3­
1
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
2
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Introduction
Introduction
T
he
United
States
is
a
nation
rich
in
land
resources.
The
land
provides
the
foundation
on
which
communities
are
built,
and
from
which
food,
shelter,
and
other
essentials
are
obtained.
Vast
acreages
not
only
provide
habitat
for
hundreds
of
thousands
of
species,
but
also
support
agricultural
activities,
timber
production,
and
mineral
and
energy
extraction
In
addition,
diverse
landscapes
provide
numerous
opportunities
for
recreation
and
aesthetic
enjoyment,
including
hiking,
bird
watching,
gardening,
camping,
and
skiing.

Much
like
air
and
water,
land
is
a
resource
that
must
be
carefully
managed
and
protected.
What
happens
on
the
land
can
affect
not
only
land
itself,
but
air
and
water
as
well,
with
potential
consequences
for
human
and
ecological
health.
Protecting
land
resources
means
ensuring
that
lands
meet
current
needs
and
support
healthy
communities
and
ecosystems.
To
this
end,
EPA s
land
protection
activities
focus
on
the
prevention,
management,
control,
and
cleanup
of
various
substances
that
are
released
to
or
used
on
land,
such
as
toxic
chemicals,
pesticides,
fertilizers,
and
wastes.
Other
government
agencies,
notably
the
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior
and
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA)
at
the
federal
level,
manage
land
for
natural
resource
and
conservation
purposes.
Additionally,
cities
and
counties
adopt
and
implement
land
use
laws
and
regulations,
overseen
in
some
cases
by
the
states.

This
chapter
examines
critical
questions
about
aspects
of
land
use,
chemical
and
waste
applications,
and
land
contamination
How
much
land
is
being
used
for
various
purposes?
How
has
this
use
changed
over
time?
How
much
waste
is
generated,
how
has
this
changed,
and
how
is
the
waste
managed
or
disposed
of?
What
is
the
extent
of
land
contamination?
The
answers
help
to
set
a
baseline
against
which
to
measure
the
effects
of
land
practices
on
the
condition
of
human
health
and
ecosystems
The
chapter
presents
available
national­
level
data
on
these
questions,
and
identifies
gaps
where
the
data
are
limited.
Chapter
3:
Better
Protected
Land
Land
Use
Chemicals
in
the
Landscape
Limitations
of
Land
Indicators
Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
3­
3
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Land
Use
Land
Use
T
he
U.
S.
landscape
has
changed
over
the
past
400
years
through
extensive
use
in
meeting
human
needs
for
food
and
shelter,
economic
and
energy
development,
and
recreation.
Before
European
settlers
came
to
this
country,
the
more
than
2
billion
acres
of
landscape
consisted
of
forests,
grasslands,
deserts,
shrublands,
and
wetlands.
Today,
98
million
acres
are
considered
developed
lands
supporting
residential
commercial,
industrial,
and
transportation
uses;
377
million
acres
are
used
specifically
to
produce
crops;
and
832
million
acres
are
considered
grazing
lands.
1,2
The
federal
government
manages
nearly
28
percent
of
the
nation s
lands,
or
630
million
acres,
mostly
in
the
western
U.
S.
and
Alaska.
3
Federal
management
responsibilities
are
distributed
among
several
agencies,
including
the
USDA
Forest
Service,
the
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
the
National
Park
Service,
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
and
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Defense.
State
and
local
governments
manage
another
198
million
acres.
4,5
The
more
than
828
million
acres
of
publicly
managed
lands
support
various
public
purposes,
such
as
recreational
uses,
the
production
of
specific
commodities
grazing
for
cattle
and
sheep,
mineral
exploration
and
development,
and
timber
harvesting.
6,7,8
In
many
parts
of
the
country,
public
land
provides
highly
valued
open
space.

More
than
4
percent
of
the
nation
is
designated
as
wilderness,
and
millions
of
other
acres
are
protected
in
national
parks,
state
parks,
wildlife
refuges,
or
other
classifications
of
reserved
land.
Of
the
106
million
acres
of
land
now
designated
as
federal
wilderness,
more
than
half
are
in
Alaska.
9
Such
protected
lands
provide
recreational
opportunities,
open
space,
wildlife
habitat,
and
watershed
protection.
More
than
1.4
billion
acres
of
private
and
tribal
land
are
managed
in
the
interests
of
their
owners,
with
various
land
use
constraints
imposed
by
zoning
and
other
regulations.
10,11
Although
both
private
and
public
landowners
may
use
their
lands
for
similar
purposes,
such
as
harvesting
timber
and
raising
livestock,
private
lands
are
more
likely
to
be
developed
and
used
for
crop
production
than
those
under
public
ownership
Many
levels
of
government
regulate
land
use,
with
widely
varying
practices,
creating
challenges
in
understanding
national
patterns
of
land
use.

Another
important
land
use,
but
one
for
which
it
is
not
possible
to
identify
how
much
land
is
used,
is
land
managed
for
energy
production
and
other
forms
of
mining.
There
are
almost
1,900
producing
coal
mines,
the
majority
of
them
surface
mines
in
western
states
and
underground
mines
in
Appalachia.
There
are
also
nearly
2,000
other
mines
and
534,000
oil
wells
across
the
country.
The
extent
of
land
that
those
activities
affect
is
not
known,
but
some
of
the
results
of
mining
are
described
in
the
chemicals
and
waste
discussions
in
this
chapter.
12
The
following
questions
focus
primarly
on
the
extent
of
various
land
uses.
Extent
is
important
because
it
affects
habitat
availability
for
all
species,
including
humans.
Extent
of
land
cover
and
land
use
represent
two
different
concepts
and
both
are
discussed.
Land
cover
is
essentially
what
can
be
seen
on
the
land
 
the
vegetation
or
other
physical
characteristics
 
while
land
use
describes
how
a
piece
of
land
is
being
managed
by
humans.
In
some
cases,
land
uses
can
be
determined
by
cover
types
(
e.
g.,
the
presence
of
housing
indicates
residential
land
use),
but
often
more
information
is
needed
for
those
uses
that
are
not
visible
(
e.
g.,
lands
leased
for
mining,
 
reserved 
forest
land,
 
grazing
rights 
on
shrublands).
Extent
of
uses
and
cover
types
is
additionally
complicated
because
there
are
numerous
varying
estimates
of
actual
amounts
due
to
different
terminology,
definitions,
and
approaches
to
estimation
Within
the
discussion
of
each
question,
those
variations
are
explored.
The
importance
of
extent
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Chapter
5
 
Ecological
Condition.
Land
Use
Indicators
Extent
of
developed
lands
Extent
of
urban
and
suburban
lands
Extent
of
agricultural
land
uses
Extent
of
grasslands
and
shrublands
Extent
of
forest
area,
ownership,
and
management
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
4
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Land
Use
What
is
the
extent
of
developed
lands?

The
majority
of
Americans
live
in
areas
or
transport
themselves
on
lands
that
are
considered
to
be
 
developed
land. 
Estimates
of
the
actual
amount
of
developed
land
vary
depending
on
definitions
of
 
developed 
and
differing
assessment
techniques.
13
The
USDA
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service s
National
Resources
Inventory
(
NRI)
estimated
that
there
were
approximately
98
million
acres
of
developed
land
in
the
United
States
in
1997
(
Exhibit
3­
1).
14
That
represents
4.3
percent
of
the
nation s
total
land
area,
up
from
3.2
percent
in
1982.15
Between
1982
and
1997,
approximately
25
million
acres
of
land,
primarily
forest
and
cropland,
were
converted
to
developed
uses.
The
pace
of
land
development
in
the
1990s
was
more
than
1.5
times
that
of
the
1980s.
16
Since
the
middle
of
the
last
century
the
number
of
Americans
living
in
U.
S.
Census
Bureaudefined
urban
areas
increased
from
64
percent
to
79
percent
of
the
total
population.
17
Urban
and
suburban
ecosystems
represent
a
subset
of
developed
lands
and
include
highly
urbanized
areas
and
surrounding
suburbs,
and
developed
outlying
areas
greater
than
270
acres
in
size.
Estimates
are
that
there
were
approximately
32
million
acres
of
urban
and
suburban
lands
in
1992.18
Exhibit
3­
1:
Extent
of
non­
federal
developed
land,
1997
Hawaii
98,251,700
acres
of
developed
land
Metropolitan
areas
are
defined
as
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
Metropolitan
Statistical
Areas
Source:
USDA,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service.
National
Resources
Inventory,
1997,
revised
December
2000:
Acres
of
Developed
Land,
1997.
2000.
(
January
2003;
http://
www.
nrcs.
usda.
gov/
technical/
land/
meta/
m4974.
html).
Puerto
Rico/
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands
Red
dot
represents
15,000
acres
of
developed
land
95%
or
more
federal
area
Metropolitan
area
boundaries
Metropolitan
area
central
cities
Alaska
3­
5
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Land
Use
What
is
the
extent
of
farmlands?

Farmlands
are
lands
used
for
growing
crops
and
producing
forage,
as
well
as
the
lands
that
contribute
to
those
uses,
such
as
forested
windbreaks
or
farmsteads.
Currently,
there
are
no
accurate
estimates
of
the
extent
of
farmland.
Different
components
of
farmland
can
be
identified,
including
approximately
377
million
acres
of
non­
federal
lands
that
are
used
to
grow
crops
and
120
million
acres
of
pastureland
managed
to
produce
forage
for
livestock.
19
Most
of
these
croplands
and
pasturelands
are
privately
owned.
Another
712
million
acres
of
both
private
and
public
lands
may
support
grazing
for
livestock
production,
but
these
lands
are
not
specifically
seeded
or
fertilized
and
are
normally
not
considered
part
of
farmlands
20,21
Lands
used
for
agricultural
production
show
constant
shifts
in
the
uses
among
crop,
pasture,
range,
and
forest
to
meet
production
needs,
implement
rotations
of
land
in
and
out
of
cultivation,
and
maintain
and
sustain
soil
resources.
Within
those
shifts,
however,
trends
indicate
that
the
amount
of
cropland,
rangeland,
and
pastureland
in
the
U.
S.
has
gradually
decreased
because
of
lower
U.
S.
exports
of
grain,
improvements
in
agricultural
productivity
and
efficiency,
and
conversion
of
agricultural
lands
to
development
near
growing
population
centers.
22
Between
1982
and
1997,
cropland
acreage
decreased
by
10.4
percent
(
44
million
acre
decrease)
and
pastureland
acreage
by
9.1
percent
(
12
million
acre
decrease)
(
Exhibit
3­
2).
23
In
that
same
timeframe,
however,
32.7
million
acres
consisting
primarily
of
croplands
were
enrolled
in
the
Conservation
Reserve
Program
(
CRP),
a
voluntary
program
that
encourages
farmers
to
set
aside
agricultural
lands
for
conservation
purposes.
24
What
is
the
extent
of
grasslands
and
shrublands?

As
of
1992,
the
ecosystem
of
grasslands
and
shrublands
occupied
about
861
million
acres
in
the
lower
48
states
and
205
million
acres
in
Alaska,
for
a
total
of
1.066
billion
acres
(
excluding
Hawaii),
or
about
47
percent
of
the
U.
S.
25
That
area
includes
not
only
the
grasslands
and
shrublands
of
the
West
but
coastal
meadows,
grasslands
and
shrubs
in
Florida,
mountain
meadows,
hot
and
cold
deserts,
and
tundra.
It
also
includes
more­
managed
grasslands
and
agricultural
lands
that
are
often
classified
as
rangelands
and
pasturelands.
One
of
the
challenges
in
determining
the
extent
of
this
ecosystem
is
that
grasslands
and
shrublands
can
be
used
for
grazing
and
are
often
counted
as
agricultural
lands.

