Alabama
(James W. Warr, Acting Director)
Dr. Dan Howard, Dean of Research
University of North Alabama
Box 5121
Florence, Alabama 35632-0001
(205) 760-4211
(205) 760-4644 fax
James W. Warr, Acting Director
P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463
[or]
Department of Environmental Management
1751 Congressman Dickenson Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36109
(205) 271-7706
(205) 271-7950 fax
GOALS: The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) is developing a new set of rank-ordered environmental goals and measurable objectives as part of an overall strategic planning effort being led by Dr. Howard. This effort, which will address both internal and external needs, uses the Harvard SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) model, and will be partly based on a general set of goals developed in 1988- 89 and published in 1990.
INDICATORS: Alabama does not have a formal environmental indicator system at this time. However, ADEM monitors surface waters in the state and then compares the quality of all the surface to monitor trends.
Alaska
(Gene Burden, Commissioner)
Jim Powell, Wetlands Coordinator
Division of Environmental Quality
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Ave, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
(907) 465-5260
(907) 465-5274 fax
INDICATORS: The Alaska Department of
Environmental
Quality is developing a new pilot program that will contain
six
initial statewide indicators called a "Community Report
Card", an
annual progress report on local and statewide issues
for
communities that have community agreements with the
Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). DEC will present
environmental
indicator data in a GIS format for ongoing communication
with
communities. The six initial indicators will be included in
the
next State/Environmental Protection Agency Agreement
(SEA).
Alaska's Comparative Risk Project (AKRISK) will include
the
development of indicators to track progress on
reducing
environmental risk.
Diana Marsh
GOALS:
INDICATORS: The AZ Department of Environmental
Quality is
developing indicators as part of its strategic planning
process.
The state will be completing a Comparative Environmental
Risk
Project in the Spring of 1995 that will provide a basis
for
developing indicators. In addition, ADEQ has an Office of
Water
Pilot Project for indicators and is developing biocriteria
for
water quality assessment. This project is evaluating
whether
specific environmental indicators can be used as
potential
substitutes for existing measures of program success.
Jack Bale (Office of Water Pilot, Contact)
INDICATORS: Arizona received a $25,000 grant from
the EPA
Office of Water to evaluate indicators as substitutes
for
existing program measures. They are working with an
internal
team to identify indicators that are valuable for
compliance
management (programmatic indicators) and assessment measures
for
the 305b report. They are currently redesigning their
water
quality databases from which they will use as a
structure to
develop indicators. They have a strong ground water program
and
they will develop indicators in this area as well.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
Dick Cassat, Chief
GOALS: There are no existing or planned state
environmental goals.
INDICATORS: There is no formal indicator development
process at this time. The agency would like to develop a
set of
goal and indicators, but is waiting for EPA to distribute a
core
list in order to get started.
Steve Hanna, Ph.D., Chief, Office of Information Management)
INDICATORS: CAL EPA is presently in their second
phase of
indicator development. They are developing summaries of
the
areas where data exists and where data is lacking. There
will be
more emphasis on graphic display of information than text.
CAL
EPA wants to focus on pollution prevention and highlight
trends
in pollutant releases that have been avoided because of
changes
in policy. They will use ambient and discharge data and
data on
changes in species composition. CAL EPA issued
Environmental
Indicators Report, a set of human health and
environmental
indicators for Earth Day 1995.
John Turner, Chief
INDICATORS: The Resources Agency is involved in an
EPA project
on bioassessment. Also, DFG has a water monitoring program
that
uses indicators, including a Mussel Watch program that
has 17
years of monitoring data showing trends and hot spots. They
also
have a toxic substance monitoring program that uses
biological
indicators.
Janine Stenback, Cooperative Projects Coordinator
INDICATORS: The California Resources Agency has
launched the
California Environmental Resources Evaluation System
(CERES)
using the Internet to make existing public information
concerning
California's natural resources and environment accessible
from
local, state, academic, and federal sources. Data available
from
CERES comes in a variety of forms including text, maps,
tables,
satellite images, photos, video, and sound.
CERES World Wide Web address:
http://resources.agency.ca.gov
Carol Whiteside
GOALS: The Governor's Office of Planning and Research
will be
undertaking a goals project in
the near term.
Gerard Bulanowski, Director, Environmental Assessment
Program
GOALS: Colorado developed a set of goals,
objectives, and risks
(Colorado Environment 2000, Colorado's comparative risk
project)
in 1991-93, but these are considered dated and obsolete and
are
not being currently used. There are current 5-year
environmental
goals outlined in the State/EPA Agreement (SEA), but these
apply
only to those programs that use EPA federal funding
sources. A
state comprehensive "Smart Growth" planning process is
ongoing,
with forays into quality of life and environmental issues,
but
goals for public release are not yet available.
INDICATORS: Developing indicators and
following up on
Colorado's comparative risk project, the Process
for
Environmental Assessment and Quality (PEAQ), is beginning
with a
two-step process: 1) develop a base of environmental
indicator
information including an examination of available data
sources
and environmental indicators appropriate for use in
Colorado, and
2) identify possible uses for environmental indicators and
define
methods for those uses. Categories of environmental
indicators
may include air quality, water quality, and ecosystem
quality.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
Tina Delaney, Environmental Analyst III
Tess Gutowski, Management Analyst III
GOALS: Environment 2000 is the major
environmental planning
document for the state. The plan, required by the
Legislature to
be updated every five years, contains a set of long-range
goals,
objectives, and strategies that address 52 issues. This
plan
also drives the Bureau of Environmental Services' internal
two-
year "strategic action" plan. This plan, which is
integrated
into the Governor's biennial budget, has a set of bureau-
level
performance measures.
In January 1995, the Connecticut Progress Council,
an
intergovernmental entity charged by the Legislature to
establish
goals and benchmarks to measure Connecticut’s progress,
published
State of Connecticut Goals and Benchmarks for the Year 2000
and
Beyond. The environment is one of five sections of the
report
and eight environmental goals are articulated. Of the
300
benchmarks presented in the report, 54 deal with the
environment
and seven are labeled “urgent”, the most critical benchmarks
over
the next five years.
INDICATORS: Connecticut has published an Annual
Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality containing 20
indicators to
illustrate the real status of Connecticut’s environment
through
actual conditions of air, water, land and wildlife.
Betsey Frey
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Delaware does not have a formal,
statewide
indicator process. There are individual efforts in
specific
programs. For example, they want to use water supply
data to
develop indicators on ground water and also use
indicators to
track loss of wetlands acreage and causes of loss.
