such as biomass,making it the fifth largest producer of such energy in the nation.95

93 EIA, “State Renewable Electricity Profiles,” June 2009. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profiles/r_profiles_sum.html. Access verified June 29, 2009.94 EIA, “Net Generation from Hydroelectric (Conventional) Power by State by Sector, March 2009and 2008,” June 12, 2009. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile1_13_a.xls. Access verified June 29, 2009.95 EIA, “Net Generation from Other Renewables by State by Sector,” May 15, 2009. Available atwww.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_14_a.html. Access verified June 29, 2009.

Top 10 States Generating Electric Power from Renewable Resources: 2007(millions of megawatt hours)

82.6

52.2

35.8

28.0

11.910.0 9.7

7.9 7.9 6.6

Washington California Oregon New York Texas Montana Idaho Maine Alabama Arizona



Page | 54

How Much Does it Cost to Use Different Types of Energy in

Washington?

Since 1970, the inflation-adjusted average cost for 1 million BTUs of energy•

from all sources in Washington has risen 82 percent. In 1970, the averagecost of 1 million BTUs was $7.38; in 2006, it was $13.41. 96

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the inflation-adjusted average cost of •

1 million BTUs of energy from petroleum products approached $20. After steadily declining from a high of $18.30 in 1981 to a low of $7.85 in 1998,

the cost of petroleum-based energy has risen to about $18.57 per millionBTUs in 2006.

The cost of energy from natural gas has followed a pattern similar to that•

of petroleum, jumping from $3.69 per 1 million BTUs in 1970 to $10.08 in2006.

Three bright spots in Washington’s energy market are coal, nuclear power •

and biomass. The cost of 1 million BTUs of energy from coal has fallen39 percent, from $2.86 in 1970 to $1.74 in 2006. The cost of energy from

biomass has also fallen 47 percent, from $6.91 to $3.69 in 2006. Nuclear power remains the cheapest source of power, having fallen from $0.94 per million BTUs in 1970 to $0.48 in 2006, a decline of almost 49 percent.

96 EIA, “Electric Power Sector Price and Expenditure Estimates by Source, 1970-2006,Washington.” February 29, 2008. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_ prices/total/pr_tot_wa.html&mstate=WASHINGTON. Access verified April 26, 2009. Inflation-adjusted estimates from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers (CPI-U),” April 15, 2009. Available at ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt. Access verified April 26, 2009.

Inflation-Adjusted Cost of Energy per 1 Million BTUs, by Source:

Washington, 1970-2006

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

$20

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

I n f l a t i o n - A d j u s t e d C o s t p e r M i l l i o n B T

U s

Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Nuclear Biomass Total Energy



Page | 55

Which States Produce the Most Electricity?

Washington is the twelfth largest producer of electricity in the nation. From•

January 2008 to January 2009, Washington’s electricity production rose from9.8 million megawatt hours to 10.0 million megawatt hours, an increase of 1.7 percent.97

In 2007, conventional hydroelectric plants produced 73.7 percent of all of the•

electricity generated in Washington, followed by coal (8.0 percent), nuclear

power (7.6 percent), and natural gas (6.8 percent).

98

Washington is the leading hydroelectric power producer in the Nation. The•

Grand Coulee hydroelectric power plant on the Columbia River is the highescapacity electric plant in the United States.99

With five refineries, Washington is a principal refining center for the Pacific•

Northwest. State jet fuel consumption is among the highest in the Nation,due in part to several large Air Force and Navy installations.100

97 EIA, “Net Generation by State by Sector, January 2009 and 2008,” April 22, 2009. Available atwww.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_6_a.html. Access verified April 26, 2009.98 EIA, “1990–2007 Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source,” January 29,2009. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html. Access verifiedApril 26, 2009.99 EIA, “Washington Quick Facts,” April 17, 2009. Available at tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_ energy_profiles.cfm?sid=WA. Access verified April 26, 2009.100 Ibid.

Top 12 Electricity Generating States: January 2008 and January 2009

9.8

11.812.4

11.711.812.4

13.7

16.617.217.0

20.0

33.9

10.0

11.111.211.7

12.513.2

13.814.5

16.617.0

19.7

30.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

TX PA IL FL CA OH AL NY NC GA IN WA

M i l l i o n M e g a w a t t H o u r s

January 2008 January 2009



About the Author

John Hill is an Adjunct Scholar with Washington PolicyCenter and a Senior Fellow for the Alabama PolicyInstitute. He also serves as an Adjunct Instructor atFaulkner University, where he teaches introductoryresearch methods, statistics, and quantitative businessanalysis for executive programs across the state.

Dr. Hill holds a Ph.D from the University of Alabama,has authored more than two dozen publications, and hasappeared on dozens on radio and television programsacross the state. He has also written extensively about the social and economiceffects of legalizing gambling in Alabama, the effects of family structure oneducation outcomes, and responsible environmentalism. In addition to his work with API and Faulkner University, Dr. Hill manages hisown statistical consulting service.

Published by Washington Policy Center

Chairman Greg Porter President Daniel Mead SmithVice President for Research Paul GuppyCommunications Director John Barnes

If you have any comments or questions about this study, please contact us at:

Washington Policy Center

PO Box 3643Seattle, WA 98124-3643

Online: www.washingtonpolicy.orgE-mail: [email protected]: 206-937-9691

Nothing in this document should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder thepassage of any legislation before any legislative body.

© Washington Policy Center, 2009

2009 environmental indicators

Documents