The
State
of
the
Nation s
Ecosystems:
Measuring
the
Lands,
Waters,
and
Living
Resources
of
the
United
States
concludes
that
no
consistent,
nationwide
data
are
available
on
the
change
in
acreage
of
grasslands
and
shrublands.
Researchers
have
estimated
that
there
were
between
900
million
and
1
billion
acres
of
grasslands
and
shrublands
in
the
lower
48
states
before
European
settlement.
On
the
basis
of
that
estimate,
between
40
million
and
140
million
acres
had
been
converted
to
other
uses
by
1992.26
What
is
the
extent
of
forest
lands?

In
2001,
forests
covered
about
one­
third
of
the
national
land
area,
approximately
749
million
acres.
27,
28
It
is
estimated
that
in
1630,
1.045
billion
acres
of
forest
land
existed
in
what
was
to
become
the
land
area
of
the
U.
S.
Nearly
25
percent
of
these
lands
were
cleared
by
the
early
1900s,
leaving
759
million
acres
of
forest
land
in
1907.
Since
that
time
the
total
amount
of
forest
land
nationwide,
Exhibit
3­
2:
Change
in
cropland,
CRP
land,
and
pastureland
acreage,
1982
 
1997
Decrease
=
23
million
acres
Millions
of
acres
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1997
1992
1987
1982
Pastureland
Conservation
Reserve
Program
Cropland
Source:
USDA,
National
Resources
Conservation
Service.
Summary
Report
1997
National
Resources
Inventory
(
revised
December
2000).
2000.
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
6
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Land
Use
while
changing
regionally
has
remained
relatively
stable,
with
an
increase
of
2
million
acres
between
1997
and
1999.29
Most
forested
lands
are
managed
for
a
combination
of
uses,
including
recreation,
timber
production,
grazing,
and
mining.
Approximately
10
percent
of
the
nation s
forests
is
 
reserved 
through
designations
such
as
national
parks
or
wilderness
areas,
and
9
percent
supports
private
industrial
(
major
timber
management
companies)
timber
production.
30
In
2001,
the
USDA
Forest
Service
considered
more
than
503
million
acres
of
both
private
and
public
forests
 
timberlands, 
or
available
for
harvest.
From
1976
to
2001,
public
land
harvest
nationwide
dropped
nearly
47
percent
to
less
than
2
billion
cubic
feet
annually.
In
the
same
timeframe,
private
land
harvest
increased
by
almost
29
percent
to
14
billion
cubic
feet
annually
(
Exhibit
3­
3).
31
Private
forests
are
being
converted
to
developed
land
uses
faster
than
any
other
land
type.
32
(
Chapter
5
 
Ecological
Condition
contains
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
forest
land
condition.)

What
human
health
effects
are
associated
with
land
use?

Land
development
patterns
have
direct
effects
on
air
and
water
quality,
which
can
then
affect
human
health.
The
increased
concentration
of
air
pollutants
in
developed
areas
can
exacerbate
human
health
problems
such
as
asthma.
Increased
storm
water
runoff
from
impervious
surfaces
can
increase
the
flow
of
polluted
runoff
into
surrounding
waterbodies
that
residents
may
rely
on
for
drinking
and
recreation.
Development
patterns
can
affect
quality
of
life
by
limiting
recreational
opportunities,
decreasing
open
space
and
wildlife
habitat,
and
increasing
vehicle
miles
traveled
and
the
amount
of
time
spent
on
roads.
And,
as
discussed
later
in
this
chapter
agricultural
land
uses
may
expose
humans
to
dust
and
various
chemicals.

What
ecological
effects
are
associated
with
land
use?

Land
use
and
land
management
practices
change
the
landscape
in
many
ways
that
can
have
direct
and
indirect
 
as
well
as
positive
and
negative
 
ecological
effects.
One
direct
effect
is
the
conversion
of
one
type
of
use
to
a
more
humanoriented
land
use,
such
as
developed
land
or
agriculture.
Examples
of
indirect
effects
may
include
changes
in
runoff
patterns
or
soil
erosion.

Land
development
affects
water
quality
and
quantity
by
creating
hard
surfaces
such
as
roads,
structures,
and
parking
lots.
Such
impervious
surfaces
limit
the
natural
soil
filtering
process,
change
runoff
patterns,
contribute
to
floods,
and
potentially
contribute
to
the
effects
of
droughts
due
to
lower
water
tables.
Land
development
also
creates
 
heat
islands, 
domes
of
warmer
air
over
urban
and
suburban
areas
caused
by
the
loss
of
the
cooling
effects
of
trees
and
shrubs
and
the
absorption
of
more
heat
by
pavement,
buildings,
and
other
sources.
Some
agricultural
practices
can
degrade
ecological
condition,
such
as
livestock
grazing,
which
can
damage
streamside
vegetation
and
contribute
nutrients
to
ecosystems
that
then
enter
waterbodies.
Forest
practices
can
affect
water
quality
when
trees
are
removed
along
streams
or
on
steep
slopes,
causing
erosion,
stream
sedimentation,
increased
water
temperatures
(
from
loss
of
shade),
and
loss
of
fish
habitat.
Tree
planting
can
have
positive
ecological
effects
by
lowering
stream
temperatures
and
improving
fish
habitat.
Other
chapters
contain
further
discussion
of
the
effects
of
land
development
and
agricultural
and
forest
uses
on
ecosystems
and
water
quality
(
see
Chapter
2
 
Purer
Water;
and
Chapter
5
 
Ecological
Condition).

Land
use
can
also
have
indirect
effects
on
air
quality.
Patterns
of
dispersed
land
development
increase
the
number
of
miles
Exhibit
3­
3:
Timber
removals
in
the
United
States
by
owner
group,
1952
 
2001
Billion
cubic
feet
Total
Public
Total
Private
0
5
10
15
20
2001
1996
1986
1976
1962
1952
Source:
USDA,
Forest
Service.
Draft
Resource
Planning
Act
Assessment
Tables.
May
3,
2002
(
updated
August
12,
2002).
(
September
2003;
http://
www.
ncrs.
fs.
fed.
us/
4801/
FIADB/
rpa_
tabler/
Draft_
RPA_
2002_
Forest_
Resource_
Tables.
pdf).
3­
7
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Land
Use
driven
by
commuters.
Agricultural
land
uses
contribute
to
wind
erosion
and
dust
in
many
areas
of
the
country.

Certain
land
uses
and
practices,
such
as
land
conversion,
overgrazing,
excess
fertilization,
and
use
of
agricultural
chemicals
can
enhance
the
growth
of
invasive
plants.
35
Additionally,
failure
to
manage
invasive
species
can
lead
to
major
threats
to
native
ecosystems.
36
Land
practices
related
to
development,
timber
harvest,
and
agriculture
can
affect
soil
quality
both
positively
and
negatively
Some
agricultural
practices
such
as
organic
farming,
creation
of
buffer
strips
in
riparian
areas,
and
precision
pesticide
and
fertilizer
application
technologies
can
improve
land
conditions.
Other
practices
may
negatively
affect
soil
quality
by
promoting
soil
compaction
and
erosion.
Soil
erosion
can
have
several
major
effects
on
ecosystems.
Sediment
is
the
greatest
pollutant
in
aquatic
ecosystems,
by
both
mass
and
volume,
and
soil
erosion
and
transport
are
the
source.
37
Although
rates
of
erosion
declined
between
1982
and
1997
by
about
1.4
tons
per
acre,
more
than
one­
quarter
of
all
croplands
still
suffer
excessive
water
and
wind
erosion.
38,39
(
Excessive
is
defined
as
exceeding
 
tolerable 
rates
as
defined
by
USDA
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
models).
40
Land
conversion
and
land
management
practices
also
have
significant
effects
on
sensitive
areas,
such
as
wetlands,
coastal
areas,
and
the
banks
of
streams,
rivers,
and
lakes.
According
to
USDA
estimates,
most
wetland
conversion
over
the
past
15
years,
particularly
in
the
southern
and
eastern
parts
of
the
country,
has
been
due
to
land
development.
41
(
See
Chapter
2
 
Purer
Water
for
an
in­
depth
discussion
of
wetlands,
their
significance,
and
loss.)
Measuring
Impervious
Surfaces
One
effect
of
land
development
is
the
creation
of
impervious
surfaces
 
areas,
for
example,
with
pavement
or
buildings,
which
restrict
or
prevent
the
infiltration
of
water
into
underlying
soil.
Research
has
shown
that
increasing
the
amount
of
impervious
surfaces
within
watersheds
can
degrade
streams
and
affect
the
health
of
aquatic
ecosystems.
Some
aquatic
species
may
be
affected
when
impervious
surfaces
constitute
as
little
as
2
percent
of
a
watershed s
area;
others
may
be
affected
when
impervious
surface
area
is
10
to
12
percent
By
preventing
the
processing
of
pollutants
through
soils,
impervious
surfaces
help
channel
pollutants
directly
into
waterways.
Estimates
of
impervious
areas
have
been
developed
based
on
many
approaches,
including
the
use
of
remotely
sensed
satellite
imagery
such
as
the
National
Land
Cover
Dataset
(
NLCD),
assessments
of
population
and
road
density,
and
zoning
delineations.
Over
the
last
several
years,
EPA
researchers
analyzed
1,624
watersheds
in
Georgia
using
two
different
approaches.
In
the
first
approach,
three
different
data
sets
(
population
density
from
census
block­
level
data,
commercial/
industrial
and
quarrying/
mining
land
cover
categories
from
the
NLCD,
and
major
highway
and
interstate
digital
data
coverage)
were
integrated
for
analysis.
The
second
approach
applied
assumptions
about
percentage
of
imperviousness
to
various
classes
of
NLCD
data.
The
NLCD­
only
approach
showed
that
69
of
the
Georgia
watersheds
had
greater
than
10
percent
total
impervious
area,
while
the
integrated
analysis
identified
80.
The
NLCD­
only
approach
identified
76
watersheds
in
the
5
to
10
percent
impervious
range,
whereas
the
integrated
analysis
showed
117
watersheds.
The
results
indicate
that
the
NLCD­
only
approach
provides
a
rapid­
assessment
tool
for
identifying
currently
urbanized
and
impaired
watersheds
(
more
than
10
percent
imperviousness),
but
it
underestimates
potentially
vulnerable
watersheds
that
may
suffer
impairment
in
the
near
future
(
currently
5
to
10
percent
imperviousness).
33,34
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
8
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Chemicals
in
the
Landscape
Chemicals
in
the
Landscape
How
much
and
what
types
of
toxic
substances
are
released
into
the
environment?