Peggy Emslie (Office of Water Pilot, Contact)
INDICATORS: Delaware is an EPA Office of Water
Pilot State,
evaluating whether specific environmental indicators can be
used
as potential substitutes for existing measures of
program
success. Using a grant of approximately $24,000,
Delaware is
undertaking a statewide trend analysis for all wetlands
looking
at loss of acreage, where losses are occurring, type of
wetlands
affected, and the causes of the loss.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
Pam McVety, Ecosystem Management Coordinator
Gil Bergquist, Ph.D., Project Director
GOALS: The Florida state government has
prepared a state
comprehensive plan and a series of state agency strategic
plans
which are to be consistent with the state comprehensive
plan. In
addition, all local governments are required to
prepare
comprehensive plans consistent with the state comprehensive
plan.
The state plan and all local government plans are
required to
address environmental issues where required and
necessary,
including the identification of environmental resources
such as
coastal, marine, and water resources and systems, and
strategies
for their protection. The Florida Department of
Environmental
Protection has also begun a paradigm shift over to
ecosystem
management and planning.
INDICATORS: In November 1994, the Florida Center
for Public
Management updated Florida's indicator project,
Strategic
Assessment of Florida's Environment (SAFE) which
consists of
approximately 87 environmental indicators organized by
Florida's
comparative risk issues. SAFE will be used in
Florida's
ecosystem management planning system. At least two
indicator-
driven, ecosystem management-based river basin strategic
plans
are being developed, including indicator systems
capable of
measuring environmental improvement.
Jim Setser, Chief, Program Coordinator
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Georgia's environmental agency is
working on a new
strategic planning process that will match the budget.
Strategic
planning process includes mission statement, goals,
objectives,
and establishing indicators that will measure if goals are
being
met. Development of environmental indicators through
the
strategic planning process is taking place in several
issue
areas: solid waste, water quality, hazardous waste, ground
water
quality, drinking water quality. The goal is to
develop
biological results types of indicators and have
efficiency
measures that measure whether they are meeting their
objectives.
Georgia is an EPA Office of Water Pilot State, evaluating
whether
specific environmental indicators can be used as
potential
substitutes for existing measures of program success.
Alan Hallum (Office of Water Pilot, Contact)
INDICATORS: Alan Hallum is the contact for the EPA
Office of
Water Pilot Program to evaluate specific environmental
indicators
as substitutes for existing program measures based on a
$60,000
grant for the Savannah Watershed in the Augusta area
joint
project for South Carolina and Georgia). Georgia/South
Carolina
have several project goals: 1) to see how sensitive
the
environmental indicators are in measuring environmental
change,
2) to develop a process for indicator development
that is
applicable statewide, and 3) to develop an assessment of
the
environment and overlay as many databases as possible to
measure
the effects of program actions. Indicators will be
evaluated for
the following areas: designated uses, fecal coliform,
water
quality trends, biological results, fish contamination,
fish
advisories, habitat assessment, biological integrity, and
reduced
pollutant loadings. This work will culminate in a final
report
that will be published tentatively on September 30, 1996.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
Patrick Felling, Strategic Planning Coordinator
Environmental Planning Office
GOALS: In September 1994, the Environmental
Planning Office of
the Hawaii Department of Health developed Goals,
Strategies, and
Benchmarks for the Department of Health Environmental
Management
Programs containing a mission statement, management goals,
and
environmental goals.
INDICATORS: The Department of Health is
developing goals,
strategies, and indicators. Most indicators are
programmatic due
to the lack of data on biological results. However, they do
have
some indicators from ambient and discharge data. Five goals
have
been developed: 3 for water, 1 for air, and 1 for land.
There
are 15 to 20 strategies for each goal and at least one
indicator
for each strategy, making approximately 100 indicators.
The
Environmental Planning Office is proposing a statewide goals
and
environmental indicators project to Hawaii's new Governor
as an
extension of the state's comparative risk project. In
addition,
Hawaii has received funding to support the
development of
environmental indicators as part of the risk management
phase of
its comparative risk project. An 18-member advisory group
has
been established to provide feedback to the process of
developing
and validating indicators.
Bill Jarocki, Drinking Water Program Manager
GOALS: The first attempt at strategic planning and
the use of
goals and indicators (Indicators for Idaho's Sustainable
Future)
was rejected in 1993 by the Idaho Legislature. However,
this
report is serving as the forerunner for a current
strategic
planning exercise being conducted by consultants for DEQ as
part
of a Legislatively-mandated strategic planning requirement
for
all state agencies. The DEQ exercise is at the survey stage
now,
and goals settings is scheduled to follow as part of a
generic
strategic planning methodology. Agency staff, the
regulated
community, and the general public are being interviewed, and
the
final plan will be released to the public following
completion.
INDICATORS: Preliminary indicators have been
developed for a
state of the environment report, which has not yet
been
published. However, a finished set of statewide indicators
for
air quality has been created, and additional indicators for
state
responsibilities such as water and hazard waste are
being
developed. These ideally will be used for budgeting
and
legislation appropriation requests as part of the
state's
strategic planning efforts, in addition to being used as
internal
measures of performance outcomes.
Roger Kanerva, Environmental Policy Advisor
Bob Lieberman or Tom Heavysides
GOALS: Illinois has a strategic environmental plan
that has a set
of general goals. These goals
do not have any indicators associated with them.
INDICATORS: Illinois has completed a two-year
critical trends
project, which is an assessment of
the state's environmental progress. A 90-page project
summary,
The Changing Illinois Environment.- Critical Trends,
is
available, as well as a seven-volume technical report.
The
project wanted to come up with baseline indicators, but was
not
able to do so within this project. Illinois would
like to
develop indicators in the future, but at this point an
indicator
development process is uncertain. However, an ecosystem-
level
monitoring system is currently being developed based on a
forest
ecosystem data hierarchy (i.e., location, extent, and
condition)
that will acquire and use environmental data as
indicators of
environmental quality.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
JauNae Hanger, Executive Assistant
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Indiana has a geographical
(place-based)
initiative with U.S. EPA with the intention to
develop
indicators. They have not developed any indicators at this
time.
There is no formal process for developing statewide
indicators,
but Indiana recognizes the need to develop indicators.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
Allan Stokes, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Division
Shashi Goel, Program Planner
GOALS: The state does not currently have a set of
environmental
goals at this time, although
Iowa recognizes the need to develop them.
INDICATORS: Iowa has begun a comparative risk
project, and are
negotiating with U.S. EPA to conduct an environmental
indicator
project in order to track the effectiveness of
their
environmental programs. The Energy Division of DNR is in
the
process of hiring a consultant to develop indicators for
energy
issues and their impact(s) on the environment.
Ron Hammerschmidt, Acting Director
GOALS: There are no existing statewide
environmental goals at
this time. However, Kansas has recognized the need to
develop
biennial planning goals, and is planning to do so following
the
production of a state of the environment report as part of a
move
toward performance-based budgeting, including measures of
program
results and successes.
INDICATORS: Kansas is developing a state of the
environment
report, the Kansas Almanac (in press) which presents some
factual
environmental information showing changes, but not
indicators.
Indicators that are being developed by the agency include:
Karen Armstrong-Cummings, Deputy Secretary
Leslie Cole, Executive Director
GOALS: There are no present plans to
develop specific
environmental goals, although there is interest in doing
so as
part of the ongoing Kentucky 2000 comparative risk project.
This
project is part of a long-term effort to conduct
comprehensive
planning for the state in a variety of different areas, of
which
goal-setting will likely be a part of this process.
However,
goal-setting has not yet been started.
INDICATORS: The Kentucky Environmental Quality
Commission
developed State of Kentucky' Environment. A Report of
Progress
and Problems published in 1992 containing
environmental
indicators. The State of Kentucky's Environment., 1994
Status
Report updates the original report and was completed in
February
1995. In addition, Kentucky has an integrated comparative
risk
and futures project that may integrate indicators. For the
risk
management phase of the comparative risk project, Kentucky
will
be developing environmental indicators.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
John C. Glenn
GOALS: There are no existing statewide
environmental goals at
this time. However, the setting of statewide environmental
goals
will follow the completion of a set of environmental
indicators
presently being developed and a previously-completed
comparative
risk assessment called Leap To 2000.
INDICATORS: The Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
is developing environmental indicators with a blue-
ribbon
steering committee composed of citizens,
industrialists,
environmentalists, and other state agencies. The
steering
committee has recommended over 300 potential indicators to
six
technical committees who review them for data
availability,
consistency, and usefulness. There are technical committees
for
air, water, solid and hazardous waste, natural
resources,
sustainability, and health indicators. At this time, a
list of
approximately 100 indicators has been developed and are
being
reviewed internally before being sent in draft form to
the
steering and technical committees. The indicators will be
used
in the strategic planning process, for public information,
and
environmental education. These indicators are being
developed as
part of an interagency effort; different state agencies can
then
use specific indicators to assist in managing their
own
particular goals.
Deborah Garrett, Planning and Environmental Education
David Courtemanch (Office of Water Pilot, Contact)
Mary James (State of the Environment Report, Contact)
Cindy Bertocci, Project Manager
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Maine DEP has completed A Place In
Time... Maine's
Environment 1994, a 12-page Vermont-style State of
the
Environment Report. In addition, the Maine Economic
Growth
Council is developing indicators of sustainable development
and
benchmarks. Maine is also an EPA Office of Water Pilot
State,
and using a $12,500 grant will undertake a project using
GIS to
juxtapose land uses with existing biocriteria assessment
data.
Maine is looking to integrate indicators into the risk
management
phase of its comparative risk project.
Steve Bieber, Natural Resources Biologist
Sue Battle, Deputy Director
GOALS: The state has begun a comparative risk
project which is
part of Maryland Environment 2000, a strategic planning
exercise
that will incorporate goals and indicators. ME2000 will
set
priorities and a management plan for the state. At present,
the
state's environmental planning has been focused on the
state's
participation in the federal-state Chesapeake Bay Program,
the
chief goal of which is the reduction of nitrogen and
phosphorus
entering the Bay.
INDICATORS: Maryland has used environmental
indicators in a
general way for past 10 years. However, they have
recently
developed specific indicators in the Chesapeake Bay Project.
The
following environmental goals and indicators have been
developed
under this project:
Rob Magnien (Office of Water Pilot, Contact)
INDICATORS: Maryland was also selected by the EPA
Office of
Water Pilot Project to develop indicators, evaluating
whether
specific environmental indicators can be used as
potential
substitutes for existing measures of program success.
They
received a grant for $22,500. They want to develop
indicators in
ways that can be communicated to the public and to
provide
updates of water quality to the tributary stakeholders.
They
want to use the results to communicate with the more
effectively.
This is the next step in the Bay Program restoration
effort.
Maryland has ten tributaries that drain in to the
Bay. A
Tributary Strategy, including a nutrient reduction plan has
been
developed for each watershed and a tributary implementation
team
with 20-30 stakeholders per team is assigned to oversee
the
implementation of the plan. They want to use indicators
which
are useful to the public and decision-makers to measure
progress.
They intend to develop indicators beyond the scope of
indicators
required by the EPA Office of Water including zooplankton
and
phytoplankton bioindicators, nutrient bioassays,
restoration
goals index for benthic monitoring, and several others.
Carol Rowan West
Laura Rome
GOALS: The Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
(DEP) has an ongoing set of specific environmental goals
within
and across three major areas of concern: resource
protection,
waste prevention, and waste site cleanup. These goals are
used
for internal management purposes, preparing
legislative
appropriations requests, and to help prepare measurements of
the
effectiveness of the aforementioned areas of DEP program
concern.
INDICATORS: Massachusetts has indicators
for resource
protection, waste prevention, and waste site cleanup. Since
the
1994 National Conference, the state has begun a formal
indicator
development process and is currently cataloging
various
indicators used in DEP, as well as also tracking indicators
and
writing a quarterly report to inform top managers of
changes in
the environment over time. A set of indicators for
public
outreach is also being developed in order to
communicate
environmental change and activities. A place-based
pilot
watershed project for the Merrimack River is being
conducted
which includes multimedia pollution data (e.g., air,
water,
etc.), the status and change of the area's environment,
use of
different kinds of indicators and changes within these,
sampling
and monitoring, and compliance and enforcement.
Meg Colclough
Massachusetts is in the process of writing a State of
the
Environment Report which will be published on Earth Day
1995,
April 22. Because there is not a formal environmental
indicator
development process in Massachusetts, the report is
based on
program monitoring data with information on air quality,
water
quality, loss of open space and protected land, waste
generation,
and several other areas.
Gary R. Hughes, Asst. to Deputy Director for Environmental
Protection
GOALS:
INDICATORS: There is no formal development of
indicators at
this time.