Many
industries
release
toxic
substances
into
the
air,
soil,
and
water
through
their
manufacturing
and
production
activities.
Under
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
of
1986
and
the
Pollution
Prevention
Act
of
1990,
facilities
are
required
to
calculate
and
report
to
EPA
and
states
their
releases
of
more
than
650
toxic
chemicals
and
chemical
compounds
EPA
makes
these
toxics
release
data
available
to
the
public
through
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
(
TRI).
In
2000,
total
TRI
releases
reached
7
billion
pounds.
Of
these
releases,
58
percent
were
to
land,
27
percent
were
to
air,
4
percent
each
were
to
water
and
underground
injection
at
the
generating
facility,
and
7
percent
were
chemicals
disposed
of
off­
site
to
land
or
underground
injection.
Between
1998
and
2000,
toxic
releases
decreased
overall
by
about
409
million
pounds,
or
5.5
percent.
Of
that
total,
releases
to
land
decreased
by
approximately
276
million
pounds
(
Exhibit
3­
4).
43
Of
the
original
set
of
chemicals
from
industries
that
have
reported
consistently
since
1988,
total
on­
and
off­
site
releases
decreased
48
percent
between
1988
and
2000,
a
reduction
of
1.55
billion
pounds.
44
Some
of
the
releases
reported
in
the
TRI
include
chemicals
that
are
managed
under
EPA
regulations.
For
example,
the
above
figures
for
total
releases
in
the
TRI
include
chemicals
in
waste
disposed
of
in
hazardous
waste
disposal
units
regulated
under
Subtitle
C
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
whether
at
the
generating
facility
or
after
being
transferred
to
another
facility.
Approximately
206
million
pounds
of
toxic
chemicals
in
waste
were
disposed
of
in
RCRA
Subtitle
C
facilities
in
2000,
which
corresponds
to
approximately
2.9
percent
of
total
TRI
releases
in
2000.45
In
addi­
T
he
nation s
commerce
depends
greatly
upon
the
development
and
use
of
chemical
products,
and
over
the
past
50
years,
the
use
of
such
chemicals
has
increased
significantly
The
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
chemical
inventory
now
identifies
more
than
76,000
chemicals
currently
or
recently
used
in
the
country.
Nearly
10,000
of
those,
excluding
inorganic
polymers,
microorganisms,
naturally
occurring
substances,
and
non­
isolated
intermediaries,
are
produced
or
imported
in
quantities
greater
than
10,000
pounds
per
year;
for
about
3,100
chemicals,
the
quantities
exceed
1
million
pounds
per
year.
Associated
annual
production
and
import
volumes
increased
by
570
billion
pounds
(
9.3
percent)
to
6.7
trillion
pounds
between
1990
and
1998.42
Commercial
and
industrial
processes
such
as
mining,
manufacturing,
and
electrical
generation
all
use
and
release
chemicals.
Pesticides
are
used
in
homes,
yards,
factories,
and
office
buildings
and,
most
frequently,
to
support
agricultural
production,
where
they
have
contributed
to
an
increase
in
agricultural
productivity
levels
over
the
past
50
years.
Fertilizers,
used
to
supplement
soils
for
enhanced
plant
growth,
have
also
contributed
to
those
productivity
increases.

The
use
and
release
to
the
environment
of
chemicals
have
created
a
range
of
challenges
for
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment.
Toxic
chemicals,
including
some
pesticides,
can
lead
to
a
variety
of
acute
or
chronic
health
problems,
and
excess
fertilizers
carried
in
runoff
may
contribute
nutrients
to
aquatic
ecosystems
that
harm
water
quality
and
aquatic
life.
Chemicals
in
the
Landscape
Indicators
Quantity
and
type
of
toxic
substances
released
and
managed
Agricultural
pesticide
use
Fertilizer
use
Pesticide
residues
in
food
Potential
pesticide
runoff
from
farm
fields
Risk
of
nitrogen
export
Risk
of
phosphorous
export
3­
9
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Chemicals
in
the
Landscape
tion
to
the
7
billion
pounds
of
toxic
chemicals
released
in
2000,
31
billion
pounds
of
toxic
chemicals
were
managed
and
transferred
for
treatment
(
50
percent),
recycling
(
39
percent),
and
burning
for
energy
recovery
(
11
percent).
The
total
amount
of
toxic
chemicals
managed
and
transferred
between
1998
and
2000
increased
by
almost
29
percent,
a
net
increase
of
8.4
billion
pounds.
46
For
the
past
few
years,
EPA
has
tracked
three
metals
 
lead,
mercury,
and
cadmium
 
and
27
organic
chemicals,
which
were
identified
as
the
highest
priorities
for
waste
minimization.
The
Agency
uses
those
waste
minimization
priority
chemicals
(
WMPC)
to
measure
the
total
weight
of
particularly
toxic
chemicals
going
to
disposal
Trend
data
are
available
for
17
of
the
30
WMPCs
and
show
that
releases
of
those
17
have
been
steadily
declining
since
1993
(
Exhibit
3­
5).
Overall,
between
1991
and
1998,
there
was
a
44
percent
reduction
in
WMPC
quantities
generated
in
industrial
and
hazardous
waste.
47
Persistent
bioaccumulative
toxic
(
PBT)
chemicals,
including
dioxins,
lead,
mercury,
and
PCBs,
are
tracked
because
they
persist
and
accumulate
in
the
environment.
In
2000,
PBTs
represented
12.1
million
pounds
(
less
than
1
percent)
of
the
released
chemicals
that
TRI
tracks.
48
Although
they
constitute
a
fraction
of
overall
toxic
releases,
PBTs
are
significant
even
in
small
quantities,
given
the
chronic
risks
they
pose
to
ecosystems
and
humans
through
bioaccumulation.

What
are
the
volume,
distribution,
and
extent
of
pesticide
and
fertilizer
use?

Pesticides
are
substances
or
mixtures
used
to
destroy
or
repel
various
pests,
including
insects,
animals,
plants,
and
microorganisms
EPA s
most
recent
Pesticide
Industry
Sales
and
Usage
report
shows
that
annual
use
of
pesticides
for
all
purposes
Exhibit
3­
4:
Total
Toxics
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
releases
across
industry,
1998 
2000
Billions
of
pounds
Total
Air
Emissions
Surface
Water
Discharges
Underground
Injection
On­
Site
Land
Releases
Transfers
Off­
Site
to
Disposal
0
2
4
6
8
2000
1999
1998
Source:
EPA,
Office
of
Environmental
Information.
2000
Toxics
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
Public
Data
Release
Report.
May
2002.
Exhibit
3­
5:
Trends
in
Toxics
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
waste
minimization
priority
chemicals
(
WMPC),
1991
 
1998
Million
pounds
50
0
100
150
200
1998
1997
1995
1993
1991
0%
+
1%

­
28%

­
36%

­
44%

Source:
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Waste
Minimization
Trends
Report
(
1991­
1998).
September
2002.
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
10
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Chemicals
in
the
Landscape
declined
by
about
15
percent
between
1980
and
1999.49
This
decline
has
not
been
steady,
with
pesticide
use
higher
in
1999
than
it
was
in
the
early
1990s.
Excluding
chlorine
used
for
disinfection,
the
largest
use
of
pesticides
is
in
agricultural
production,
and
that
use
fluctuates,
depending
on
a
number
of
factors
such
as
weather
or
type
of
crop.
According
to
the
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy
(
NCFAP),
a
private,
non­
profit
research
organization,
use
of
agricultural
pesticides
increased
between
1992
and
1997
from
892
million
to
985
million
pounds.
50
The
recent
EPA
report
shows
a
similar
increase
in
use
of
all
pesticides
in
this
same
timeframe,
with
a
leveling
of
use
between
1997
and
1999.51
Approximately
half
of
those
pesticides
are
herbicides
used
to
control
weeds
that
limit
or
inhibit
the
growth
of
a
desired
crop.
Pesticides
are
also
used
in
smaller
quantities
in
rightsof
way,
businesses,
and
home
lawns
and
gardens.
Based
on
EPA s
national
pesticide
sales
estimates,
industrial,
commercial
and
governmental
pesticide
applications
 
many
of
which
occur
in
urban
environments
 
totaled
148
million
pounds
in
1999.
Home
and
garden
pesticide
use
was
estimated
to
be
140
million
pounds.
52
The
use
of
insecticides,
which
as
a
class
tend
to
be
the
pesticides
most
acutely
toxic
to
humans
and
wildlife,
significantly
declined
between
1997
and
2001.
The
number
of
individual
chemical
treatments
per
acre
(
acre­
treatments)
for
insecticides
labeled
 
danger
for
humans 
decreased
by
43
percent.
In
that
same
period,
acre­
treatments
for
insecticides
labeled
 
extremely
or
highly
toxic
to
birds 
declined
by
50
percent,
and
acre­
treatments
of
those
labeled
 
extremely
or
highly
toxic
to
aquatic
organisms 
dropped
by
23
percent.
53
The
use
of
nitrogen,
phosphorus
and
potash,
the
most
prevalent
fertilizer
supplements
in
commercial
farming,
rose
from
7.5
million
nutrient
tons
(
tons
of
a
chemical
nutrient
in
a
fertilizer
mixture)
in
1961
to
nearly
24
million
nutrient
tons
in
1981.
Exhibit
3­
6
displays
trends
in
the
use
of
fertilizer
over
the
past
40
years.
Although
aggregate
use
dipped
in
1983,
it
increased
most
recently
between
1996
and
1998
to
more
than
22
million
nutrient
tons.
54
Use
of
most
major
fertilizers
is
concentrated
on
croplands
in
the
Midwest.
55
(
Chapter
2
 
Purer
Water
discusses
some
of
the
effects
of
fertilizer
use
on
water
quality.)
What
is
the
potential
disposition
of
chemicals
from
land?

Chemicals
and
nutrients
can
move
from
their
location
of
use
or
origin
to
a
place
in
the
environment
where
humans
and
other
organisms
can
become
exposed
to
them.
People
are
exposed
to
chemicals
in
all
aspects
of
their
daily
lives,
through
their
clothing,
use
of
everyday
products,
housing,
automobiles,
and
buildings.

Pesticide
residues
on
food
are
one
way
people
can
be
exposed
to
pesticides.
The
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture's
Pesticide
Data
Program
(
PDP)
measures
pesticide
residue
levels
in
fruits,
vegetables,
grains,
meat,
and
dairy
products
from
across
the
country,
sampling
different
combinations
of
commodities
each
year.
In
2000,
PDP
collected
and
analyzed
a
total
of
10,907
samples:
8,912
fruits
and
vegetables,
178
rice,
716
peanut
butter,
and
1,101
poultry
which
originated
from
38
States
and
21
foreign
countries.
Approximately
80
Millions
of
nutrient
tons
Total
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potash
0
5
10
15
20
25
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Exhibit
3­
6:
Use
of
fertilizer,
1960
 