Paul Schmiechen, Senior Planner
GOALS: There are no existing environmental goals per
se, but
they exist within several strategic planning documents and
exercises. These include:
INDICATORS: There are two closely related
environmental
indicators initiatives underway in Minnesota. The
Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has been developing
indicators
for use by agency decisionmakers that describe the status
and
trends of environmental health. The Strategic Indicators
Project
involves the development of administrative and
environmental
indicators that provide better information for
managing
activities contained within the agency's authority. The
key
products include: a set of environmental indicators that
describe
the status and trends of issues under MPCA
management,
communication tools that provide information on
environmental
protection effectiveness, and internal database
coordination to
improve information accessibility. Indicators
previously
developed have been used in annual performance reports
and
biennial legislative reports.
The Minnesota Environmental Indicators Initiative (MEII) is
a
multi-agency effort to evaluate and communicate information
on
Minnesota's overall environmental health. The initiative is
a
comprehensive attempt to evaluate the current condition of
the
environment and monitor its change over time. This effort
builds
upon previous work by state agencies to better characterize
the
state of the environment. The key products include: a
catalog of
existing environmental monitoring data, a state of the
environment report describing current environmental
conditions
and trends, a set of relevant indicators that measure
environmental "vital signs" in selected Minnesota
ecoregions, and
communication tools that provide easy-to-understand
descriptions
of the indicator results. The primary basis for this
project is
to provide better environmental information to
decisionmakers.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
Sam Mabry, Policy and Planning Coordinator
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Mississippi is developing a strategic
planning
process and a comparative risk project. Through their
strategic
planning process they will determine which indicators are
needed
and how they will track them. Mississippi has measures for:
Karen Northrop, Planner
David Bedan, Senior Planner MO Department of Natural
Resources
Kathy Hale, Legislative Coordinator
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Missouri is developing a strategic
planning
process and a comparative risk project. They will
determine
which indicators will be developed and how to track them
through
their strategic planning process. Proposed indicators
include:
MDNR is finishing a 300-page draft report on
environmental
indicators that has four sections: air, water, soil and
land,
waste and toxics. There will be 2-7 indicators for each
issue
that will be generally level 3 or 4 indicators as well as
some
activity indicators. The recommended use of the report is
for
policy and planning decisions. A shorter version with
selected
indicators for the public is also being prepared.
The DNR Institute is also proposing a list of indicators
covering
nine issues: energy, demographics, soil and land use, biota,
air
quality, water quality, water quantity, solid waste,
and
hazardous substances. The emphasis is to have biological
results
indicators, but the indicators are more programmatic for
solid
waste and hazardous substances. The committees working on
the
proposed indicators are recommending that they be used as a
basis
for a state of the environment report.
Montana Environmental Quality Council
GOALS:
INDICATORS: The EOC is considering undertaking
an indicator
project and tying it into a project on sustainable
communities.
This is in the development stage with an uncertain
schedule.
They will insist on the project being consistent with EPA
run
indicator projects, very broad based, having public
involvement,
and having buy-in and an active role from their
administration,
and a commitment to use indicators for policy decisions.
Abe Horpestad
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Montana does not have an indicator
program at this
time.
Joe Francis, Assistant Director
Dennis Heitmann, Supervisor, Groundwater Section
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Nebraska has no current plans for
an indicator
development process. They do use biological indicators for
their
surface water program and they have some monitoring
activity, but
they do not have specific parameters for the use of
indicators.
David Cowperthwaite
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Nevada is using environmental
indicators in their
strategic planning process. They are using
programmatic
performance measures as well as some biological indicators.
The
system in which they will be used is still under
development.
The environmental indicator system will also be tied into
the
budget process. Nevada is also constructing a non-
statutory
planning process (still in the planning stages) in
which
indicators will be discussed. The person to contact for
this
program is Colleen Bathker at (702) 687-3600. Nevada is
also
beginning a project on biodiversity.
Chris Simmers, Chief Environmental Planner
GOALS:
INDICATORS: New Hampshire will be identifying
indicators as
part of their agency strategic plan. They will track
EPA
indicators and develop an indicator proposal for the state
of New
Hampshire. Although they are still in the planning stage,
they
want to keep indicators simple, using them in a state of
the
environment report to be published every other year
beginning in
1995. They plan to hire staff to begin looking at the
biological
health of waters and will use indicators to describe
changes.
New Hampshire is also at the beginning of a comparative
risk
project and wants to develop indicators for issue
areas of
highest concern.
Leslie McGeorge
GOALS:
INDICATORS: New Jersey DEP is undertaking an
indicator
development process based on an evaluation of ambient
monitoring
programs and land use management. The programs are
being
evaluated in terms of goals, objectives, monitoring
program
design and funding. The development of environmental
indicators
from existing data is being explored. NJDEP is entering
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System in
three
areas: air quality, water quality, and solid waste.
Alfred L. Korndoerfer, Acting Chief
INDICATORS: The Bureau of Water Monitoring has
reactivated a
network of ambient biomonitoring reference stations within
every
major ecoregion in the state. 43 stations were selected
after 425
sites were sampled and evaluated. Benthic
macroinvertebrates are
used as environmental indicators. Long-term baseline
monitoring
data from this network will be beneficial to
Departmental
planning and permitting activities; the biennial
generation of
the 305(b) water quality inventory, the departmental
watershed
management initiative, and the NJDPES permit activities.
Kathleen Kelly
INDICATORS: The New Jersey Office of State Planning
is mandated
to develop indicators monitoring the state of New
Jersey’s
economy, environment, infrastructure,
intergovernmental
coordination and community life and report their findings
in an
annual report. The initial report, New Jersey Progress
Report,
to be completed in October 1995, is indicator-driven.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
Dennis McQuillan, Program Manager
GOALS:
INDICATORS: The New Mexico Environmental
Department is using
indicators in several of their programs. In the Ground
Water
Remediation Section they are using chloride level, oxygen
levels,
and VOC levels as indicators of ground water quality. They
also
use indicators in their Surface Water Section,
including
dissolved oxygen levels, nitrogen levels, and
benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms. Finally, the Air Quality
Section
uses visibility and parameters such as carbon monoxide
levels as
indicators of air quality. In addition, they track the
number of
"no-burn nights" (nights when residents cannot burn
fireplaces or
woodstoves) in the City of Albuquerque, NM as an
indicator of
human health.
John lannotti, Director
James Colquhon
GOALS:
INDICATORS: New York DEC Division of Fish and
Wildlife has
developed a system for classifying program outcomes in
ascending
order: outputs; discharge or use (water withdrawal,
fish or
wildlife taken; trees harvested); ambient monitoring;
monitoring
ecosystem health. The Division says as the order ascends
that
the degree of integration, political and ecological
relevance,
complexity of measures, and cost of the measures increase.