1998
Source:
Daberkow,
S.
et
al.
Agricultural
Resources
and
Environmental
Indicators:
Nutrient
Use
and
Management.
February
2003.
3­
11
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Chemicals
in
the
Landscape
percent
of
all
samples
were
domestic,
19
percent
were
imported,
and
less
than
1
percent
was
of
unknown
origin.
56
The
simple
presence
of
detectable
pesticide
residues
in
foods
should
not
be
considered
indicative
of
a
potential
health
concern
The
PDP
uses
analytical
methods
that
are
very
sensitive
and
are
capable
of
detecting
extremely
small
(
or
 
trace )
quantities
of
pesticides
that
are
orders
of
magnitude
lower
than
those
raising
potential
health
concerns.
Overall,
approximately
42
percent
of
all
samples
contained
no
detectable
pesticide
residues,
22
percent
contained
a
detectable
residue
of
a
single
pesticide,
and
35
percent
contained
detectable
amounts
of
two
or
more
pesticides.
Testing
found
that
no
more
than
1.4
percent
of
samples
exceeded
regulatory
limits
(
also
known
as
 
tolerance
levels ).
Residues
exceeding
the
pesticide
tolerance
level
established
by
EPA
for
that
food
were
detected
in
only
0.2
percent
of
all
composite
samples.
Residues
of
other
pesticides
for
which
no
tolerance
level
had
been
set
by
EPA
for
that
food
were
found
in
1.2
percent
of
all
samples.
These
residues
were
generally
at
low
concentrations
and
may
be
due
to
spray
drift,
crop
rotations,
or
cross
contamination
at
packing
facilities.
USDA
reports
all
such
exceedances
to
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration
for
further
investigation
and
any
needed
follow­
up.
57
Pesticide
and
fertilizer
runoff
into
surface
and
ground
water
can
also
expose
humans
and
the
environment
to
the
effects
of
chemicals.
Models
that
use
data
from
the
USDA
NRI,
the
NCFAP,
and
other
sources
show
that
the
highest
potential
for
pesticide
runoff
is
predominantly
associated
with
the
upper
and
lower
Mississippi
and
Ohio
River
valleys.
58
Similarly,
EPA
has
developed
models
based
on
land
cover
characteristics
to
assess
the
risk
of
nitrogen
and
phosphorus
runoff
into
watersheds
Those
studies
also
show
that
the
areas
with
the
highest
risk
for
nitrogen
and
phosphorus
runoff
are
concentrated
in
the
midwestern
states
and
other
agricultural
areas.
59
(
See
Chapter
5
 
Ecological
Condition
for
additional
discussion
of
how
nutrient
runoff
can
affect
the
chemical
characteristics
of
ecosystems.)
In
addition
to
runoff,
chemicals
can
enter
land
through
pesticide
 
spray
drift, 
the
physical
movement
of
a
pesticide
through
air
at
the
time
of
application,
or
soon
thereafter,
to
any
site
other
than
that
intended
for
application.
Both
modeling
and
incident
reports
indicate
that
spray
drift
is
a
route
of
disposition.
60
What
human
health
effects
are
associated
with
pesticides,
fertilizers,
and
toxic
substances?

Because
they
are
designed
to
kill
or
harm
living
organisms,
many
pesticides
pose
some
risk
to
humans,
animals,
and
the
environment.
The
risk
of
adverse
health
effects
depends
on
how,
where,
how
much,
and
how
frequently
pesticides
are
used;
what
happens
after
use;
who
is
exposed;
and
how
they
are
exposed.
Human
exposures
to
harmful
levels
of
chemicals,
such
as
organophosphates
or
organochlorine
pesticides,
can
cause
adverse
neurological,
developmental,
and
reproductive
effects.
A
significant
challenge
lies,
however,
in
correlating
the
existence
of
chemicals
in
the
environment,
either
singly
or
in
combination,
with
the
health
effects
observed
in
a
given
population

There
are
no
nationwide
pesticide
surveillance
systems
to
track
exposure
consistently,
but
several
state
and
national
pesticide
surveillance
systems
do
collect
information
on
pesticide
related
injuries
and
illness.
Although
those
systems
are
not
nationally
comprehensive,
their
information
provides
a
starting
point
for
examining
the
health
effects
of
pesticides.

Fertilizers
are
often
applied
in
greater
quantities
than
crops
can
absorb
and
end
up
in
surface
or
ground
water.
Although
fertilizers
may
not
be
inherently
harmful,
they
can
be
linked
to
human
health
problems
when
excess
nutrients
cause
algal
blooms
and
eutrophication
in
waterbodies.
Drinking
ground
water
contaminated
with
runoff
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
12
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Chemicals
in
the
Landscape
from
some
fertilizers
can
have
severe
or
even
fatal
health
effects,
especially
in
infants
and
children
(
e.
g.,
blue
baby
syndrome
61
The
Toxic
Exposure
Surveillance
System
(
TESS)
contains
information
from
poison
control
centers
that
report
occurences
of
pesticide­
related
injury
and
illness.
One
finding
from
TESS
data
is
that
organophosphates
are
much
more
likely
to
cause
post
application
symptoms
than
are
other
types
of
pesticides.
In
addition,
the
data
show
that
in
2001,
more
than
100,000
people
were
sufficiently
concerned
about
their
actual
exposure
to
pesticides
to
call
their
local
poison
control
center.
Estimates
are
that
approximately
19
percent
of
the
people
who
called
developed
symptoms
as
a
result
of
their
pesticide
exposure.
These
symptoms
included
abdominal
pain,
diarrhea,
vomiting,
rash,
blurred
vision,
irriatation
to
eyes
or
skin,
headache,
dizziness,
coughing,
and
difficulty
breathing.
In
addition,
of
the
approximately
20,000
cases
that
were
followed
to
determine
medical
outcome:
83
percent
had
a
minor
outcome,
15
percent
had
a
moderate
outcome
(
usually
require
treatment),
and
1.5
percent
had
a
major
outcome
(
life­
threating
symptoms
or
residual
disability).
62
Other
studies
of
treated
poisonings,
not
just
from
pesticides,
have
found
that
the
poison
control
center
data
may
capture
only
about
25
percent
of
all
poisoning
incidents.
63
Health
effects
from
exposure
to
toxic
chemicals
range
from
short­
term
acute
effects
to
long­
term
chronic
effects
such
as
cancer
or
asbestosis.
For
example,
as
discussed
in
Chapter
4
 
Human
Health,
despite
major
success
in
reducing
exposure
to
lead,
many
children
remain
at
risk
of
neurological
damage
through
lead
poisoning
 
primarily
from
contact
with
leadbased
paint
chips
and
lead­
containing
dust
in
their
homes.
In
addition,
EPA,
along
with
other
state
and
federal
agencies
that
are
responsible
for
protecting
public
health,
pays
special
attention
to
PBTs
and
persistent
organic
pollutants,
which
do
not
easily
break
down
and
thus
tend
to
accumulate
in
humans
and
other
organisms.
Such
accumulation
can
lead
to
serious
chronic
health
issues.
64
What
ecological
effects
are
associated
with
pesticides,
fertilizers,
and
toxic
substances?

A
number
of
ecological
effects
of
direct
chemical
exposure
on
individual
species
have
been
identified.
Reproductive
failure
in
birds,
for
example,
has
been
linked
to
organochlorine
insecticides
such
as
DDT,
which
are
still
present
in
the
environment
from
past
applications
in
the
United
States,
as
well
as
from
current
use
in
other
parts
of
the
world.
Many
pesticides
are
toxic
to
a
variety
of
fish,
bird,
plant,
and
insect
species.
As
a
result,
use
 
and
especially
misuse
 
of
pesticides
can,
where
exposures
are
of
sufficient
magnitude,
cause
significant
loss
of
non­
target
species.
Eliminating
or
limiting
those
exposures
may
have
a
beneficial
effect.
For
example,
the
resurgence
of
the
bald
eagle
population
is
thought
to
be
the
result,
at
least
in
part,
of
bans
on
various
chemicals.
65
Indirect
environmental
effects
of
pesticides
and
other
chemicals
on
ecosystems
are
more
complex
and
difficult
to
understand
As
previously
discussed,
pesticides
and
nutrients
run
off
from
their
point
of
application
and
are
deposited
in
aquatic
systems
and
sediments,
where
they
may
accumulate
to
levels
that
exceed
water
quality
standards
for
specific
chemicals.
(
The
effects
of
runoff
on
the
condition
of
aquatic
systems
are
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Chapter
2
 
Purer
Water.)
3­
13
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Chemicals
in
the
Landscape
Contaminant
Levels
and
Bald
Eagles
in
Michigan
Bald
eagles
were
significantly
affected
by
contaminants
in
the
environment
in
the
early
1960s
and
1970s.
Now
monitoring
them
can
provide
a
gross
indication
of
general
contaminant
levels
in
the
environment.
In
1999,
a
consortium
of
the
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
and
researchers
from
Michigan
State
University
and
Clemson
University
initiated
a
bald
eagle
contaminant­
monitoring
project.
Ninety
samples
of
blood
and
feathers
were
collected
by
non­
lethal
procedures
from
permanent
inland
nests,
from
nests
in
additional
inland
watersheds
being
assessed
as
part
of
the
Michigan
department s
5­
year
watershed
assessment
cycle,
and
from
Great
Lakes
and
connecting
channel
nests.

Exhibits
3­
7
and
3­
8
show
changes
in
mean
PCB
levels
and
mean
mercury
levels,
respectively,
in
bald
eagles
between
the
late
1980s
and
early
1990s,
and
in
1999.
Specifically,
PCB
levels
in
the
blood
of
bald
eagles
were
dramatically
lower
in
1999
for
inland
nests
and
those
in
Lakes
Superior,
Michigan,
and
Huron.
(
Although
Lake
Erie
did
not
show
the
same
result,
only
one
eagle
was
sampled
there
in
1999.)
Similarly,
mean
mercury
levels
in
bald
eagle
feathers
declined
in
all
geographic
areas
examined.

The
Michigan
Department
of
National
Resources
has
also
conducted
an
annual
census
of
bald
eagle
nests
in
Michigan
since
1961.
The
nests
increased
from
50
in
1961
to
366
in
2000.
During
that
same
time
period,
bald
eagle
productivity,
as
measured
by
the
number
of
young
fledged
per
nest,
increased
more
than
50
percent.

The
contaminant
and
population
measures
demonstrate
that
levels
of
key
environmental
contaminants
in
bald
eagles
within
the
Great
Lakes
Region
have
declined
through
the
1990s,
and
that
populations
and
productivity
are
increasing.
66
Exhibit
3­
7:
Mean
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(
PCB)
concentrations
in
nesting
bald
eagle
feathers,
1987
 
1992
and
1999
0
50
100
150
200
250
Lake
Superior
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Huron
Lake
Erie
Interior
Lower
Peninsula
Interior
Upper
Peninsula
1987
 
1992
1999
Mean
PCB
Concentration
(
microgram/
kilogram)

Source:
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
Office
of
Special
Environmental
Projects.
State
of
Michigan's
Environment
2001:
First
Biennial
Report.
2001.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Interior
Lower
Peninsula
Interior
Upper
Peninsula
Lake
Superior
Lakes
Michigan
and
Huron
1985
 
1989
1999
Exhibit
3­
8:
Mean
mercury
levels
in
nesting
bald
eagle
feathers,
1985
 
1989
and
1999
Mean
Mercury
(
microgram
per
liter)

Source:
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
Office
of
Special
Environmental
Projects.
State
of
Michigan's
Environment
2001:
First
Biennial
Report.
2001.
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
14
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
 
W
aste 
is
broadly
defined
as
unwanted
material
left
over
from
manufacturing
processes
or
refuse
from
places
of
human
or
animal
habitation.
Within
that
category
are
many
types
of
waste,
including
municipal
solid
waste,
hazardous
waste,
and
radioactive
waste,
which
have
properties
that
may
make
them
dangerous
or
capable
of
having
a
harmful
effect
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
67
Waste
and
contaminated
lands
are
particularly
important
to
environmental
health
because
they
may
expose
land
and
living
organisms
to
harmful
material
if
they
are
not
properly
managed.

There
have
been
major
improvements
in
managing
the
nation s
waste
and
in
cleaning
up
contaminated
sites.
National,
state,
tribal,
and
local
waste
programs
and
policies
aim
to
prevent
pollution
by
reducing
the
generation
of
wastes
at
their
source
and
by
emphasizing
prevention
over
management
and
subsequent
disposal
Preventing
pollution
before
it
is
generated
and
poses
harm
is
often
less
costly
than
cleanup
and
remediation.
Source
reduction
and
recycling
programs
often
can
increase
resource
and
energy
efficiencies
and
thereby
reduce
pressures
on
the
environment.
When
wastes
are
generated,
EPA,
state
environmental
programs
and
local
municipalities
work
to
reduce
the
risk
of
exposures.
If
land
is
contaminated
cleanup
programs
address
the
sites
to
prevent
human
exposure
and
ground
water
contamination.
Increased
recycling
protects
land
resources
and
extends
the
life
span
of
disposal
facilities.

How
much
and
what
types
of
waste
are
generated
and
managed?

The
types
of
waste
generated
range
from
yard
clippings
to
highly
concentrated
hazardous
waste.
Only
three
types
of
waste
 
municipal
solid
waste
(
MSW),
hazardous
waste
(
as
defined
by
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)),
and
radioactive
waste
 
are
tracked
with
any
consistency
on
a
national
basis.
Other
types
of
waste,
for
which
no
or
very
limited
national
data
exist,
are
listed
in
the
box,
 
Other
Types
of
Waste, 
and
are
described
in
detail
in
Appendix
B.

MSW,
commonly
known
as
trash
or
garbage,
is
one
of
the
nation s
most
prevalent
waste
types.
In
2000,
the
U.
S.
generated
approximately
232
million
tons
of
MSW,
primarily
in
homes
and
workplaces
 
an
increase
of
nearly
160
percent
since
1960.68
During
that
time,
the
population
increased
56
percent,
and
gross
domestic
product
increased
nearly
300
percent.
69
In
2000,
each
person
generated
approximately
4.5
pounds
of
waste
per
day
 
or
about
0.8
tons
for
the
year
 
a
per­
capita
generation
increase
from
2.7
pounds
per
day
in
1960.70
For
the
last
decade,
per
capita
generation
has
remained
relatively
constant,
and
the
amount
of
MSW
recovered
(
recycled
or
composted)
increased
more
than
1,100
percent,
from
5.6
million
to
69.9
million
tons
in
total
(
Exhibit
3­
9).
71
Combustion
(
incineration)
is
also
used
to
reduce
the
volume
of
waste
before
disposal.
Approximately
33.7
million
tons
(
14.5
percent)
of
MSW
were
combusted
in
2000.72
Of
that
amount,
approximately
2.3
million
tons
were
combusted
for
energy
recovery
 
a
process
where
energy
is
produced
from
waste
combustion
and
made
available
for
other
uses.
73
Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
Indicators
Quantity
of
municipal
solid
waste
(
MSW)
generated
and
managed
Quantity
of
RCRA
hazardous
waste
generated
and
managed
Quantity
of
radioactive
waste
generated
and
in
inventory
Number
and
location
of
municipal
solid
waste
(
MSW)
landfills
Number
of
RCRA
hazardous
waste
management
facilities
Number
and
location
of
Superfund
national
priority
list
sites
Number
and
location
of
RCRA
corrective
action
sites
Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
3­
15
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
The
term
 
RCRA
hazardous
waste 
applies
to
hazardous
waste
(
waste
that
is
ignitable,
corrosive,
reactive,
or
toxic)
that
is
regulated
under
the
RCRA.
In
1999,
EPA
estimated
that
20,000
businesses
generating
large
quantities
 
more
than
2,200
pounds
each
per
month
 
of
hazardous
waste
collectively
generated
40
million
tons
of
RCRA
hazardous
waste.
74
Comparisons
of
annual
trends
in
hazardous
waste
generation
are
difficult
because
of
changes
in
the
types
of
data
collected
(
e.
g.,
exclusion
of
wastewater)
over
the
past
several
years.
But
the
amount
of
a
specific
set
of
priority
toxic
chemicals
found
in
hazardous
waste
and
tracked
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
is
declining,
as
previously
discussed
under
 
Chemicals
in
the
Landscape. 
In
1999,
approximately
69
percent
of
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
was
disposed
of
on
land
by
one
of
four
disposal
methods:
deep
well/
underground
injection,
landfill
disposal,
surface
impoundment,
or
land
treatment/
application/
farming.
75
In
2000,
approximately
600,000
cubic
meters
of
different
types
of
radioactive
waste
were
generated,
and
approximately
700,000
cubic
meters
were
in
storage
awaiting
disposal.
76
By
volume,
the
most
prevalent
types
of
radioactive
waste
are
contaminated
environmental
media
(
i.
e.,
soil,
sediment,
water,
and
sludge
requiring
cleanup
or
further
assessment)
and
lowlevel
waste.
Both
of
these
waste
types
typically
have
the
lowest
levels
of
radioactivity
when
measured
by
volume.
Additional
radioactive
wastes
in
the
form
of
spent
nuclear
fuel
(
2,467
metric
tons
of
heavy
metal)
and
high­
level
waste
 
glass
logs 
(
1,201
canisters
of
vitrified
high­
level
waste)
are
in
storage
awaiting
long­
term
disposal.
77
Very
small
amounts
of
those
wastes
are
still
being
generated.
For
example,
less
than
1
cubic
meter
of
spent
nuclear
fuel
was
generated
in
2000.
The
total
amount
of
radioactive
waste
being
generated
is
expected
to
drop
over
the
next
few
decades
as
cleanup
operations
are
completed.
78
As
previously
mentioned,
other
types
of
waste
for
which
national
data
are
not
available
or
are
not
current
are
listed
below
and
described
in
Appendix
B.
These
other
types
of
waste
contribute
a
substantial
amount
to
the
total
waste
 
universe, 
although
the
exact
percentage
of
the
total
that
they
represent
is
unknown.

What
is
the
extent
of
land
used
for
waste
management?

Between
1989
and
2000,
the
number
of
municipal
landfills
in
the
U.
S.
decreased
substantially
 
from
8,000
to
2,216.79
The
combined
capacity
of
all
landfills,
however,
Exhibit
3­
9:
Municipal
solid
waste
management,
1960
 
2000
Millions
of
tons
*
Composting
of
yard
trimmings
and
food
wastes.
Does
not
include
mixed
MSW
composting
or
backyard
composting.

Source:
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Municipal
Solid
Waste
in
the
United
States:
2000
Facts
and
Figures.
June
2002.
0
50
100
150
200
250
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
Recovery
for
Composting*
Recovery
for
Recycling
Combustion
Landfill
(
2000
total
=
232
million
tons)

Other
Types
of
Waste
Extraction
wastes
Industrial
non­
hazardous
waste
Household
hazardous
waste
Agricultural
waste
Construction
and
demolition
waste
Medical
waste
Oil
and
gas
waste
Sludge
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
16
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
remained
relatively
constant
because
newer
landfills
typically
have
larger
capacities.
In
2000,
municipal
landfills
received
approximately
128
million
pounds
of
MSW,
or
about
55
percent
of
what
was
generated.
80
In
addition
to
municipal
landfills
the
nation
had
18,000
surface
impoundments
 
ponds
used
to
treat,
store,
or
dispose
of
liquid
waste
 
for
non­
hazardous
industrial
waste
in
2000.81
Excluding
wastewater,
nearly
70
percent
of
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
generated
in
1999
was
disposed
of
at
one
of
the
nation s
RCRA
treatment,
storage,
and
land
disposal
facilities
Of
the
1,575
RCRA
facilities,
1,049
are
storage­
only
facilities.
The
remaining
facilities
perform
one
or
more
of
several
common
management
methods
(
e.
g.,
deepwell/
underground
injection,
metals
recovery,
incineration,
landfill
disposal).
82
The
nation
also
uses
other
sites
for
waste
management
and
disposal,
but
there
are
no
comprehensive
data
sets
that
assess
those
additional
sites
or
the
extent
of
land
now
used
nationally
for
waste
management
in
general.
Before
the
1970s,
waste
was
not
subjected
to
today s
legal
requirements
to
reduce
toxicity
before
disposal
and
was
typically
disposed
of
in
open
pits.
Early
land
disposal
units
that
still
pose
threats
to
human
health
and
the
environment
are
considered
to
be
contaminated
lands
and
are
subject
to
federal
or
state
cleanup
efforts.

What
is
the
extent
of
contaminated
lands?

Many
of
the
contaminated
sites
that
must
be
managed
and
cleaned
up
today
are
the
result
of
historical
contamination.
Located
throughout
the
country,
contaminated
sites
vary
tremendously.
Some
sites
involve
small,
non­
toxic
spills
or
single
leaking
tanks,
whereas
others
involve
large
acreages
of
potential
contamination
such
as
abandoned
mine
sites.
To
address
the
contamination,
federal
and
state
programs
use
a
variety
of
laws
and
regulations
to
initiate,
implement,
and
enforce
cleanup.
The
contaminated
sites
are
generally
classified
according
to
applicable
program
authorities,
such
as
RCRA
Corrective
Action,
Superfund,
and
state
cleanup
programs

Note:
"
Construction
Complete"
sites
include
most
"
Deleted"
sites
and
some
"
Final"
sites.

Source:
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
National
Priorities
List
Site
Totals
by
Status
and
Milestone.
March
26,
2003.
(
April
3,
2003;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
sites/
query/
queryhtm/
npltotal.
htm)
and
Number
of
NPL
Site
Actions
and
Milestones
by
Fiscal
Year.
March
26,
2003.
(
April
3,
2003;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
sites/
query/
queryhtm/
nplfy/
htm).
Exhibit
3­
10.
Superfund
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL)
site
totals
by
status
and
milestone,
1990
 
2002
Number
of
sites
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Deleted
Sites
Final
Sites
Proposed
Sites
Construction
Complete
3­
17
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
Although
many
states
have
data
about
contaminated
sites
within
their
boundaries,
the
total
extent
of
contaminated
land
in
the
U.
S.
is
unknown
because
few
data
are
aggregated
for
the
nation
as
a
whole
and
acreage
estimates
are
generally
not
available
A
nationally
accurate
assessment
would
require
both
more
detailed
information
on
specific
sites
 
such
as
the
area
of
each
site
 
and
consistent
aggregation
of
those
data
nationally.
To
assess
the
full
nature
of
 
extent 
would
require
data
on
specific
contaminants,
as
well
as
an
assessment
of
risks,
hazards,
and
potential
for
exposure
to
those
contaminants.

The
most
toxic
abandoned
waste
sites
in
the
nation
are
listed
on
the
Superfund
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL)
(
Exhibit
3­
10).
Thus,
examining
the
NPL
data
 
along
with
data
on
RCRA
corrective
action
sites
 
provides
an
indication
of
the
extent
of
the
most
significantly
contaminated
sites.
NPL
sites
are
located
in
every
state
and
several
territories.
As
of
October
2002,
there
were
1,498
final
or
deleted
NPL
sites.
83
An
additional
62
sites
were
proposed
to
the
NPL.
84
(
When
a
 
proposed 
site
meets
the
qualifications
to
be
cleaned
up
under
the
Superfund
Program,
it
becomes
a
final
NPL
site.
Sites
are
considered
for
 
deletion 
from
the
NPL
list
when
cleanup
is
complete.)
Of
the
1,498
sites,
846
sites
are
 
construction
completion
sites, 
which
are
former
toxic
waste
sites
where
physical
construction
for
all
cleanup
actions
are
complete
all
immediate
threats
have
been
addressed,
and
all
longterm
threats
are
under
control.
This
is
up
from
149
construction
completes
in
l992.