The
Division has developed some level six indicators for
wildlife.
David Vogt, Section Chief
GOALS:
INDICATORS: North Carolina Environmental
Indicators published
in June 1995 is an effort to present and interpret
information
regarding the environmental quality of the state as a
condensed
overview that accounts for the dynamics of change over
time
presenting most data for the years 1989 through 1993. The
134-
page report covers air, water, waste and natural
resources.
Future reports will incorporate 1989 as a base year and
extend
trend evaluations from that year forward. The report
started as
a recommendation of a blue ribbon panel in 1991, received
funding
from the North Carolina Legislature in 1993, completed
analyses
of air, water, and waste in 1994, and added
evaluations of
wetlands and marine fisheries in 1995.
Mike McKenna, Chief of Natural Resource Division ND Game and
Fish Department
GOALS:
INDICATORS: The North Dakota Comparative Risk
project is close
to completion. They want to see how the project is accepted
and
then base an environmental indicators project on the
comparative
risk project.
Martin Shock, Special Projects Coordinator
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Although there is not a formal
indicator
development process, over the past twenty years the North
Dakota
Department of Health has collected ambient data on surface
water
quality and streams and rivers. They are also
beginning an
assessment of groundwater quality. They are mapping
state
aquifers and using a three-tiered model of risk. They have
been
monitoring the aquifers in the highest risk tier for the
past two
years. The Department of Health is also assessing the
ground
water quality around the state's landfills which will
be
completed this winter. The ambient air monitoring program
also
uses indicators on source specific data. In addition, they
have
begun monitoring mercury levels in fresh water fish.
Tony Lafferty, Environmental Specialist
Chris Yoder, Manager, Ecological Assessment Section
GOALS:
INDICATORS: The Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency has
developed an index of biological and chemical
indicators to
assess stream water quality for 305b reports. Ohio EPA
has a
rating score based on certain conditions of surface waters
which
will determine the relative health of streams. This
effort
utilizes a GIS based system extensively.
John Albrecht (Office of Water Pilot, Contact)
INDICATORS: Ohio is also an EPA Office of Water
Pilot State,
evaluating whether specific environmental indicators can be
used
as potential substitutes for existing measures of
program
success. They have received a grant of $131,000 to
examine
existing data base files and evaluate whether linkages
can be
made between the different levels of environmental
indicators
(ambient, physical, biological, and programmatic). The
first
year they will focus their efforts in central Ohio in
the
Columbus area. They will also study two small streams:
one
unimpacted stream and one impacted by a nonpoint source.
Michelle Morrone
GOALS:
INDICATORS: In May 1994, the publication A
Practical Guide to
Data Sources for Comparative Risk at the Ohio
Environmental
Protection Agency was released. This publication
offers
potential indicators drawn from the Ohio EPA's
environmental
protection programs.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
Lawrence A. Gales, Director of Support Services
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Oklahoma had indicators in the 1992
report State
of Oklahoma Environmental Subcabinet State
Environmental
Assessment - A Report to the Governor. However, Oklahoma
does
not have a formal indicator development process. Oklahoma
wants
to wait and see if EPA wants states to follow a specific
model in
developing indicators.
Paul Burnet, Assistant to the Director
Richard Gates, Laboratory Division Administrator
Executive Director
GOALS: At present, there are stated environmental
goals in Oregon
Benchmarks: Standards for Measuring Statewide Progress
and
Government Performance, first published by the Oregon
Progress
Board in December 1992. This is a report to the
Oregon
Legislature including both goals and indicators. There
are no
active Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
strategic
planning goals at this time; however, the Department is
updating
its previous strategic planning goals, and this information
will
eventually be available over the Internet. These goals
will
focus on agency management needs, and will be
formalized
following interaction with staff, regulated communities, and
the
public.
INDICATORS: In December 1994, as its 1995
report to the
Legislature, the Oregon Progress Board issued its third
biennial
report, Oregon Benchmarks: Standards for Measuring
Statewide
Progress and Institutional Performance. As a subset of
the
quality of life section, 28 environmental benchmarks
are
presented out of a total of 259 in the report.
Protecting
natural resources is listed as an issue that demands near-
term
attention. Oregon is also participating in the federal-
state
EMAP and REMAP programs. There is no other formal
indicator
program at this time.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
William Kirk, Acting Director
GOALS:
INDICATORS: There is no indicator development or
use at this
time.
Dr. Robert K. Griffith, Chief
Kevin J. Nelson, Senior Planner
GOALS:
INDICATORS: The indicator project is not
consistently worked
on due to new agency priorities and budget constraints.
However,
potential indicators will be developed statewide at staff
level.
Rhode Island is currently in the process of the
developing
statewide indicators to be used in a State of the
Environment
report and for policy decisions.
Roger Green
Fred Vincent
GOALS:
INDICATORS: The indicator program at RIDEM
has developed
several living resource indicators. They measure
individual
species and population viability of species such as the
osprey,
commercial and estuarine fish, reintroduction of the
native
species of turkey, and the piping plover, an endangered
species.
They have also developed indicators for air, such as ozone,
and
for water quality using invertebrates.
Robert King, Deputy Director
Paul A. Sandifer, Ph.D., Director (Office of Water Pilot,
Contact)
GOALS:
INDICATORS: South Carolina is just beginning to look
at
environmental indicators. There will be
a formal indicator development process with both
programmatic and
biological indicators.
P>
South Carolina is an EPA Office of Water Pilot State,
evaluating
whether specific environmental indicators can be used
as
potential substitutes for existing measures of program
success.
Alan Hallum, from the State of Georgia, is the contact for
the
joint project for South Carolina and Georgia. These
states
received a $60,000 grant to evaluate indicators for the
Savannah
Watershed in the Augusta area. Georgia/South Carolina
have
several project goals: 1) to see how sensitive the
environmental
indicators are in measuring environmental change, 2) to
develop a
process for indicator development that is applicable
statewide,
and 3) to develop an assessment of the environment and
overlay as
many databases as possible to measure the effects of
program
actions. Indicators will be evaluated for the following
areas:
designated uses, fecal coliform, water quality trends,
biological
results, fish contamination, fish advisories, habitat
assessment,
biological integrity, and reduced pollutant loadings. This
work
will culminate in a final report that will be
published
tentatively on September 30, 1996.