EPA
also
estimates
that
approximately
3,700
hazardous
waste
management
sites
may
be
subject
to
RCRA
corrective
action,
which
would
provide
for
investigation
and
cleanup
and
remediation
of
releases
of
hazardous
waste
and
constituents.
Contamination
at
the
sites
ranges
from
small
spills
that
require
soil
cleanup
to
extensive
contamination
of
soil,
sediment
and
ground
water.
In
addition,
1,714
of
these
3,700
potential
corrective
action
sites
are
high­
priority
sites
that
are
targeted
for
immediate
action
by
federal,
state,
and
local
agencies.
85
Other
types
of
contaminated
lands,
for
which
data
are
very
limited,
include
areas
contaminated
by
leaking
underground
storage
tanks
and
brownfields.
Brownfields
are
lands
on
which
hazardous
substances,
pollutants
or
contaminants
may
be
or
have
been
present.
Brownfields
are
often
found
in
and
around
economically
depressed
neighborhoods.
Cleaning
up
and
redeveloping
these
lands
can
benefit
surrounding
communities
by
reducing
health
and
environmental
risks,
creating
more
functional
space,
and
improving
economic
conditions.
The
other
types
of
contaminated
lands
are
listed
here
(
see
box)
and
described
in
more
detail
in
Appendix
B.

What
human
health
effects
are
associated
with
waste
management
and
contaminated
lands?

People
who
live,
work,
or
are
otherwise
near
contaminated
lands
and
waste
management
areas
are
more
vulnerable
than
Other
Types
of
Contaminated
Lands
Leaking
underground
storage
tanks
Accidental
spill
sites
Land
contaminated
with
radioactive
and
other
hazardous
materials
Brownfields
Some
military
bases
Waste
management
sites
that
were
poorly
designed
or
poorly
managed
Illegal
dumping
sites
Abandoned
mine
lands
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
18
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Human
Exposures
Under
Control
at
Identified
Contaminated
Sites
Progress
is
being
made
to
control
the
pathways
by
which
humans
are
potentially
exposed,
under
current
conditions,
to
unacceptable
levels
of
contaminants
at
Superfund
and
priority
RCRA
Corrective
Action
sites.
In
October
2002,
1,199
Superfund
sites
out
of
1,494
Superfund
sites
were
found
to
have
human
exposures
under
control
(
Exhibit
3­
11a).
86
As
of
March
2003,
1,056
of
1,714
RCRA
Corrective
Action
sites
were
similarly
found
to
have
human
exposures
under
control
(
Exhibit
3­
11b).
87
 
Under
control 
indicates
that
EPA
or
state
officials
have
determined
that
there
are
no
unacceptable
human
exposures
to
contamination
(
present
above
appropriate
risk­
based
levels)
that
can
be
reasonably
expected
under
current
land­
and
water­
use
conditions.
Examples
of
risk­
based
levels
used
in
these
determinations
include
EPA­
and/
or
varying
state­
promulgated
standards,
as
well
as
other
appropriate
standards
guidelines,
guidance,
or
criteria.

Government
officials
base
a
 
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control 
determination
on
site­
specific
characterization
information,
including
chemical
analyses
of
relevant
environmental
media
(
ground
water,
surface
water,
indoor
and
outdoor
air,
and
soil),
and
on
the
potential
ways
people
could
be
exposed
to
that
contamination
including
inhalation,
direct
contact,
or
ingestion
of
the
contaminated
media
or
food
impacted
by
contaminated
media.
In
addition,
examples
of
exposure
control
actions
taken
that
could
lead
to
an
 
under
control 
determination
include
implementing
cleanups
such
as
removing
contaminated
media,
providing
alternative
water
supplies,
and
implementing
access
and
other
land
use
controls
and
restrictions.
These
site­
specific
evaluations
result
in
an
EPA
or
state
official
determining
that
human
exposures
are
either
under
control,
not
under
control,
or
that
there
is
insufficient
information
to
make
the
determination.

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
environmental
measurements,
human
activity
patterns,
and
actions
taken
to
prevent
exposure
are
the
basis
of
these
human
exposures
determinations.
Biomonitoring
or
personal
monitoring
(
see
Chapter
4
 
Human
Health)
is
not
typically
used
to
make
these
determinations.
Furthermore,
EPA
uses
 
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control 
as
a
means
to
measure
short­
term
protectiveness;
additional
cleanup
actions
(
i.
e.,
beyond
those
on
which
the
 
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control 
is
based)
may
be
necessary
as
part
of
a
final
remedy
designed
to
ensure
long­
term
protection
from
reasonably
expected
future
exposures.

a.
Human
exposure
under
control
at
Superfund
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL)
hazardous
waste
sites
Source:
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Information
System
(
CERCLIS)
Database.
October
2002.
Note:
The
data
used
in
this
display
were
drawn
directly
from
the
CERCLIS
database
specifically
for
this
report
using
queries
for
human
exposure.
4
deleted/
deferred
NPL
sites
are
not
included.
12%
Insufficient
Data
1,494
sites
total
8%
Not
Under
Control
80%
Under
Control
1,199
175
120
b.
Human
exposure
under
control
at
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Corrective
Action
hazardous
waste
sites
Source:
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Facilities
on
the
RCRA
GPRA
Cleanup
Baseline.
March
2003.
Note:
The
data
used
in
this
display
were
drawn
from
the
RCRAInfo
database
using
code
CA
725
(
Human
Exposures
Controlled).
The
results
displayed
for
insufficient
data
include
those
facilities
that
have
yet
to
be
evaluated
for
this
determination.
1,714
sites
total
8%
Not
Under
Control
62%
Under
Control
Exhibit
3­
11:
Human
exposure
under
control
at
identified
hazardous
waste
sites
30%
Insufficient
Data
1,056
140
518
Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
3­
19
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
Migration
of
Contaminated
Ground
Water
Under
Control
at
Identified
Contaminated
Sites
Progress
is
being
made
to
control
the
spread
of
contamination
in
ground
water
at
Superfund
and
priority
RCRA
Corrective
Action
sites.
As
of
October
2002,
772
out
of
1,275
Superfund
sites
had
ground
water
contamination
under
control
(
Exhibit
3­
12a).
88
Similarly,
as
of
March
2003,
899
of
the
1,714
RCRA
Corrective
Action
sites
were
under
control
(
Exhibit
3­
12b).
89
 
Under
control 
means
a
plume
of
contaminated
ground
water
is
not
spreading
above
appropriate
risk­
based
levels,
or
is
not
adversely
affecting
surface
water
bodies
into
which
contaminated
ground
water
is
discharging.
Examples
of
risk­
based
levels
used
in
these
determinations
include
EPA­
and/
or
varying
state­
promulgated
standards,
as
well
as
other
appropriate
standards,
guidelines,
guidance,
or
criteria.

Government
officials
base
a
 
Migration
of
Contaminated
Ground
Water
Under
Control 
determination
on
site­
specific
characterization
information
and
monitoring
data
pertaining
to
relevant
environmental
media
(
e.
g.,
ground
water
and
surface
water
where
warranted).
In
addition,
examples
of
actions
taken
that
could
lead
to
an
 
under
control 
determination
include
documenting
the
lack
of
plume
growth
in
response
to
an
engineered
 
pump
and
treat 
or
subsurface
barrier
system,
or
in
response
to
natural
attenuation
processes
(
both
of
which
would
include
ongoing
monitoring).
These
site­
specific
evaluations
result
in
an
EPA
or
state
official
determining
that
the
migration
of
contaminated
ground
water
is
under
control,
not
under
control,
or
that
there
is
insufficient
information
to
make
the
determination.

EPA
is
using
the
 
Migration
of
Contaminated
Ground
Water
Under
Control 
determination
as
a
means
of
protecting
ground
water
and
surface
water
resources.
As
such,
actual
or
potential
human
exposures
to
contaminants
in
ground
water
would
be
addressed
in
the
 
Current
Human
Exposures
Under
Control 
determination.
Furthermore,
 
Migration
of
Contaminated
Ground
Water
Under
Control 
is
a
short­
term
cleanup
goal;
additional
cleanup
actions
(
i.
e.,
beyond
those
on
which
this
measure
is
based)
may
be
necessary
as
part
of
a
final
remedy
designed
to
ensure
longterm
protection
of
ground
water
resources.

Exhibit
3­
12:
Contaminated
ground
water
migration
under
control
at
identified
hazardous
waste
sites
a.
Contaminated
ground
water
migration
under
control
at
Superfund
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL)
hazardous
waste
sites
Source:
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Information
System
(
CERCLIS)
Database.
October
2002.
Note:
The
data
used
in
this
display
were
drawn
directly
from
the
CERCLIS
database
specifically
for
this
report
using
queries
for
ground
water
migration.
17%
Insufficient
Data
1,275
sites
total
23%
Not
Under
Control
60%
Under
Control
772
212
291
b.
Contaminated
ground
water
migration
under
control
at
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Corrective
Action
hazardous
waste
sites
Source:
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Facilities
on
the
RCRA
GPRA
Cleanup
Baseline.
March
2003.
Note:
The
data
used
in
this
display
were
drawn
from
the
RCRAInfo
database
using
code
CA
750
(
Migration
of
Contaminated
Groundwater
Controlled).
The
results
displayed
for
insufficient
data
include
those
facilities
that
have
yet
to
be
evaluated
for
this
determination.
1,714
sites
total
13%
Not
Under
Control
53%
Under
Control
899
34%
Insufficient
Data
587
228
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
20
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
others
to
the
threats
such
areas
might
pose
in
the
event
of
accident
or
unintended
exposure
to
hazardous
materials.
Depending
on
factors
such
as
management
practices,
the
sources
of
contamination,
and
potential
exposure,
some
waste,
contaminated
lands,
and
lands
used
for
waste
management
pose
a
much
greater
risk
to
human
health
than
others.
Some
areas,
such
as
properly
designed
and
managed
waste
management
facilities,
pose
minimal
risks.

Determining
the
relationship
between
types
of
sites
and
human
health
is
usually
extremely
complicated.
For
many
types
of
cancer,
understanding
is
limited
by
science
and
the
fact
that
people
usually
are
exposed
to
many
possible
cancercausing
substances
throughout
their
lives.
Isolating
the
contributions
of
exposure
to
contaminants
to
incidence
of
respiratory
illness,
cancer,
and
birth
defects
is
extremely
difficult
 
impossible
in
many
cases.
Nonetheless,
it
is
important
to
gain
a
more
concrete
understanding
of
how
the
hazardous
materials
associated
with
waste
and
contaminated
lands
affect
human
populations.

Although
some
types
of
potential
contaminants
and
waste
are
not
generally
hazardous
to
humans,
other
types
can
pose
dangers
to
health
if
people
are
exposed.
The
number
of
substances
that
exist
that
can
or
do
affect
human
health
is
unknown;
however,
the
TRI
program
requires
reporting
of
more
than
650
chemicals
and
chemical
categories
that
are
known
to
be
toxic
to
humans.