Bill Markley, Program Administrator
INDICATORS: South Dakota is developing program
performance
indicators, including issues on contaminated sites, solid
waste,
water quality, air quality, wastewater, land, hazardous
waste.
Indicators are more programmatic than biological results.
Rod Woodburn
GOALS:
INDICATORS: South Dakota does not have a
formal indicator
system; however, they are using programmatic indicators in
their
annual report to the legislature. They have proposed to
use
biological indicators for budget decisions, but the
legislature
said it would be too difficult at this point. They
have
identified the biological indicators that they would like to
use,
but there is no concerted effort at this time to
review or
develop these indicators. Furthermore, they are based on
current
programs that could be used as indicators.
Rick Sinclair
GOALS:
INDICATORS: In September 1994, Tennessee published
the 16-page
State of the Environment. A Preview, the state's
first
comprehensive effort to discuss the quality of the
environment
and what they are doing about it. They are using
both
programmatic and biological indicators, but they
lack a
systematic approach at this time. The 100-page final
State of
the Environment report to be completed in fall 1995 will
include
comments from a review process.
Allison Miller, Environmental Quality Specialist
GOALS: The Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission
(TNRCC) is responsible for air quality, water resources,
and
waste management. As stated in the TNRCC's 1994 Strategic
Plan,
the mission of the TNRCC is to "[ensure] clean air
... an
adequate supply of clean water ... proper and safe
disposal of
... pollutants." This is further broken down into a
series of
functional goals, each having its own indicator(s). Each
office
with the TNRCC has its own goals which include
identification of
those areas where health risks are posed by
environmental
practices, and the gathering of sufficient information
regarding
exposure in order to support TNRCC's risk assessment efforts
and
to disseminate this information to interested
parties.
Legislative funding is also dependent on specific
goals,
strategies, objectives, and "outcome measures" outlined in
both
the TNRCC's Strategic Plan and its biennial Request
for
Legislative Appropriations.
INDICATORS: Texas is developing an environmental
index reporting
system for air quality assessment using indicators with
ambient
and discharge data to describe the effects of air
quality on
human health. They have conducted a benchmark study to
determine
how other states and the EPA use environmental indicators,
and
have developed an updated "data catalog" to allow easy
access to
air quality data for Texas.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
David R. Workman, M.P.A., Comparative Risk Project
Coordinator
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Utah recently completed the risk
analysis stage in
their comparative risk project and are currently looking at
how
to reduce risk and how to measure the reduction. They would
like
to have environmental results indicators and use them for
policy
decisions and public communication and awareness.
These
indicators would be incorporated into the Utah Tomorrow.
State of
Utah Strategic Plan, Environmental and Natural Resources
Section
that uses a benchmark system. Utah is looking to
integrate
indicators into its comparative risk process.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
Bernard Johnson
GOALS: The Vermont Agency for Natural Resources
(ANR) is engaged
in developing environmental goals (known as "outcomes")
linked
with existing indicators in order to prepare next year's
budget.
This process is called "comprehensive planning," and
is a
management-oriented strategic planning process that will
have a
public component. The process involves acquiring survey
data
from a variety of instruments, and an agency review
and
prioritization of current programs. This is to be followed
by a
comparison exercise which will facilitate the
realignment of
existing (or the creation of new) agency activities
with
perceived public and agency needs and preferences.
This
comparison will aid in agency resource
allocation,
decisionmaking, and budget preparation, all of which will
reflect
agency priorities.
INDICATORS: As a follow up to the Environment 1994
-- State of
the Environment Report and Vermont 1993 Environmental
Quality
Index, Vermont has developed agency staff ownership
for
indicators through workshops and has instituted an
ongoing
process to produce Environment 1995 as a snapshot of
progress.
Steering Committee oversight structure is in place.
Environment
1996 is in production and will focus on ecosystems.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Virginia state government does not have
an indicator
development process and
there are no plans to use indicators at this time.
David H. Finister, Director
INDICATORS: The College of William and Mary has
received a
grant from the Virginia Environmental Endowment, a
private
grantmaking foundation resulting from a number of
environment
pollution settlements, to identify indicators of
environmental
quality that can be used in an Index of Environmental
Quality for
Virginia, comparing Virginia outcomes with those of other
states,
and involving ongoing development and annual reporting of
the
indicators by August 1, 1995.
Dee Peace Ragsdale
GOALS: The state's 1991 State of the
Environment Report
(Environment 2000), a comprehensive environmental report,
lists
environmental objectives for the state government in three
areas,
education, cooperation, and knowledge building. Although
the
E2000 report does not have the high profile it had following
its
initial release, much of the report's contents have
managed to
become co-opted into the day-to-day activities of the
state
government. The Washington Department of Ecology
(DOE) is
carrying the bulk of these E2000 activities. Additionally,
DOE
has a set of five goals developed for internal use as part
of a
set of other strategic planning activities, and is
developing a
set of performance measures based in part on these goals.
INDICATORS: Following up on the comparative
risk project
derived from the E2000 report, Washington has
developed
Washington's Environmental Health, a 16-page summary
of
environmental indicators, for distribution in April
1995
including putting the document on the Internet (available on
the
DOE's WWW page at URL
address:
http:Holympus.dis.wa.gov/www/access/ecology/ecyhome.html).
The
Department is also using available data to create a wide
range of
indicators working with media programs on a pilot project
basis.
The Department wants a core set of indicators developed that
they
can be accountable to over the long-term.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
GOALS: The enabling legislation for the Bureau
of Commerce
(formerly the Department of Commerce, Labor, and
Environmental
Resources has very broad goals which are generally used to
guide
the Division of Environmental Protection. However, there
is no
existing agency strategic plan, although there are
funds
allocated toward hiring a strategic planner and creating
such a
plan. The "process" the development of this plan will
undergo
involves both a public survey and an environmental
assessment,
the latter of which will be created utilizing a GIS. This
data
base will be organized by watershed and will be used to
manage
natural resources within each watershed according to
specific
constraints and opportunities, physical and otherwise,
found
through the assessment and from the survey instrument. It
will
also be used a conflict resolution tool.
There is some use of environmental data (i.e., stream
monitoring
of fish, invertebrates, and water quality) for
indicators,
although this use is general and not considered
statistically
valid, due to limitations of locational and temporal data.
INDICATORS: West Virginia has no formal indicator
development
process and does not use indicators.