EPA s
Superfund
Program
has
identified
several
sources
of
common
contaminants,
including
commercial
solvents,
drycleaning
agents,
and
chemicals.
With
chronic
exposure,
commercial
solvents
such
as
benzene
may
suppress
bone
marrow
function,
causing
blood
changes.
Dry­
cleaning
agents
and
degreasers
contain
trichloroethane
and
trichloroethylene,
which
can
cause
fatigue,
depression
of
the
central
nervous
system,
kidney
changes
(
e.
g.,
swelling,
anemia),
and
liver
changes
(
e.
g.,
enlargement).
90
Chemicals
used
in
commercial
and
industrial
manufacturing
processes,
such
as
arsenic,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
and
mercury,
may
cause
various
health
problems.
Long­
term
exposure
to
lead
may
cause
permanent
kidney
and
brain
damage.
Cadmium
can
cause
kidney
and
lung
disease.
Chromium,
beryllium,
arsenic,
and
cadmium
have
been
implicated
as
human
carcinogens.
91
What
ecological
effects
are
associated
with
waste
management
and
contaminated
lands?

Hazardous
substances,
whether
present
in
waste,
on
lands
used
for
waste
management,
or
on
contaminated
land,
can
harm
wildlife
(
e.
g.,
cause
major
reproductive
complications),
destroy
vegetation,
contaminate
air
and
water,
and
limit
the
ability
of
an
ecosystem
to
survive.
For
example,
if
not
properly
managed,
toxic
residues
left
from
mining
operations
can
be
blown
into
nearby
areas,
affecting
resident
bird
populations
and
the
water
on
which
they
depend.
Certain
hazardous
substances
also
have
the
potential
to
explode
or
cause
fires,
threatening
both
wildlife
and
human
populations.
92
The
negative
effects
of
land
contamination
and
occasionally
of
waste
management
on
ecosystems
occur
after
contaminants
have
been
released
on
land
(
soil/
sediment)
or
into
the
air
or
water.
For
example,
mining
activities
have
affected
aquatic
life
in
Colorado s
Eagle
River,
as
described
in
box,
 
Cleanup
of
the
Eagle
Mine
Superfund
Site. 

Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
3­
21
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Cleanup
of
the
Eagle
Mine
Superfund
Site
The
Eagle
Mine,
southwest
of
Vail,
Colorado,
was
used
to
mine
gold,
silver,
lead,
zinc,
and
copper
between
1870
and
1984.
After
the
mine
closed,
several
contaminants,
including
lead,
zinc,
cadmium,
arsenic,
and
manganese,
were
left
behind,
and
they
spread
into
nearby
ground
water,
the
Eagle
River,
and
the
air,
posing
a
risk
to
people
and
wildlife.

Colorado
filed
notice
and
claim
in
1985
against
the
former
mine
owners
for
natural
resource
damages
under
Superfund.
In
June
1986,
the
site
was
placed
on
the
National
Priority
List,
and
shortly
thereafter
the
state
and
the
previous
owners
agreed
to
a
plan
of
action.
Cleanup
operations
included
constructing
a
water
treatment
plant
to
collect
mine
seepage
and
other
contaminated
water
sources;
relocating
all
processed
mine
wastes
and
contaminated
soils
to
one
main,
on­
site
tailings
pile;
capping
that
pile
with
a
multilayer
clean
soil
cap;
and
revegetating
all
disturbed
areas
with
native
plant
species.

The
water
quality
in
the
Eagle
River
began
to
show
improvements
in
1991;
as
zinc
concentrations
in
the
river
dropped,
the
resident
brown
trout
population
grew
(
Exhibit
3­
13).
An
October
2000
site
review
concluded
that
public
health
risks
had
been
removed
and
that
significant
progress
had
been
made
in
restoring
the
Eagle
River.
Today,
biological
monitoring
is
undertaken
to
sample
the
Eagle
River s
water
quality,
aquatic
insects,
and
fish
populations
93
Exhibit
3­
13:
Eagle
mine
zinc
concentrations
and
brown
trout
populations
downstream
of
the
consolidated
tailings
pile
Dissolved
Zinc
milligrams
per
liter
(
m/
l)

Number
of
Fish
Per
Acre
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
0
100
200
300
400
500
Sep
89
Sep
91
Sep
93
Sep
95
Sep
97
Sep
99
Sep
01
Note:
Zinc
concentrations
fluctuate
during
the
seasons
according
to
water
levels.

Source:
Colorado
Department
of
Public
Health
and
Environment,
Hazardous
Materials
and
Waste
Management
Division.
Eagle
Mine.
February
5,
2003.
(
April
7,
2003;
http://
www.
cdphe.
state.
co.
us/
hm/
rpeagle.
asp#
SiteSummary).
Zinc,
13­
B
(
mg/
l)
Fish
per
acre
Linear
(
Fish)

Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
advanced
system
for
full
pesticide
use
reporting.
Reports
about
the
specifics
of
pesticide
applications
are
filed
by
farmers
commercial
applicators,
structural
pest
control
companies
and
commercial
landscaping
firms.
94
The
TRI
program
does
not
cover
all
releases
of
chemicals
from
all
industrial
facilities.
For
example,
facilities
that
do
not
meet
the
TRI
reporting
requirements
(
those
that
have
fewer
than
10
full­
time
employees
or
do
not
meet
TRI
chemicalspecific
threshold
amounts
for
reporting)
are
not
required
to
report
their
releases.
Some
facilities
conduct
and
report
on
actual
monitoring
data;
others
use
estimation
approaches,
which
are
not
consistent
nationwide.
New
chemicals
are
being
produced
constantly,
which
poses
challenges
to
EPA s
efforts
to
monitor
their
potential
interaction
and
effects.

Better
information
is
needed
on
the
chemistry,
quantities,
and
longevity
of
various
substances;
on
the
cumulative
effects
of
various
chemicals
on
the
environment
and
humans;
and
on
the
pathways
and
effects
of
exposure.
More
monitoring
is
required,
along
with
more
effective
means
to
link
ambient
exposures
to
health
and
ecological
effects.
A
more
comprehensive
and
cohesive
intergovernmental
 
federal,
state,
and
local
 
reporting
system
that
helps
to
link
environmental
and
health
data
would
be
of
great
assistance.

Waste
and
Contaminated
Lands
The
data
available
nationally
on
total
waste
generated
are
not
comprehensive;
they
exist
as
independent
data
sets
maintained
by
different
agencies
and
organizations.
The
data
are
gathered
in
various
units
(
e.
g.,
MSW
in
weight
by
pounds
or
tons,
radioactive
waste
in
volume
by
canisters).
No
easy
method
exists
to
convert
weight
to
volume
for
understanding
 
extent. 

Some
data
are
available
on
sites
used
for
various
types
of
waste
management,
but
there
is
no
broad
assessment
or
M
any
sources
of
data
support
indicators
that
help
to
answer
questions
about
the
trends
and
effects
of
land
use,
chemicals
in
the
landscape,
and
waste
and
contaminated
land.
But
there
are
limitations
in
using
the
indicators
to
fully
answer
the
questions.

Land
Use
There
are
a
number
of
gaps
in
information
about
land
use
and
cover.
Significantly
varying
estimates
of
developed
land
result
from
varying
definitions
and
approaches
to
land
use
assessments.
Statistical
sampling
and
satellite
remote
sensing
techniques
vary
in
total
estimates
 
and
represent
different
sources
of
error.
Data
on
some
cover
types
and
land
uses
are
sparse
or
nonexistent,
and
inventories
are
seldom
done
on
lands
in
Alaska.
Numerous
federal
agencies
conduct
national
inventories,
but
because
they
cover
different
land
areas
with
different
classifications
and
varying
statistical
sampling,
integrating
those
data
is
challenging.
Remotely
sensed
data
are
being
used
increasingly
to
estimate
land
cover
but
will
probably
need
to
be
combined
with
other
data
sets
to
produce
an
accurate
estimate
of
land
uses.
Additionally,
remote
sensing
data
from
multiple
years
are
not
readily
available
for
analysis
of
trends.
Soil
erosion
information
is
collected
by
the
NRI
for
croplands
but
does
not
exist
nationally
for
forests
or
rangelands
particularly
those
under
federal
ownership.

Chemicals
in
the
Landscape
No
pesticide
reporting
system
currently
provides
information
on
the
volume,
distribution,
and
extent
of
pesticide
use
nationwide
across
all
sectors.
Data
used
in
this
report
are
only
estimates
based
on
available
information
that
includes
crop
profiles,
pesticide
sales,
expert
surveys,
and
sampling
of
stream
and
ground
water.
While
no
national
reporting
system
exists,
California
has
developed
an
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
22
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Limitations
of
Land
Indicators
Limitations
of
Land
Indicators
3­
23
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
national
database
of
contaminated
lands.
National­
level
statistics
on
the
total
acreage
of
those
lands,
actual
concentrations
found
in
soils
or
waters
around
the
sites,
or
health
or
ecological
effects
around
the
sites
do
not
exist.
Lack
of
those
data
creates
challenges
for
addressing
cleanup
or
redevelopment
opportunities.

In
lieu
of
national­
level
environmental
indicators,
activity
measures
of
prevention,
reduction
of
toxicity,
and
cleanup
are
used
as
indicators.
Those
measures
take
into
account
health
and
ecological
outcomes.
At
this
time,
they
are
the
best
available
indicators
of
environmental
status
and
effects.

4
Ibid.

5
Alaska
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
Fact
Sheet:
Land
Ownership
in
Alaska.
March
2000.
(
September
2002;
http://
www.
dnr.
state.
ak.
us/
mlw/
factsht/
land_
own.
pdf).

6
Ibid.

7
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service.
America s
Private
Land:
A
Geography
of
Hope,
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
June
1997.

8
U.
S.
General
Services
Administration.
Summary
report
on
real
property
owned
by
the
United
States
throughout
the
world,
1999.
op.
cit.

9
Wilderness
Information
Network.
National
wilderness
preservation
system
database.
August
2002.
(
February
10,
2003;
http://
www.
wilderness.
net/
nwps).

Endnotes
Endnotes
1
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service.
Summary
Report:
1997
National
Resources
Inventory
(
Revised
December
2000),
Washington,
DC:
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
and
Ames,
Iowa:
Iowa
State
University,
Statistical
Laboratory,
December
1999,
Revised
December
2000.

2
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior.
Rangeland
Reform
 
94,
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Statement,
Washington,
DC:
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
1994.

3
U.
S.
General
Services
Administration.
 
Summary
report
on
real
property
owned
by
the
United
States
throughout
the
world. 
1999.
In
Statistical
Abstract
of
the
United
States
2001:
The
National
Data
Book.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
2001.
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
24
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
Endnotes
10
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
America s
Private
Land:
A
Geography
of
Hope,
1997.
op.
cit.

11
Alaska
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
Fact
Sheet:
Land
Ownership
in
Alaska,
2000.
op.
cit.

12
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,
Energy
Information
Administration.
United
States
Country
Analysis
Brief.
November
2002.
(
January
2003;
http://
www.
eia.
doe.
gov/
emeu/
cabs/
usa.
html).

13
The
H.
John
Heinz
III
Center
for
Science,
Economics
and
the
Environment.
The
State
of
the
Nation s
Ecosystems:
Measuring
the
Lands,
Waters,
and
Living
Resources
of
the
United
States,
New
York,
NY:
Cambridge
University
Press,
September
2002.

14
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service.
1997
National
Resources
Inventory
Highlights.
January
2001.
(
February
2003;
http://
www.
nrcs.
usda.
gov/
technical/
land/
pubs/
97highlights.
pdf).

15
Ibid.

16
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service.
Summary
Report:
1997
National
Resources
Inventory
(
Revised
December
2000),
2000.
op.
cit.

17
U.
S.
Census
Bureau.
Statistical
Abstract
of
the
United
States
2001:
The
National
Data
Book,
Washington,
DC.
2001.

18
The
Heinz
Center.
The
State
of
the
Nation s
Ecosystems:
Measuring
the
Lands,
Waters,
and
Living
Resources
of
the
United
States,
2002.
op.
cit.