Tim Mulholland, Ph.D., Waste Management Engineer
GOALS:
INDICATORS: In March 1995, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) formed an Environmental Indicators Project
Team
to evaluate other indicators projects; recommend
environmental
indicators for Wisconsin; recommend a format for
presentation of
indicators; and evaluate current data and suggest
improvements by
August 1995. WDNR issued the report, Wisconsin's
Environment
1970-1995, a short review, for Earth Day 1995. There are
also
several small place-based projects that utilize indicators:
the
Milwaukee River Basin; the cooperative effort to develop
aquatic
indicators for Lake Superior (involving MN, MI, WI, Canada);
the
Lake Michigan Lake Area Management Plan (LAMP) which
is
developing goals and indicators for aquatic, air, land,
etc.; Air
Management Department is developing indicators; and the
Hazardous
Waste Division is considering creating a new strategic plan
with
goals and indicators.
Duane Schuettpelz (Office of Water Pilot, Contact)
INDICATORS: Wisconsin is an Office of Water Pilot
state for
the U.S. EPA, evaluating whether specific
environmental
indicators can be used as potential substitutes for
existing
measures of program success. Wisconsin is trying to
bring
recognition of the concept of environmental indicators into
their
agency. They will use a $12,500 grant as an
incentive to
existing employees to develop water-related
environmental
indicator projects and reports based on existing data.
Their
goal is to get employees to start thinking about
environmental
indicators and how they should be used in planning, review,
and
monitoring activities.
*State environmental protection agency is one
of 16
states in FY 1996 that has expressed an intent to enter into
the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System using
environmental indicators and performance measures.
Robert Gumtow
GOALS:
INDICATORS: Wyoming does not have a formal
environmental
indicator development process at this time. However, they
are
moving away from the use of chemical assessment water
quality to
biological components to measure environmental change.
Arizona*
(Karen Heidel, Acting Director)
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
3033 N Central, cube 315
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
(602) 207-4603
Surface Water Quality Section
Water Quality Division
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
3033 N Central
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
(602) 207-4456
Arkansas
(Randall Mathis, Director)
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
(501) 570-2131
(501) 562-0297 fax
California
(James M. Strock, Secretary)
California Environmental Protection Agency
400 P Street, Room 4310
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 324-9924
(916) 324-1788 fax
(Douglas Wheeler, Secretary)
Environmental Services Division
Department of Fish and Game
California Resources Agency
1416 9th Street, Room 1341
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 653-4875
(916) 653-2588 fax
Strategic Planning Program
California Resources Agency
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
1920 20th Street
P.O. Box 9442
Sacramento, California 94244-2460
(916) 227-2658
(916) 227-2672 fax
CERES Help Desk: ceres@resources.agency.ca.gov
(916) 653-8614
Director, Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of Governor Pete Wilson 1400 Tenth St.
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 323-5446
(916) 323-3749 fax
Colorado*
(Tom Looby, Director)
Office of Environment
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80220-3716
(303) 692-3004
(303) 782-4969 fax
Connecticut
(Sidney Holbrook, Commissioner)
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Environmental Services
79 Elm Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(203) 424-3579
(203) 566-7232 fax
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Deputy Commissioner’s Office
79 Elm Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(203) 424-3096
(203) 566-7932 fax
Delaware*
(Christopher A.G. Tulou, Secretary)
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control
89 Kings Highway
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 323-4542
(302) 739-6242 fax
Wetlands Section
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental
Control
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903
Florida
(Virginia Wetherell, Secretary)
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
(850) 488-7454
(850) 488-7093 fax
Florida Center for Public Management
118 N. Woodward Ave
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-4025
(850) 922-8042
(850) 487-4169 fax
Georgia*
(Harold Reheis, Director)
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
205 Butler Street, SE, Suite 1152
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404) 656-4713
(404) 651-5778 fax
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Floyd Towers E, Suite 1058
205 Butler Street, SE
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404) 656-4708
Hawaii
(Lawrence Miike, M.D., Director)
Department of Health
PO Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
(808) 586-4337
(808) 586-4370 fax
Idaho
(Wallace Cory, Administrator)
Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
1410 North Hilton
Statehouse Mail
Boise, Idaho 83720-9000
(208) 373-5879
(208) 373-0576 fax
Illinois*
(Mary Gade, Director)
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
PO Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 785-5735
(217) 782-9039 fax
CTAP
Office of Research and Planning
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
(Brent Manning, Director)
325 West Adams, Room 300
Springfield, Illinois 62704-1894
(217) 785-0138
(217) 785-8575 fax
Indiana*
(Kathy Prosser, Commissioner)
Department of Environmental Management
100 N. Senate, IGNC 1303
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
(317) 233-3043
(317) 232-8564 fax
Iowa
(Larry Wilson, Director)
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
900 E. Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
(515) 281-6284
(515) 281-8895 fax
Energy Division
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
900 E. Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
(515) 281-8518
(515) 281-6794 fax
Kansas
(James J. O'Connell, Secretary)
Division of Environment
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, Kansas 66620
(913) 296-1535
(913) 296-8464 fax
Kentucky*
(Phillip J. Shepherd, Secretary)
Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Cabinet
Capital Plaza Tower, 5th Floor
500 Mero Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-3350
(502) 564-3354 fax
The Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1132
(502) 564-2150
(502) 564-4245 fax
Louisiana
(William Kucharski, Secretary)
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82263
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2263
(504) 765-0741
(504) 765-0746 fax
Maine
(Edward 0. Sullivan, Commissioner)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
State House Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 287-7830
(207) 287-7826 fax
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
State House Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 287-7789
(207) 287-7826 fax
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
State House Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 287-7830
Maine Environmental Priorities Project
State House Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 287-7842
(207) 287-7826 fax
Maryland
(Jane T. Nishida, Secretary)
Chesapeake Bay and Special Projects Program
Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, Maryland 21224
(410) 631-3681
Internet: chesie.ana.epa.gov.steve
Office of Strategic Planning and Policy
Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, Maryland 21224
(410) 631-3114
(410) 631-3436 fax
Maryland Department of the Environment
Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Management Administration
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, Maryland 21224
Massachusetts
(David Struhs, Commissioner)
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5510
(617) 264-9695 fax
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5690
(617) 556-1049 fax
Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs
(Trudy Coxe, Secretary)
100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
(617) 727-9800 x2l8
Michigan
(Rolland Harmes, Director)
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Executive Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
(517) 335-4229