19
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service.
Summary
Report:
1997
National
Resources
Inventory
(
Revised
December
2000),
2000.
op.
cit.
20
The
Heinz
Center.
The
State
of
the
Nation s
Ecosystems:
Measuring
the
Lands,
Waters,
and
Living
Resources
of
the
United
States,
2002.
op.
cit.

21
U.
S.
Department
of
Interior.
Rangeland
Reform
 
94,
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Statement,
1994.
op.
cit.

22
Vesterby,
M.,
 
Agricultural
resources
and
environmental
indicators:
land
use. 
In
Agricultural
Resources
and
Environmental
Indicators
Report,
Ag
Handbook
No.
AH722.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Economic
Research
Service,
February
2003,
1­
33.

23
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
Summary
Report:
1997
National
Resources
Inventory
(
Revised
December
2000),
2000.
op.
cit.

24
Ibid.

25
The
Heinz
Center.
The
State
of
the
Nation s
Ecosystems:
Measuring
the
Lands,
Waters,
and
Living
Resources
of
the
United
States,
2002.
op.
cit.

26
Klopatek,
J.
M.,
R.
J.
Olson,
C.
J.
Emerson,
and
J.
L.
Jones.
Landuse
conflicts
with
natural
vegetation
in
the
United
States.
Environmental
Conservation
6:
191
 
199
(
1979).

27
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
Forest
Service.
U.
S.
Forest
Facts
and
Historical
Trends,
Brochure
#
FS­
696.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
April
2001.

28
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Forest
Service,
Draft
Resource
Planning
Act
Assessment
tables.
August
12,
2002.
(
September
2002;
http://
www.
ncrs.
fs.
fed.
us/
4801/
FIADB/
rpa_
tabler/
Draft_
RPA_
2002_
Forest_
Resource_
Tables.
pdf).

29
Ibid.
3­
25
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
30
Ibid.

31
Ibid.

32
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
National
Resources
Inventory:
Highlights,
2001.
op.
cit.

33
Bird,
S.,
J.
Harrison,
L.
Exum,
S.
Alberty,
and
C.
Perkins.
 
Screening
to
identify
and
prevent
urban
storm
water
problems
estimating
impervious
area
accurately
and
inexpensively
In
Proceedings
of
the
National
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Council
Conference,
Madison,
WI,
May
19­
23,
2002.

34
Bird,
S.
L.,
L.
R.
Exum,
and
S.
W.
Alberty.
Generating
high
quality
impervious
cover
data.
Quality
Assurance
8:
91­
103
(
2001).

35
Westbrooks,
R.
Invasive
Plants,
Changing
the
Landscape
of
America:
Fact
Book.
Washington,
DC:
Federal
Interagency
Committee
for
the
Management
of
Noxious
and
Exotic
Weeds,
1998.

36
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
Invasive
species
encroachment
is
one
of
the
biggest
threats
to
native
ecosystems
that
resource
managers
face
today.
No
date
available.
(
August
2002;
http://
invasives.
fws.
gov/
Index7.
html).

37
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
2000
National
Water
Quality
Inventory,
EPA
841­
R­
02­
001.
Washington
DC:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water,
August
2002.

38
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service.
State
of
the
Land
Index
of
Analysis
Products:
Change
in
Average
Annual
Soil
Erosion
by
Water
on
Cropland
and
CRP
Land,
1982­
1997.
2000.
(
January
2003;
http://
www.
nrcs.
usda.
gov/
technical/
land/
meta/
m5060.
html).
39
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service.
State
of
the
Land
Index
of
Analysis
Products:
Total
Wind
and
Water
Erosion,
1997.
2000.
(
January
2003;
http://
www.
nrcs.
usda.
gov/
technical/
land/
meta/
m5083.
html)

40
Ibid
41
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service.
Summary
Report:
1997
National
Resources
Inventory
(
Revised
December
2000),
2000.
op.
cit.

42
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
Chemical
Substance
Inventory,
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides,
and
Toxic
Substances,
2002.

43
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
2000
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Public
Data
Release
Report,
EPA
260­
S­
02­
001.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
May
2002.

44
Ibid
45
Ibid
46
Ibid
47
Ibid
48
Ibid
49
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Pesticide
Industry
Sales
and
Usage
1998
and
1999
Market
Estimates.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides,
and
Toxic
Substances,
September
2001.

Endnotes
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
26
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
50
Gianessi,
L.
P.,
and
M.
B.
Marcelli.
Pesticide
Use
in
U.
S.
Crop
Production:
1997,
National
Summary
Report,
Washington,
DC:
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy,
November
2000.

51
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Pesticide
Industry
Sales
and
Usage
1998
and
1999
Market
Estimates.
2001.
op.
cit.

52
Ibid.

53
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
Biopesticides
registration
action
document:
Bacillus
thuringiensis
plant­
incorporated
protectants.
October
16,
2001.
(
January
2003;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
biopesticides/
pips/
bt_
brad.
htm).

54Daberkow,
S.,
H.
Taylor,
and
W.
Huang.
 
Agricultural
Resources
and
Environmental
Indicators:
Nutrient
Use
and
Management. 
September,
2000.
In
Agricultural
Resources
and
Environmental
Indicators,
Agricultural
Handbook
No.
AH722.
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Economic
Research
Service,
Washington,
DC,
February
2003,
4.4.1­
4.4.49.

55
Vesterby,
M.
Agricultural
resources
and
environmental
indicators
land
use,
2003.
op.
cit.

56
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
Pesticide
Data
Program:
Annual
Summary
Calendar
Year
2000,
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Agricultural
Marketing
Service,
2002.

57
Ibid.

58
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Wetlands,
Oceans,
and
Watersheds.
Pesticide
Runoff
Potential
 
1990­
1995.
August
24,
1999.
59
Wickham,
J.
D.,
K.
H.
Ritters,
R.
V.
O Neill,
K.
H.
Reckhow,
T.
G.
Wade,
and
K.
B.
Jones.
Land
Cover
as
a
Framework
for
Assessing
Risk
of
Water
Pollution.
Journal
of
the
American
Water
Resources
Association
36
(
6);
1­
6
(
2000).

60
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
Spray
Drift
of
Pesticides.
December
1999.
(
September
2002;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
citizens/
spraydrift.
htm).

61
M.
O.
Amdur,
J.
Doull
and
C.
D.
Klassen
(
eds.).
Toxicology:
the
Basic
Science
of
Poisons,
NY:
Pergamon
Press.
1996,
1033.

62
Litovitz,
T.
L.,
W.
Klein­
Schwartz,
G.
C.
Rodgers,
D.
J.
Cobaugh,
J.
Youniss,
J.
C.
Omslaer,
M.
E.
May,
A.
D.
Woolf,
and
B.
E.
Benson.
2001
annual
report
of
the
American
Association
of
Poison
Control
Centers:
toxic
exposure
surveillance
system.
American
Journal
of
Emergency
Medicine
20:
391­
452,
2002.

63
National
Environmental
Education
and
Training
Foundation.
National
Strategies
for
Health
Care
Providers:
Pesticides
Initiative,
Washington,
DC.
2002.

64
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Waste
Minimization
Trends
Report
(
1991­
1998),
EPA
530­
R­
02­
007.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
September
2002
65
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
Recovery
Program:
Endangered
and
Threatened
Species,
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
1994.

66
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality.
State
of
Michigan s
Environment
2001,
First
Biennial
Report,
Lansing,
MI:
Office
of
Special
Environmental
Projects,
2001.

Endnotes
3­
27
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
67
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
RCRA
Orientation
Manual,
EPA
530­
R­
0­
006.
Washington,
DC:
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
June
2000.

68
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Municipal
Solid
Waste
in
the
United
States:
2000
Facts
and
Figures,
EPA
530­
S­
02­
001.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
June
2002.

69
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce,
Bureau
of
Economic
Analysis.
GDP
and
Other
Major
NIPA
Series,
1929­
2002.
2002.
(
February
2003;
http://
www.
bea.
doc.
gov/
bea/
ARTICLES/
2002/
08August/
0802GDP_&
Other_
Major_
NIPAs.
pdf).

70
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Municipal
Solid
Waste
in
the
United
States:
2000
Facts
and
Figures,
2002.
op.
cit.

71
Ibid.

72
Ibid.

73
Ibid.

74
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
The
National
Biennial
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Report,
EPA
530­
R­
01­
009.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
June
2001.

75
Ibid.

76
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,
Office
of
Environmental
Management.
Central
Internet
Database.
2002.
(
January
2002;
http://
cid.
em.
doe.
gov).

77
Ibid.
78
Ibid.

79
Goldstein,
N.
12th
Annual
Biocycle
Nationwide
Survey:
The
State
of
Garbage
in
America,
Biocycle
Journal
of
Composting
and
Organics
Recycling
41
(
4);
30­
40
(
April
2000).

80
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Municipal
Solid
Waste
in
the
United
States:
2000
Facts
and
Figures,
2002.
op.
cit.

81
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Industrial
Surface
Impoundments
in
the
United
States,
EPA
530­
R­
01­
005.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
March
2001.

82
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
The
National
Biennial
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Report,
2001.
op.
cit.

83
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Superfund
Emergency
Response
Program.
National
Priorities
List
Site
Totals
by
Status
and
Milestone.
February
6,
2003.
(
February
25,
2003;
http://
epa.
gov/
superfund/
sites/
query/
queryhtm/
npltotal.
htm).

84
Ibid.

85
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Corrective
Action
Background.
October
8,
2002.
(
October
15,
2002;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
ca/
backgnd.
htm#
5).

86
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Information
System
(
CERCLIS)
Database.
October
16,
2002.
(
May
8,
2003;
http://
cfpub.
epa.
gov/
supercpad/
cursites/
srchsites.
cfm).

Endnotes
Chapter
3
­
Better
Protected
Land
3­
28
EPA s
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment
2003
87
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Facilities
on
the
RCRA
GPRA
Cleanup
Baseline.
March
3,
2003.
(
May
19,
2003;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
ca/
lists/
base_
fac.
pdf).

88
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Reponse.
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Information
System
(
CERCLIS)
Database,
2002.
op.
cit.

89
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Facilities
on
the
RCRA
GPRA
Cleanup
Baseline,
2003.
op.
cit.

90
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Superfund
Emergency
Response
Program.
Sources
of
Common
Contaminants
and
Their
Health
Effects.
September
20,
2002.
(
February
25,
2003;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
programs/
er/
hazsubs/
sources.
htm).
91
Ibid.

92
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Superfund
Emergency
Response
Program.
Exposure
pathways.
No
date.
(
September,
2002;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
programs/
er/
hazsubs/
pathways.
htm.).

93
Colorado
Department
of
Public
Health
and
Environment,
Hazardous
Materials
and
Waste
Management
Division,
Eagle
Mine.
February
5,
2003.
(
September
2002;
http://
www.
cdphe.
state.
co.
us/
hm/
rpeagle.
asp#
SiteSummary).

94
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation.
Pesticide
Use
Reporting:
An
Overview
of
California's
Unique
Full
Reporting
System,
Sacramento,
California:
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation,
May,
2000.
(
March
12,
2003;
http://
www.
cdpr.
ca.
gov/
docs/
pur/
purovrvw/
tabofcon.
htm).

Endnotes