(517) 335-4242 fax
Minnesota*
(Charles Williams, Commissioner)
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
(612) 296-7795
(612) 297-8676 fax
Mississippi
(James I. Palmer, Executive Director)
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality/ Office of
Pollution Control
P.O. Box 20305
Jackson, Mississippi 39289-1305
(601) 961-5545
(601) 354-6612 fax
Missouri
(David A. Shorr, Director)
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Hazardous Waste Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0176
(314) 751-3176
(314) 751-7869 fax
Division of Energy address same as above (314) 751-4000
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Department Director's Office
Montana
Michael Kakuk, Staff Attorney
Room 106
State Capitol
Helena, Montana 39620
(406) 444-3742
(406) 444-3036 fax
Water Quality Division
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
(Robert J. Robinson, Director)
Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana 59620
(406) 444-2459
Nebraska
(Randolph Wood, Director)
Nebraska Department Environmental Quality
1200 N Street, Suite 400
PO Box 98922
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
(402) 471-0001
(402) 471-2909 fax
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
PO Box 98922, Statehouse Station
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922
(402) 471-0096
(402) 471-2909 fax
Nevada
(Lewis H. Dodgion, Administrator)
Division of Environmental Protection
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
333 West Nye Lane, Room 128
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 8971 0
(702) 687-4670, ext. 3118
(702) 687-5856
New Hampshire
(Robert Varney, Commissioner)
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
P.O. Box 95, 6 Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095
(603) 271-3503
(603) 271-2867 fax
New Jersey*
(Robert Shinn, Commissioner)
Environmental Research and Health Assessment
Division of Science and Research
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN 409
401 E. State Street, Floor 7
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0409
(609) 633-3834
Bureau of Water Monitoring
Division of Science and Research
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN 422
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0422
(609) 292-0427
(609) 633-1095 fax
New Jersey Office of State Planning
Department of the Treasury
33 W. State Street
CN 204
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0204
(609) 633-9648
(609) 292-3292 fax
New Mexico
(Mark Weidler, Secretary)
Ground Water Remediation Section
State of New Mexico Environment Department
1190 Saint Francis Drive, P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502
(505) 827-2831
(505) 827-2965 fax
New York
(Michael Zagata, Commissioner)
Bill Eberle
Pollution Prevention Unit
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation
Room 538
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-1010
(518) 457-2480
(518) 457-2570 fax
Division of Fish and Wildlife
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation
Room 530
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-4756
(518) 457-6178
North Carolina
(Jonathan Howes, Secretary)
Environmental Statistics and GIS
State Center for Health and Environmental Statistics
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29538
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0538
(919) 715-4474
(919) 733-8485 fax
North Dakota
(K.L. Cool, Director)
100 N. Bismarck Exp.
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
(701) 328-6325
(701) 328-6352 fax
Environmental Health Section
North Dakota Department of Health
(Dr. John Rice, State Health Officer)
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, North Dakota 58506-5520
(701) 328-5170
(701) 328-5200 fax
Ohio*
(Donald R. Schregardus, Director)
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
1800 Watermark Drive, DSW
Columbus, Ohio 43266
(614) 644-2159
(614) 644-2329 fax
Division of Water Quality Planning and Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
1800 Watermark Drive
Columbus, Ohio 43266-6264
(614) 728-3382
(614) 728-3380 fax
1800 Watermark Drive
Columbus, Ohio 43216-3669
(614) 644-2033
Internet: jalbrech@central.epa.ohio.gov
Ohio EPA
P.O. Box 1049
1800 Watermark Drive
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149
(614) 644-3020
(614) 644-3687 fax
Oklahoma
(Mark Coleman, Executive Director)
OK Department of Environmental Quality
1000 NE 10th Street, Suite 1212
Oklahoma City, OK 73017-1212
(405) 271-8062
(405) 271-7339 fax
Oregon*
(Langdon Marsh, Director)
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
811 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 229-5776
(503) 229-6124 fax
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
1712 SW Eleventh Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 229-5983
(503) 229-6924 fax
Oregon Progress Board
775 Summer St., N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
(503) 986-0033
Pennsylvania
(James Seif, Secretary)
Advanced Science and Research Team, PA
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 8471
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
(717) 783-9730
(717) 787-1904 fax
Rhode Island
Office of Strategic
Planning
Division of Planning
Department of Administration
One Capitol Hill
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
(401) 277-1220
(401) 277-2083 fax
Office of Strategic Planning, Division of Planning
Department of Administration
One Capitol Hill
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
(401) 277-2093
(401) 277-2083 fax
RI Department of Environmental Management
(Tim Keeney, Director)
9 Hayes Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908-5003
(401) 277-2771
(401) 277-6802 fax
Planning and Development Division
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
83 Park Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
(401) 277-2776
(401) 277-1181 fax
South Carolina
(Douglas Bryant, Commissioner)
Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 734-5360
(803) 734-5407 fax
Marine Resources Division
PO Box 12559
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
217 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412
(803) 795-6350 office
(803) 795-4846 residence
South Dakota
(Nettie Myers, Secretary)
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
523 E Capitol Avenue
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-3181
(605) 773-5868
(605) 773-6035 fax
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
523 E Capitol Avenue
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-3181
(605) 773-4750
(605) 773-4068 fax
Tennessee
(Don Dills, Commissioner)
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
21st Floor, L&C Tower
401 Church Street
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0435
(615) 532-0734
(615) 532-0740 fax
Texas*
(Barry McBee, Chairman; Ralph Marquez, John Baker
Commissioners)
Department of Monitoring Operations
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
(512) 239-1797
(512) 239-1605 fax
Utah*
(Dianne R. Nielson, Executive Director)
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-481 0
(801) 536-4480
(801) 536-4401 fax
Vermont
(Barbara Ripley, Secretary)
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
103 South Main Street, Center Building
Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0301
(802) 241-3600
(802) 244-1102 fax
Virginia
(Peter Schmidt, Director)
629 E. Main Street
P.O. Box 1009
Richmond, Virginia 23240
(804) 762-4000
(804) 762-4019 fax
Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy
College of William and Mary
Jamestown Road, Morton Hall 140
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
(804) 221-2390
(804) 221-2739 fax
Washington*
(Mary Riveland, Director)
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
(360) 407-6986
(360) 407-6989 fax
West Virginia
Eli McCoy, Director
Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Commerce
10 McJunkin Road
Nitro, West Virginia 25143-2506
(304) 759-0515
(304) 759-0526 fax
Wisconsin*
(George E. Meyer, Secretary)
Environmental Indicator Team Leader
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
1 0 1 S. Webster Street - SW/3
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921
(608) 266-0061
(608) 267-2768 fax
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921
(608) 266-0156
Wyoming
(Dennis Hemmer, Director)
Water Quality Division
WY Department of Environmental Quality
Herschler Building, 4th Floor West
122 W 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7098
(307) 777-5973 fax